Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 23, 2007 / Proposed Rules 59989 

reference is available (ESF Status Report 

2006, p. 18). When we contacted the 

author and asked if he could provide us 

with the data demonstrating the 

referenced coloration and 

morphological differences. Mr. Whiteley 

replied, ‘‘I don’t have any data on 

morphological variation for whitefish 

from the Big Lost. The references you 

cite all go back to personal observations 

by myself’’ (A. Whiteley, pers. comm., 

2007a). 

Although he believes that ‘‘whitefish 

in the Big Lost [River] look different,’’

Mr. Whiteley stated that ‘‘these traits 

have not been quantified’’ (A. Whiteley, 

pers. comm. 2007a). This suggests that 

the authors of the ESF Status Report 

2006 erred in alluding to ‘‘phenotypic 

studies’’ if, in fact, they were referring 

to a researcher’s personal observations 

(ESF Status Report 2006, p. 6). 

Therefore, we do not consider the 

statement in the ESF Status Report 2006 

to this effect to be reliable. 

We accept Mr. Whiteley’s description 

(A. Whiteley, pers. comm. 2007a) that 

mountain whitefish from the Big Lost 

River may differ in color and form. 

However, based purely on Mr. 

Whiteley’s opinion of the nature of 

these differences (shorter heads and 

possibly differing in body shape), we 

conclude that the petitioner has not 

provided us with substantial and 

reliable information to support the 

claim that the mountain whitefish in the 

Big Lost River have a ‘‘high level of 

[genetic], morphological and physical 

uniqueness * * * to the species as a 

whole.’’ We have no evidence before us 

to suggest that any differences in color 

or morphology that may exist are 

anything other than natural phenotypic 

variation that is often observed in 

different populations of fish. 

Natural variation in characteristics 

such as body shape in fish is commonly 

attributable to environmental factors, 

such as water temperature during 

development (e.g., Barlow 1961). 

Additionally, many fish exhibit a 

considerable degree of intraspecific 

variation in morphology, which has 

been experimentally demonstrated to be 

the result of phenotypic plasticity in 

response to the environment rather than 

a heritable response to selection (e.g., 

Mittelbach et al. 1999). Head depth is a 

common plastic trait in fish related to 

diet (e.g., Day et al. 1994). We have no 

information in our files, nor has the 

petitioner provided any substantial 

information, to suggest that any 

apparent differences in morphology or 

coloration of the mountain whitefish are 

in any way biologically meaningful such 

that they may be significant to the 

species as a whole. We also considered 

the additional information provided by 

Mr. Whiteley (A. Whiteley, pers. comm. 

2007a). Even considering this additional 

information, our conclusion remains the 

same. 

DPS Conclusion 

Our DPS policy directs us to evaluate 

the significance of a discrete population 

in the context of its importance to the 

remainder of the taxon. Based on an 

analysis of the information presented by 

the petitioner, Service staff expertise, 

and information within our files, our 

evaluation indicates that the genetic, 

morphological, and coloration 

differences cited by the petitioner do 

not indicate that mountain whitefish 

found in the Big Lost River may differ 

markedly from other populations of 

mountain whitefish such as to be 

significant to the species as a whole. 

Therefore, the differences do not rise to 

the level of significance under the 

criteria set by our DPS policy. Because 

the mountain whitefish occupying the 

Big Lost River fail to meet the 

significance criteria for a DPS under the 

policy, we have determined that they do 

not constitute a listable entity under the 

Act. We also note that the petitioner did 

not petition us to list the Big Lost River 

mountain whitefish on the basis of a 

significant portion of the species’ range, 

nor did the petitioner provide specific 

information indicating that the 

mountain whitefish within the Big Lost 

River basin represented a significant 

portion of the range of the species. 

Therefore, we did not specifically 

analyze whether the mountain whitefish 

in the Big Lost River basin represented 

a significant portion of the range of the 

species. 

Finding 

We have reviewed and evaluated the 

petition and literature cited in the 

petition in relation to information 

available to us. On the basis of this 

review and evaluation, we find that the 

petition does not present substantial 

scientific information to indicate that 

listing the mountain whitefish in the Big 

Lost River of Idaho may be warranted. 

This finding is based on lack of 

substantial information indicating that 

the mountain whitefish occurring in the 

Big Lost River qualify as a listable entity 

under section 3(16) of the Act. We find 

that mountain whitefish occurring in 

the Big Lost River do not constitute a 

separate species or subspecies, and 

although they may be considered 

discrete, neither the petition nor our 

files contain substantial information to 

indicate that this population may be 

biologically or ecologically significant 

according to the criteria under our DPS 

policy. Although we are not 

commencing a status review in response 

to this petition, we will continue to 

monitor the status and trends, potential 

threats, and ongoing management 

actions that might affect mountain 

whitefish in the Big Lost River. We 

encourage interested parties to continue 

to gather data that will assist with 

conservation of mountain whitefish in 

the Big Lost River basin. If you wish to 

provide information regarding mountain 

whitefish in the Big Lost River, you may 

submit your information or materials to 

the Field Supervisor, Snake River Fish 

and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES). 

References Cited 

A complete list of all references cited 

is available on request from the Snake 

River Fish and Wildlife Office (see 

ADDRESSES). 

Author 

The primary author of this notice is 

the Snake River Fish and Wildlife Office 

(see ADDRESSES). 

Authority 

The authority for this action is the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). 

Dated: October 15, 2007. 

Kenneth Stansell, 

Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

[FR Doc. E7–20767 Filed 10–22–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 622 

[Docket No. 0612243157–7232–03] 

RIN 0648–AT87 

Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of 

Mexico, and South Atlantic; Reef Fish 

Fishery and Shrimp Fishery of the Gulf 

of Mexico; Amendment 27/14 

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 that would implement a joint 

Amendment 27 to the FMP for the Reef 

Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico 

(Reef Fish FMP) and Amendment 14 to 

the Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for 

the Shrimp Fishery of the Gulf of 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
59990 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 23, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

Mexico (Shrimp FMP)(Amendment 27/ 

14) prepared by the Gulf of Mexico 

Fishery Management Council (Council). 

This proposed rule would reduce the 

commercial and recreational quotas for 

red snapper, reduce the commercial 

minimum size limit for red snapper, 

reduce the recreational bag limit for red 

snapper, prohibit the retention of red 

snapper under the bag limit for the 

captain and crew of a vessel operating 

as a charter vessel or headboat, require 

the use of non-stainless steel circle 

hooks when using natural baits to fish 

for Gulf reef fish, require the use of 

venting tools and dehooking devices 

when participating in the commercial or 

recreational reef fish fisheries, and 

provide for seasonal closures of the Gulf 

shrimp fishery to reduce red snapper 

bycatch consistent with the 

Amendment’s framework procedure. In 

addition, the proposed rule would 

establish a target reduction of shrimp 

trawl bycatch mortality of red snapper, 

assume a 10-percent reduction in posthurricane fishing effort and landings 

when evaluating alternative TACs and 

management measures or in the 

alternative, not assume the 10% effort 

reduction, and establish a framework 

procedure to adjust the target effort level 

and closed season for the Gulf shrimp 

fishery. The measures contained in this 

proposed rule are intended to satisfy a 

U.S. District Court Order to establish a 

revised red snapper rebuilding plan by 

December 12, 2007, and to end 

overfishing of the red snapper resource 

in the Gulf of Mexico. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before December 7, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

on the proposed rule by any of the 

following methods: 

• E-mail: 0648–AT87.Proposed27–

14@noaa.gov. Include in the subject line 

the following document identifier: 

0648–AT87.Proposed27–14. 

• 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. 

Instructions: All comments received 

are a part of the public record and will 

generally be posted to http:// 

www.regulations.gov without change. 

All Personal Identifying Information (for 

example, name, address, etc.) 

voluntarily submitted by the commenter 

may be publicly accessible. Do not 

submit Confidential Business 

Information or otherwise sensitive or 

protected information. 

Copies of Amendment 27/14, which 

include a supplemental environmental 

impact statement (SEIS), an initial 

regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA), a 

regulatory impact review (RIR), and a 

fishery impact statement, may be 

obtained from the Gulf of Mexico 

Fishery Management Council, 2203 

North Lois Avenue, Suite 1100, Tampa, 

FL 33607; telephone 813–348–1630; fax 

813–348–1711; e-mail 

gulfcouncil@gulfcouncil.org; or may be 

downloaded from the Council’s Web 

site at http://www.gulfcouncil.org/. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Peter Hood, telephone 727–824–5305; 

fax 727–824–5308; e-mail 

peter.hood@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The reef 

fish and shrimp fisheries of the Gulf of 

Mexico are managed under their 

respective FMPs (Reef Fish FMP and 

Shrimp FMP). The FMPs were prepared 

by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery 

Management Council (Council) and are 

implemented through regulations at 50 

CFR part 622 under the authority of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

(Magnuson-Stevens Act). 

Background 

Multiple fisheries influence the status 

of the red snapper stock in the Gulf of 

Mexico, including the commercial and 

recreational red snapper fisheries and 

the shrimp trawl fishery, which takes 

red snapper incidentally when 

harvesting shrimp. A 2005 stock 

assessment concluded the Gulf of 

Mexico red snapper stock is overfished 

and undergoing overfishing, and red 

snapper fishing mortality rates are too 

high in both the directed and shrimp 

fisheries. In response to the 2005 

assessment, the Council began drafting 

Amendment 27/14 to address 

overfishing and revise the red snapper 

rebuilding plan. In August 2006, the 

Council voted to delay consideration of 

the amendment until January 2007, 

pending completion of 2006 recreational 

effort and landings data and shrimp 

effort data. 

On March 12, 2007, the United States 

District Court for the Southern District 

of Texas, Houston Division, issued a 

ruling on legal challenges to the current 

red snapper rebuilding plan contained 

in Amendment 22 to the Reef Fish FMP 

(Coastal Conservation Association v. 

Gutierrez et al., Case No. H–05–1214, 

consolidated with Gulf Restoration 

Network et al., v. Gutierrez et al., Case 

No. H–05–2998). The Court required a 

new rebuilding plan by December 12, 

2007. However, consistent with the 

Court ruling, if the revised rebuilding 

plan cannot be implemented by 

December 12, 2007, additional rulemaking may be required to implement 

one or more of the measures contained 

in Amendment 27/14 on an interim 

basis. 

Therefore, to reduce fishing mortality 

and maintain stock rebuilding in the 

interim, NMFS published a temporary 

rule, effective May 2, 2007 (72 FR 

15617, April 2, 2007). The temporary 

rule reduced the recreational quota from 

4.47 million lb (2.03 million kg) to 3.185 

million lb (1.445 million kg), and the 

commercial quota from 4.65 million lb 

(2.11 million kg) to 3.315 million lb 

(1.504 million kg). The recreational bag 

limit was reduced from four fish to two 

fish per person per day to constrain the 

recreational harvest to its quota during 

the existing April 21 through October 31 

fishing season. The commercial 

minimum size limit was reduced from 

15 inches (38 cm) total length (TL) to 13 

inches (33 cm) TL to reduce discard 

mortality. To reduce red snapper 

bycatch mortality in the shrimp fishery, 

a target reduction goal was established 

to reduce red snapper bycatch mortality 

by at least 50 percent compared to the 

bycatch mortality rate during the 2001–

2003 time period. Under the MagnusonStevens Act, NMFS has the ability to 

extend these interim measures if 

necessary. 

The measures in the temporary rule 

and this proposed rule are consistent 

with the March 12, 2007 Court ruling. 

The measures in the proposed rule are 

designed to address long-term 

reductions in red snapper fishing 

mortality rates of the directed red 

snapper fisheries, shrimp fishery, and 

other reef fish fisheries. 

Revised Rebuilding Plan 

The proposed actions are intended to 

implement revisions to the Council’s 

red snapper rebuilding plan with a goal 

of having at least a 50-percent 

probability of ending overfishing for red 

snapper between 2009 and 2010 and 

rebuilding the stock to the biomass level 

associated with maximum sustainable 

yield (MSY) by 2032. Under the 

proposed actions, the probability of 

ending overfishing by 2010 is estimated 

to be greater than 50 percent. The 

annual total allowable catch (TAC) 

during the first 3 years of the plan is 0.3 

million lb (0.136 million kg) lower than 

the maximum annual TAC allowed 

under the rebuilding projections. 

Although the rebuilding plan does not 

account for additional reductions in 

release mortality expected from the 

proposed required use of circle hooks, 

dehooking devices, and venting tools, 

these proposed measures would further 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 23, 2007 / Proposed Rules 59991 

increase the probability of ending 

overfishing by 2010. Also, NMFS 

continues to develop bycatch reduction 

devices (BRDs) which promise better 

performance than those presently used 

in the shrimp fishery. 

Beginning in 2011, the recommended 

revisions to the rebuilding plan would 

allow for harvest levels to begin 

increasing, while maintaining greater 

than a 50-percent probability of 

rebuilding the red snapper stock by the 

target date of 2032. Future TACs and 

quotas are modeled around yields 

associated with a fishing mortality 

producing MSY (proxy = 26-percent 

spawning potential ratio), in association 

with achieving needed reductions in 

bycatch and discard mortality in both 

the directed and shrimp fisheries. Under 

the recommended revisions to the 

rebuilding plan, the TAC would 

increase to 7.0 million lb (3.175 million 

kg) in 2011, and reach 14.0 million lb 

(6.35 million kg) by 2032. The 

recommended revisions to the 

rebuilding plan would also allow the 

shrimp bycatch mortality reduction 

target to drop from 74 percent in 2008 

to 67 percent in 2011, and thereafter, the 

target would decline at a constant rate 

from 67 to 60 percent by 2032. 

Any change made to the rebuilding 

plan and implementing measures, 

however, is contingent on successfully 

ending overfishing in the next 3 years 

and would require further action be 

recommended by the Council and 

subsequently approved by NMFS. To 

increase the probability of successfully 

rebuilding the red snapper stock, the 

rebuilding plan and management 

measures would be reviewed and 

adjusted, as necessary, based on 

periodic stock assessments. 

Measures To Reduce Directed Fishing 

Mortality 

To reduce fishing mortality and end 

overfishing of the red snapper stock in 

the Gulf of Mexico, the proposed rule 

would reduce the existing quotas for the 

commercial and recreational fisheries. 

The proposed rule would establish a 

commercial quota of 2.55 million lb 

(1.16 million kg) and a recreational 

quota of 2.45 million lb (1.11 million 

kg). Because of the individual fishing 

quota program in the commercial 

fishery, no measures are proposed to 

further constrain commercial harvest to 

its 2.55 million lb (1.16 million kg) 

quota, but measures are proposed to 

constrain the recreational harvest to its 

quota of 2.45 million (1.11 million kg). 

The Council considered various size 

limit and bag limit combinations which 

would determine the length of the 

recreational fishing season. The 

proposed two-fish bag limit would 

allow a June 1 through September 15 

(107-day) recreational fishing season. In 

addition to the two-fish bag limit, 

constraining the captain and crew of forhire vessels to a zero-fish bag limit 

would allow the fishing season to be 

extended through the end of September 

(122 days). Based on extensive public 

comment, the Council chose to assume 

a 10-percent reduction in post-hurricane 

fishing effort and landings when 

evaluating recreational management 

measures. Application of this 

assumption, along with implementation 

of the two-fish bag limit and the zerofish captain and crew limit of for-hire 

vessels, would allow the recreational 

fishing season to extend from May 15 

through October 15 (154 days). 

Although preliminary data suggest some 

declines have occurred since the 2005 

hurricane season, the magnitude of 

reductions varies by fishing sector, is 

often less than 10 percent, and in some 

cases effort or landings have increased. 

Further, it is unknown how long posthurricane reductions in landings and 

fishing effort may continue as the 

fisheries recover. The Council’s 

recommended alternative for Action 1 of 

Amendment 27/14 includes, among 

other things, a recreational fishing 

season of 107 days, which when 

coupled with the zero captain and crew 

bag limit, results in a 122-day 

recreational season (June 1–September). 

However, the Council’s recommended 

alternative for Action 2 would apply an 

assumed 10-percent reduction in posthurricane recreational fishing effort to 

the measures in Action 1. Doing so 

results in a recreational fishing season 

of 154 days. In light of the foregoing 

discussion, NMFS proposes the 

recommended recreational season in 

Action 1, 107 days, coupled with the 

zero captain and crew bag limit, which 

results in a 122-day recreational season 

(June 1–September). NMFS also 

proposes, in the alternative, the longer 

154-day recreational fishing season 

resulting from the Council’s 

recommended alternative for Action 2. 

NMFS specifically requests comments 

on the assumed 10-percent reduction in 

effort and landings as recommended in 

Amendment 27/14, which would affect 

the designation of the length of the 

recreational fishing season established 

by this rule. 

The existing 16-inch (41-cm) TL 

recreational minimum size limit would 

remain unchanged. Public comments 

during development of the amendment 

indicated most anglers preferred a 

longer fishing season rather than a lower 

minimum size limit. Lowering the 

recreational minimum size limit would 

have substantially shortened the fishing 

season to compensate for increases in 

angler catch rates. Although most 

anglers preferred a longer fishing 

season, they did not support a further 

reduction of the bag limit to one fish to 

further extend the fishing season 

because a one-fish bag limit was 

considered too low to provide a 

satisfactory recreational fishing trip. 

Measures To Reduce Bycatch Mortality 

in the Directed Fishery 

Reductions in red snapper bycatch 

(regulatory discards) are needed in all 

sectors of the directed red snapper 

fishery to reduce overfishing in the 

short term and to recover the stock over 

the long term. The proposed rule would 

reduce the commercial size limit from 

15 inches (38 cm) TL to 13 inches (33 

cm) TL. This reduction in the size limit 

is expected to reduce dead discards by 

40 to 60 percent and allow the stock to 

recover in a shorter time period. The 

proposed rule would also require the 

use of circle hooks, venting tools, and 

dehooking devices to reduce bycatch 

and bycatch mortality when fishing for 

Gulf reef fish in the exclusive economic 

zone (EEZ). It is unknown to what 

extent bycatch or bycatch mortality will 

be reduced by these gears, but all of 

these gears have been shown to increase 

the survival of released fish. 

Measures To Reduce Shrimp Trawl 

Bycatch Mortality 

To end overfishing of red snapper 

between 2009 and 2010, the 2005 

assessment for red snapper indicated 

the benchmark 2001–2003 level of red 

snapper bycatch mortality attributable 

to shrimp fishing must be reduced by 74 

percent. The proposed rule would 

establish an initial reduction target 74 

percent less than the benchmark. The 

proposed rule would also describe the 

process by which the target goals for 

bycatch mortality could be reduced over 

time, consistent with the stock 

rebuilding plan and subsequent stock 

assessments, through appropriate 

rulemaking. If stock rebuilding targets 

are met over the next 3 years and 

overfishing is ended, the target bycatch 

mortality goal for the shrimp fishery 

would then be decreased to 67 percent 

of the 2001–2003 benchmark beginning 

in 2011. Thereafter, the target goal 

would be reduced at a constant rate to 

achieve a target reduction goal of 60 

percent less than the benchmark by 

2032. However, any such change would 

occur only after the Council and NMFS 

reviewed updated information regarding 

the status of the red snapper stock and 

the rebuilding projections. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
59992 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 23, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

Subsequent to the benchmark years of 

2001–2003, effort in the offshore shrimp 

fishery has declined dramatically due to 

external economic issues, such as 

increasing fixed costs (fuel, ice, etc.), 

imports, and stagnant shrimp prices. 

Juvenile red snapper are more abundant 

in the 10–30 fathom (18–55 m) depth 

strata from Mobile Bay, Alabama, to 

Brownsville, Texas, and effort 

reductions in this particular area are 

substantial. Effort within this area can 

be used as a proxy for bycatch mortality 

on juvenile red snapper. Bycatch 

mortality on juvenile red snapper in 

2005 for the 10–30 fathom (18–55 m) 

depth strata was approximately 60 

percent less than the benchmark 2001–

2003 period, and in 2006, bycatch 

mortality was 65 percent less than the 

benchmark period. Early estimates for 

2007 suggest effort in the Gulf shrimp 

fishery may be lower than in 2006. 

To ensure the remaining reductions 

needed to meet the 74-percent target, 

the proposed rule would set forth the 

procedure by which NMFS would 

establish seasonal area closures for the 

Gulf shrimp fishery consistent with the 

framework procedures established in 

Amendment 27/14. Such closures, if 

necessary, would be established within 

some or all of the area that approximates 

the 10–30 fathom (18–55 m) depth strata 

from Mobile Bay, Alabama, to the 

Louisiana-Texas boundary. The 

proposed rule identifies an eastern zone, 

a Louisiana zone, and a Texas zone, 

bounded by coordinates marking the 

maximum closed area. The geographical 

scope and duration of the closure would 

be dependent on the level of effort 

reduction needed to meet the 74-percent 

reduction target. As an example, if the 

closure included the maximum area 

defined and covered the typical 60-day 

time period of the Texas closure, based 

on the level of effort expended in this 

area during recent years, such a closure 

would provide as much as a 24-percent 

reduction in fishing mortality on 

juvenile red snapper. Should additional 

closure of the shrimp fishery be needed 

after reopening Federal waters off Texas 

in July, the closure could be expanded 

to include waters off Texas as well as 

areas east of Texas. 

To implement such a closure in 

accordance with the framework 

procedures established in Amendment 

27/14, on or about March 1, NMFS 

would use the most recent 12-month 

period of shrimp effort data available, 

and assess the level of effort within the 

areas where red snapper are abundant. 

The NMFS Southeast Regional 

Administrator would, based on an 

assessment from the NMFS Southeast 

Fisheries Science Center, determine the 

geographical scope and duration of a 

closure needed to meet the bycatch 

mortality reduction target, and 

implement a closure intended to begin 

on the same date and time as the Texas 

closure. Coordinating the timing of the 

framework closure with that of the longstanding Texas closure would facilitate 

enforcement efforts by simplifying 

regulations for both fishermen and law 

enforcement agents. If the RA 

determines that a framework closure is 

necessary, the closure falls within the 

scope of the potential closures evaluated 

in the FMP such as coordination of any 

closure with the Texas closure, and 

good cause exists to waive notice and 

comment pursuant to the 

Administrative Procedure Act, NMFS 

will implement the closure by 

publication of a final rule in the Federal 

Register. If such good cause waiver is 

not justified, NMFS will implement the 

closure via appropriate notice and 

comment rulemaking. 

Classification 

Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act, I have 

determined that this proposed rule is 

consistent with Amendment 27/14, 

other provisions of the MagnusonStevens Act, and other applicable law, 

subject to further consideration after 

public comment. 

This proposed rule has been 

determined to be significant for 

purposes of Executive Order 12866. 

NMFS prepared a SEIS for this 

amendment. A notice of availability for 

the draft SEIS was published on April 

20, 2007 (72 FR 19928). A notice of 

availability for the final SEIS was 

published on August 3, 2007 (72 FR 

43271). 

NMFS prepared an IRFA, as required 

by section 603 of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act, for this proposed rule. 

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 objectives of, and 

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 copy of the full analysis 

is available from the Council (see 

ADDRESSES). A summary of the IRFA 

follows. 

The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides 

the statutory basis for the proposed rule. 

The proposed rule would reduce the 

commercial quota from 4.65 million lb 

(2.14 million kg) to 2.55 million lb (1.16 

million kg) and the recreational quota 

from 4.47 million lb (2.06 million kg) to 

2.45 million lb (1.11 million kg), reduce 

the recreational bag limit from four fish 

to two fish and the bag limit for captain 

and crew of for-hire vessels to zero, 

reduce the commercial minimum size 

limit from 15 inches (38 cm) TL to 13 

inches (33 cm) TL, require participants 

in all Gulf reef fish fishery sectors to use 

non-stainless steel circle hooks (when 

using natural baits) and to use venting 

tools and dehooking devices, and 

provide for seasonal area closures of the 

Gulf shrimp fishery to reduce red 

snapper bycatch consistent with 

Amendment 27/14’s framework 

procedure. In addition, the proposed 

rule would assume a 10-percent 

reduction in recreational red snapper 

effort and landings due to hurricane 

effects or in the alternative, not assume 

the 10-percent effort reduction, establish 

a target reduction goal for shrimp trawl 

bycatch mortality on red snapper, 

establish options for time-area closures 

for the shrimp fishery that would 

maintain the target reduction goal, and 

establish a framework whereby NMFS 

could adjust the target reduction goal 

and time-area closures. NMFS 

specifically requests comments on the 

assumed 10-percent reduction in effort 

and landings as recommended in 

Amendment 27/14, which would affect 

the designation of the length of the 

recreational fishing season established 

by this rule. 

The purpose of this proposed rule is 

to reduce red snapper catch, bycatch, 

and discard mortality in the directed 

commercial and recreational fisheries 

and the shrimp fishery in order to end 

overfishing for red snapper between 

2009 and 2010 and rebuild the stock by 

2032 in compliance with the red 

snapper rebuilding plan. 

No duplicative, overlapping or 

conflicting Federal rules have been 

identified. 

Management actions considered in 

this proposed rule are expected to affect 

all vessels that operate in the 

commercial red snapper fishery, all 

vessels that have a Federal reef fish forhire permit, and all dealers and 

processors that handle product from 

these fisheries. Although this proposed 

rule contains actions that pertain to the 

commercial shrimp fishery, these 

actions are not expected to impose any 

direct adverse impacts on the fishery or 

associated entities. 

Prior to the January 2007 

implementation of the red snapper 

individual fishing quota program (IFQ), 

136 entities held Class 1 licenses that 

allowed a commercial vessel trip limit 

of up to 2,000 lb (907 kg) of red snapper 

and 628 entities held Class 2 licenses 

that allowed a trip limit of up to 200 lb 

(91 kg) of red snapper. Between 2002 

and 2004, the top 50 red snapper vessels 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 23, 2007 / Proposed Rules 59993 

in terms of landings harvested 2.77 

million lb (1.26 million kg) of red 

snapper, on average, or 64 percent of the 

industry total. Vessels ranked 51 to 131 

harvested 1.29 million lb (0.59 million 

kg), on average, or 30 percent of the 

industry total for the same period. Thus, 

the top 131 red snapper vessels 

accounted for approximately 94 percent 

of the total industry red snapper 

landings. Red snapper are mainly 

harvested by fishermen using verticalline gear. These fishermen accounted for 

approximately 90 percent of commercial 

red snapper Gulf harvests, on average, 

between 2002 and 2004. 

Average annual gross receipts (2004 

dollars) and net income (gross receipts 

minus all costs) per vessel vary by gear 

type, area fished, and volume of catch. 

High-volume vessels using vertical lines 

averaged gross receipts and net income 

of $110,070 and $28,466 in the northern 

Gulf, but only $67,979 and $23,822 in 

the eastern Gulf. Low-volume vessels 

using vertical lines averaged gross 

receipts and net income of $24,095 and 

$6,801 in the northern Gulf, but $24,588 

and $4,479 respectively in the eastern 

Gulf. Vessels using bottom longlines 

averaged gross receipts and net income 

of $116,989 and $25,452 for highvolume vessels, but only $87,635 and 

$14,978 respectively for low-volume 

vessels. 

The current fleet permitted to operate 

in the Gulf reef fish for-hire sector is 

estimated to be 1,625 vessels. The forhire fleet is comprised of charterboats, 

which charge a fee on a vessel basis, and 

headboats, which charge a fee on an 

individual angler (head) basis. The 

average charterboat is estimated to 

generate $76,960 in annual revenues 

and $36,758 in annual profits, whereas 

the appropriate values for the average 

headboat are $404,172 and $338,209, 

respectively. On average, both 

charterboats and headboats operate at 

about 50 percent of their passenger 

capacity per trip. 

The measures in this action would 

also be expected to affect fish dealers, 

particularly those that receive red 

snapper from harvesting vessels. A 

Federal permit is required for a fish 

dealer to receive reef fish from 

commercial vessels, and there are 227 

dealers currently permitted to buy and 

sell reef fish species. All reef fish 

processors would be included in this 

total because all processors must be 

dealers. Most of these dealers are 

located in Florida (146), with 29 in 

Louisiana, 18 in Texas, 14 in Alabama, 

5 in Mississippi, and 15 in states 

outside the Gulf. In addition, vessels 

identify the dealers who receive their 

fish on logbook reports. Commercial reef 

fish vessels with Federal permits are 

required to sell their harvest only to 

permitted dealers. From 1997 through 

2002, on average, 154 reef fish dealers 

actively bought and sold red snapper. 

These dealers were distributed around 

the Gulf as follows: 7 in Alabama, 96 in 

Florida, 22 in Louisiana, 7 in 

Mississippi, and 22 in Texas. On 

average, Florida dealers purchased 

approximately $1.8 million of red 

snapper, followed by Louisiana ($1.4 

million), Texas ($1.3 million), 

Mississippi ($174,000), and Alabama 

($88,000). These dealers may hold 

permits for multiple fisheries, but it is 

not possible to determine what 

percentage of their total business comes 

from the red snapper fishery. 

Although it is unknown how many 

eligible shrimp permit holders will 

apply for moratorium permits and, thus, 

would be potentially affected by this 

action, 2,666 vessels would qualify for 

the shrimp permit and are assumed to 

constitute the potentially affected 

universe of shrimp vessels. The average 

annual gross revenue (all harvest 

species) per qualifying vessel in 2005 

was approximately $116,000, while the 

comparable figure for qualifying vessels 

active in the Gulf shrimp fishery, i.e., 

vessels with recorded shrimp landings 

in 2005, was approximately $152,000. In 

the same year, the maximum annual 

gross revenue from shrimp by a vessel 

was approximately $757,000 for both all 

qualifying and active qualifying vessels, 

whereas the figure for all harvest species 

was approximately $1.89 million by an 

inactive qualifier and $757,000 for an 

active qualifier. 

The most recent projection of 

performance in the commercial shrimp 

fishery indicated that the average vessel, 

across all vessel size categories, 

experienced a negative 33-percent rate 

of return and that economic losses 

would continue until 2012. Thus, 

almost any but the most minor 

additional financial burden would be 

expected to generate a significant 

adverse impact on affected vessels and 

potentially hasten additional exit from 

the fishery. 

In 2005, 609 dealers were identified 

operating in the commercial shrimp 

fishery. Employment information for 

this sector is not available. In 2005, 60 

processors in the shrimp fishery were 

identified, employing approximately 

3,400 persons, or an average of 56 

employees per entity. The maximum 

number of employees for a shrimp 

processor in 2005 was 353. 

The Small Business Administration 

(SBA) defines a small business in the 

commercial fishing industry as an entity 

that is independently owned and 

operated, is not dominant in its field of 

operation (including its affiliates), and 

has total annual average receipts not in 

excess of $4.0 million annually (NAICS 

codes 114111 and 114112, finfish and 

shellfish fishing). For for-hire vessels, 

these same criteria apply except that the 

annual receipts threshold is $6.5 million 

(NAICS code 713990, recreational 

industries). For seafood processors and 

dealers, the SBA uses an employee 

threshold rather than a receipts 

threshold. The threshold is 500 or fewer 

persons on a full-time, part-time, 

temporary, or other basis, at all its 

affiliated operations worldwide for a 

seafood processor and 100 or fewer 

persons for a seafood dealer. 

Some persons/entities are known to 

own multiple vessels (i.e. fleet 

operations) in the commercial red 

snapper fishery and in the commercial 

reef fish fisheries in general, but the 

extent of such operations is unknown. 

The maximum number of reef fish 

permits reported owned by the same 

person/entity is 6 permits. Additional 

permits and the revenues associated 

with those permits may be linked to an 

entity through affiliation rules, but such 

affiliation links cannot be made using 

existing data. Further, a definitive 

determination of whether any 

commercial entity would be considered 

a large entity cannot be made using 

average revenue information. However, 

since the average total revenue in the 

commercial red snapper fishery between 

2002 and 2004 was $11.652 million, 

given the number of license holders in 

the fishery is 764, the summary 

statistics and the maximum number of 

permits owned by a single person/entity 

provided above, NMFS determined that 

all commercial reef fish harvest entities 

that would be affected by this action are 

small entities. 

Fleet operations also exist in the forhire sector, with at least one entity 

reported to hold 12 permits. The bulk of 

the fleet, however, consists of single 

permit operations. Thus, based on the 

average revenue figures above, all forhire operations affected by this 

proposed rule are small entities. 

Average employment per reef fish 

dealer is unknown. Although dealers 

and processors are not synonymous 

entities, total employment for reef fish 

processors in the Southeast is 

approximately 700 individuals, both 

part and full time. While all processors 

must be dealers, a dealer need not be a 

processor. Further, processing fish is a 

much more labor intensive than buying 

fish. Therefore, given the employment 

estimate for the processing sector and 

the number of dealers that participated 

in the fishery on average per year from 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
59994 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 23, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

1997–2002 (154 dealers), NMFS 

assumed that the maximum number of 

employees for reef fish dealers and 

processors are unlikely to surpass the 

SBA employment benchmarks. 

Therefore, all reef fish dealers and 

processors affected by this proposed 

rule are small entities. 

While gross revenues vary between 

shrimp vessels of different physical size, 

these differences do not affect the 

assessment of maximum gross revenue 

per vessel and the subsequent 

determination of whether shrimp 

vessels constitute large or small entities. 

As with the other sectors, fleet 

operations are known to exist in the 

commercial shrimp fishery, but the 

magnitude of such cannot be 

determined using available data. Given 

these findings, and the maximum 

revenue per vessel figures noted above, 

NMFS determined that all shrimp 

vessels that could be affected by this 

proposed rule are small entities. 

Similar to the reef fish industry, 

processing shrimp is more labor 

intensive than buying shrimp. Thus, 

average employment in the shrimp 

dealer sector is assumed to be less than 

that in the processing sector. Because 

the maximum number of employees for 

a shrimp processor does not exceed the 

SBA threshold, all shrimp dealers and 

processors that could be affected by this 

proposed rule are small entities. 

The proposed red snapper 

recreational and commercial quota 

decreases are expected to reduce profits 

in the for-hire and commercial sectors. 

In the for-hire sector, declines in profits, 

approximated by net operating revenue 

(gross revenue minus operating costs 

except labor) decreases, are expected 

due to declines in individual angler trip 

bookings. Under the proposed 2.45 

million lb (1.11 million kg) recreational 

quota and two-fish bag limit, the 

estimated annual net operating revenue 

losses to the for-hire sector are 

approximately $1.1 million. It is not 

possible to accurately estimate the 

extent to which individual for-hire 

operations will be affected by the 

proposed quota reduction. However, a 

simple average suggests that, for the 

1,625 vessels active in the for-hire 

sector, the average annual net operating 

revenue loss would approximate $680 

per vessel. This simple arithmetic mean 

does not provide information on losses 

that may be incurred by a specific forhire operation. Depending on the 

geographic location of their operation, 

level of activity, reliance on red snapper 

trips, diversity of species available, and 

preferences of their core clientele, some 

vessels likely would be impacted more 

than others. Quantifying the number of 

vessels that might face greater economic 

losses is not possible with available 

data. However, in general, the average 

impact per vessel will vary inversely 

with the number of vessels included in 

this core group. For example, if 

expected economic impacts were borne 

by 10 to 25 percent of the fleet, average 

losses in net operating revenue per 

vessel would be expected to range from 

approximately $2,700 to $6,800. 

The assessment of impacts on for-hire 

profits was based on the recreational 

quota and not season length. Although 

industry comment indicated that a 

longer open season was preferable to a 

shorter season, regardless of total 

allowable catch, and would result in 

less economic losses, estimating the 

differential economic impacts of season 

length was not possible with available 

data, and the estimated reduction in forhire profits as a result of the proposed 

recreational quota is neutral with 

respect to season length. If red snapper 

season length is a significant factor in 

for-hire profits, then the estimated $1.1 

million losses could understate by an 

indeterminate amount the impacts of 

the shorter season that would occur if a 

10-percent reduction in recreational red 

snapper effort and landings due to 

hurricane effects is not assumed in the 

determination of season length. 

For the commercial red snapper 

sector, reductions in profits, as 

measured by changes in net operating 

revenue to owners, captains, and crew, 

are expected to result from revenue 

losses associated with lower snapper 

harvests. Net operating revenue losses 

due to the commercial quota reduction 

would be mitigated by the action to 

lower the commercial size limit. The 

impact analysis for the commercial red 

snapper sector assumed the fishery was 

operating under an individual fishing 

quota program (IFQ), which was 

implemented in January 2007. Under 

the IFQ, the number of vessels operating 

in the fishery is expected to decline 

substantially as quota shares are 

consolidated. However, since the IFQ 

program has only recently been 

implemented, substantive data on the 

expected contraction is not yet available 

to indicate the size and type of fleet that 

will ultimately occur. Therefore, 

analysis of the quota reduction impacts 

assumed the fleet would contract to 

homogenous fleets of a specific vessel 

size and accompanying operational 

characteristics, with the resultant fleet 

comprised of either more small vessels 

(35 ft (10.7 m)) or fewer large vessels (65 

ft (19.8 m)). 

Under the status quo commercial 

quota of 4.65 million lb (2.14 million 

kg), for the smallest (35 ft (10.7 m)) and 

largest (65 ft (19.8 m)) vessel length 

class considered, the fleet would be 

composed of either ninety-five 35-ft 

(10.7-m) vessels or thirty-nine 65-ft 

(19.8-m) vessels. The average annual net 

operating revenue per vessel within 

each vessel size class was estimated at 

$274,000 and $667,000, respectively. 

Under the proposed 2.55 million lb 

(1.16 million kg) commercial quota, 

projected losses in net operating 

revenues to owners, captains, and crew 

in the commercial sector are estimated 

to be approximately $11.5 million. The 

fleet would be composed of either fiftytwo 35-ft (10.7-m) or twenty-two 65-ft 

(19.8-m) vessels, representing a 

reduction of either forty-three 35-ft 

(10.7-m) vessels or seventeen 65-ft (19.8- 

m) vessels. For each of these potential 

fleets, the corresponding average net 

operating revenue for remaining vessels 

was estimated at $278,000 and 

$665,000, respectively. Average shortterm net operating revenue losses per 

vessel are therefore estimated at 

$121,000 and $295,000 for the 35-ft 

(10.7-m) and 65-ft (19.8-m) vessel 

classes, respectively. 

The proposed commercial quota 

reduction is also expected to adversely 

impact dealers and processors involved 

in the red snapper trade. Although 

substantial decreases in revenues 

collected from domestic red snapper are 

anticipated, the lack of firm-level gross 

revenues and profit data precludes 

quantification of the expected losses. To 

mitigate the adverse economic impacts 

that would result from the proposed 45- 

percent decrease in the commercial 

quota, dealers and processors may 

increase their reliance on imported 

snapper and their use of other reef fish 

species as substitutes. 

Preventing captain and crew from 

retaining a red snapper bag limit while 

on charter is not expected to affect the 

profitability of for-hire operations 

because the sale of recreational reef fish 

landings is already prohibited. The 

proposed requirement for all persons 

aboard reef fish vessels to use nonstainless steel circle hooks (when using 

natural baits), venting tools, and 

dehooking devices is expected to result 

in minimal impacts on the profitability 

of small entities because of the current 

widespread use of circle hooks, their 

competitive pricing, and the availability 

of dehooking devices and venting tools 

for less than $15 each. 

The management measures 

considered in this proposed rule do not 

affect the reporting or record-keeping 

requirements for reef fish and shrimp 

vessels, dealers, or processors. This 

proposed action does not require 

additional records or report preparation. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 23, 2007 / Proposed Rules 59995 

Four alternatives, including the status 

quo, were considered for the action to 

set TAC and, thus, establish the 

recreational and commercial quotas in 

the red snapper fishery. Three of the 

alternatives include multiple options 

and sub-options to manage the 

recreational fishery under the respective 

TACs and quotas. The first alternative, 

the status quo, would not be consistent 

with assumptions related to expected 

reductions in directed and bycatch 

mortality rates and would not, as 

indicated by the March 12, 2007 Court 

Opinion (Coastal Conservation 

Association v. Gutierrez et al., Case No. 

H–05–1214, consolidated with Gulf 

Restoration Network et al., v. Gutierrez 

et al., Case No. H–05–2998), be 

associated with a sufficient probability 

of the red snapper rebuilding plan’s 

success. If implemented, the status quo 

alternative would result in drastic TAC 

and quota reductions in subsequent 

years and, thus, greater adverse 

economic impacts during that time in 

order for the resource to continue on the 

designated recovery path. 

The second alternative to the 

proposed TAC action would have 

reduced the red snapper TAC to 7.0 

million lb (3.175 million kg), with 

resultant commercial and recreational 

quotas of 3.57 and 3.43 million lb (1.62 

and 1.44 million kg), respectively. This 

alternative has the potential of 

generating, depending upon the suboption selected, lower short-term 

adverse economic impacts than the 

proposed action. However, a 7.0 million 

lb (3.175 million kg) TAC is neither 

consistent with the current mortality 

reduction assumptions nor is it in 

accordance with the findings of the 

recent Court Opinion. Like the status 

quo, this alternative would require 

greater TAC reductions in subsequent 

years, thereby generating greater adverse 

economic impacts over that time than 

the proposed rule. 

The third alternative to the proposed 

TAC action would have reduced the red 

snapper TAC to 3.0 million lb (1.36 

million kg), with resultant commercial 

and recreational quotas of 1.53 and 1.47 

million lb (0.69 and 0.67 million kg), 

respectively. This alternative would 

have reduced the TAC and quotas more 

than necessary to end overfishing 

within the specified time period and 

would be expected to result in an overly 

restrictive management approach with 

unnecessary and greater adverse 

economic impacts than the proposed 

rule. 

Three alternatives, including the 

proposed status quo action and the 

alternative proposed 10-percent 

reduction, were considered for the 

action addressing post-hurricane effort 

and landings reduction. Although some 

post-hurricane reduction in effort and 

landings is demonstrated by available 

data, the reductions are not consistent 

across the entire fishery and are not 

expected to persist as the industry 

recovers. The proposed action could 

potentially result in a shorter season 

than necessary to end overfishing, 

thereby increasing short-term adverse 

economic impacts. The alternative 

proposed action, a 10-percent reduction 

in post-hurricane effort in the red 

snapper fishery, would extend the 

fishing season and yield greater shortterm economic benefits than the 

proposed action. However, this 

reduction may not be supported by 

available data and may therefore result 

in a failure to meet conservation goals, 

resulting in long-term negative 

economic impacts relative to the 

proposed action. The alternative to the 

proposed actions would assume a 25- 

percent reduction in post-hurricane 

effort and landings. This alternative, 

which would result in a longer season 

than the proposed action, would result 

in greater short-term economic benefits 

than the proposed action. However, a 

25-percent reduction is not supported 

by available data, is believed to be an 

excessive assumption, and would be 

expected to result in a failure to meet 

conservation goals, resulting in 

substantial long-term negative economic 

impacts relative to the proposed action. 

Two alternatives, including the status 

quo, were considered for the captain 

and crew bag limit action. Analyses 

indicate that under the proposed action 

to reduce the captain and crew bag limit 

to zero, the recreational red snapper 

fishing season could remain open 4–16 

days longer relative to the status quo. 

The status quo alternative would require 

more restrictive measures on 

recreational anglers (i.e., shorter open 

season, lower bag limit) to achieve 

rebuilding goals, because the fish 

retained by the captain and crew would 

represent an additional source of 

mortality that would have to be factored 

into harvest controls. These more 

restrictive measures would be expected 

to result in greater reductions in trip 

demand than the proposed angler 

restrictions, resulting in increased 

reductions in for-hire profits and angler 

value than the proposed action. 

Three alternatives, including the 

status quo, were considered for the 

commercial red snapper minimum size 

limit. The first alternative to the 

proposed action, the status quo, would 

be expected to result in continued 

unnecessary bycatch mortality and 

would not, therefore, meet the Council’s 

objectives. The proposed 13-inch (33- 

cm) minimum size limit in the 

commercial sector would be expected to 

result in decreased economic impacts to 

the fishery and associated industries 

due to anticipated increases in the 

operational efficiency of commercial 

vessels and a potential price premium 

for smaller fish. The third alternative 

would eliminate the commercial 

minimum size limit. Eliminating the 

commercial size limit would exacerbate 

user conflicts between the commercial 

and recreational sectors since the 

recreational sector would have a 16-inch 

(41-cm) minimum size limit, while the 

commercial sector would not have any 

minimum size limit. Further, since no 

commercial market is known to exist for 

red snapper smaller than 12 inches (30 

cm), no additional benefits would be 

expected to accrue to the commercial 

sector, and total economic impacts to 

the commercial sector would be 

expected to be comparable to those of 

the proposed action. 

Three alternatives, including the 

status quo, were considered for the gear 

requirement action. The two alternatives 

encompassing gear requirements 

contained options that specified the 

fisheries over which the requirements 

would apply. The proposed action 

would require the use of non-stainless 

steel circle hooks when using natural 

baits, and require the use of venting 

tools and dehooking devices from all 

participants in the reef fish fisheries of 

the Gulf of Mexico. By reducing bycatch 

and bycatch mortality in the red 

snapper and reef fish fisheries, the 

proposed action would contribute to 

improving the likelihood of success of 

the red snapper rebuilding plan and is 

expected to result in long-term net 

economic benefits. The sub-options that 

reduced the fisheries to which the 

proposed gear requirements would 

apply would be expected to result in 

less reduction in bycatch mortality and 

long-term economic benefits than the 

proposed rule. However, in general, 

however, little economic impact is 

anticipated because of the already 

widespread use of circle hooks and the 

fact that venting/dehooking devices are 

relatively inexpensive (less than $15 

each). 

The first alternative to the proposed 

gear action would not impose any new 

gear requirements on fishermen and 

would not, in the short term, result in 

any direct adverse economic impacts. 

However, this alternative would not 

contribute to improving the likelihood 

of success of the red snapper rebuilding 

plan. Relative to the proposed action, 

this alternative could result in more 

severe restrictions on fishery 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
59996 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 23, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

participants in the long run and, thus, 

generate greater adverse economic 

impacts. 

The second alternative and associated 

fishery sub-options to the proposed gear 

action would specify only a minimum 

hook size. Compared to the proposed 

action, this alternative would be less 

effective in reducing bycatch and 

bycatch mortality. As a result, in the 

long run, it would be expected to result 

in smaller economic benefits than the 

proposed action. 

Six alternatives, including the status 

quo, were considered for the bycatch 

reduction target in the commercial 

shrimp fishery. The status quo would 

not have established a bycatch 

reduction target, would not ensure 

consistent reductions in bycatch fishing 

mortality on juvenile red snapper in the 

shrimp fishery, and would not be 

consistent with the 2005 SEDAR 

assessment recommendations to further 

reduce bycatch fishing mortality rates 

on the red snapper stock. The proposed 

action, which would establish a target 

reduction of shrimp trawl bycatch 

mortality on red snapper 74 percent less 

than the benchmark years of 2001–2003, 

is consistent with the proposed quotas 

and an increased probability of the red 

snapper rebuilding plan’s success. The 

proposed action, which also specifically 

outlines the future progression of the 

bycatch mortality reduction target if 

overfishing is successfully ended by 

2010 based upon review of status 

reports and other relevant information, 

would be an administrative action with 

no expected direct adverse economic 

effects. 

The second and third alternatives to 

the proposed bycatch reduction target 

would establish lower reduction targets 

than the proposed action. Like the 

proposed action, these alternatives are 

not expected to result in direct adverse 

economic impacts. However, the lower 

targets do not contribute sufficiently to 

increasing the likelihood of the red 

snapper rebuilding plan’s success and 

could be expected to require further 

effort reductions, resulting in more 

severe management measures in the 

long run. The fourth alternative to the 

proposed action would, as the proposed 

action, establish a 74-percent reduction 

in shrimp trawl bycatch mortality on 

red snapper, but would not specify 

changes to the target or the method by 

which the target might be adjusted in 

the future. Similarly, the fifth 

alternative to the proposed action would 

establish a 74-percent reduction in 

shrimp trawl bycatch mortality on red 

snapper, but would also explicitly link 

future adjustments to the bycatch 

reduction target to red snapper stock 

assessment updates. 

Four alternatives, including the status 

quo, were considered for the action to 

potentially establish fishing restrictions 

for the EEZ shrimp fishery in the Gulf 

of Mexico. The first alternative to the 

proposed action, the status quo, would 

not establish potential fishing 

restrictions for the Gulf shrimp fishery. 

The status quo would not result in 

direct or indirect adverse economic 

impacts because potential restrictions 

would not be established for the shrimp 

fishery. However, if status quo effort 

reductions in the fishery are not 

sufficient to achieve target goals, this 

alternative may result in more severe 

future restrictions and potentially 

greater adverse economic impacts than 

the enactment of potential effort 

restrictions at this time. 

The proposed action would, if 

necessary, establish a seasonal closure 

beginning on the same start date as the 

closure of the EEZ off Texas in the 10- 

to 30-fathom (18- to 55-m) zone of 

selected areas within statistical zones 

10–21 in the Gulf of Mexico. This 

measure, which would ensure that 

target reductions in shrimp trawl 

bycatch mortality are met, is consistent 

with the proposed quotas, and would 

contribute to increasing the likelihood 

of the red snapper rebuilding plan’s 

success. The proposed action is 

administrative in nature and thus would 

not be expected to result in any direct 

economic effects. Direct economic 

impacts would only accrue if, in the 

future, it is determined that the 

proposed bycatch reduction target has 

not been met and thus a seasonal 

closure is necessary. The direct 

economic effects of the closure would 

be analyzed at that time, as appropriate. 

The second and third alternatives to 

the proposed action would also 

establish seasonal closures, as 

necessary, in the 10 to 30-fathom (18- to 

55-m) zone of selected areas within 

statistical zones 10–21 in the Gulf of 

Mexico but would consider alternative 

time frames for the closures. As with the 

proposed action, these alternatives are 

administrative in nature and thus would 

not be expected to result in any direct 

economic effects. Direct economic 

impacts would only accrue if, in the 

future, it is determined that the 

proposed bycatch reduction target has 

not been met and thus a seasonal 

closure is necessary. However, 

compared to the long-term benefits 

expected to accrue to the red snapper 

fishery from the proposed action, 

smaller long-term economic benefits to 

the red snapper fishery are expected to 

result from these alternatives. Greater 

positive impacts associated with the 

proposed action are attributable to the 

specified starting date of a potential 

closure, which would coincide with the 

movement of age 1 snapper from shrimp 

grounds to larger structures. 

Two alternatives, including the status 

quo, were considered for the action to 

establish a framework procedure to 

adjust effort in the commercial shrimp 

fishery. The second alternative would 

establish a framework procedure. The 

proposed action, which would allow the 

Regional Administrator to implement 

closures based upon annual shrimp 

effort assessments conducted by the 

Southeast Fisheries Science Center, is 

expected to be the quickest and most 

efficient approach to establishing 

recommended closures. Two other 

options were considered under the 

second alternative. These options would 

establish less expedient means of 

implementing recommended closures. 

Direct adverse economic impacts would 

not be expected to result from the 

alternatives included in this action 

because the establishment of a 

framework procedure to adjust effort in 

the commercial shrimp fishery is an 

administrative action. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 622 

Fisheries, Fishing, Puerto Rico, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Virgin Islands. 

Dated: October 19, 2007. 

William T. Hogarth, 

Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, 

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 § 622.2, the definitions for 

‘‘circle hook,’’ ‘‘dehooking device,’’ and 

‘‘venting device’’ are added in 

alphabetical order to read as follows: 

§ 622.2 Definitions and acronyms. 

* * * * * 

Circle hook means a fishing hook 

designed and manufactured so that the 

point is turned perpendicularly back to 

the shank to form a generally circular, 

or oval, shape. 

* * * * * 

Dehooking device means a device 

intended to remove a hook embedded in 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 23, 2007 / Proposed Rules 59997 

a fish to release the fish with minimum 

damage. 

* * * * * 

Venting device means a device 

intended to deflate the swim bladder of 

a fish to release the fish with minimum 

damage. 

* * * * * 

3. In § 622.31, paragraph (o) is added 

to read as follows: 

§ 622.31 Prohibited gear and methods. 

* * * * * 

(o) Stainless steel hooks in the Gulf 

EEZ. Stainless steel hooks may not be 

used to fish for Gulf reef fish when 

using natural bait in the Gulf EEZ. 

4. In § 622.34, paragraph (l) is added 

and the first sentence of paragraph (m) 

and is revised to read as follows: 

§ 622.34 Gulf EEZ seasonal and/or area 

closures. 

* * * * * 

(l) Closures of the Gulf shrimp fishery 

to reduce red snapper bycatch. During 

a closure implemented in accordance 

with this paragraph (l), trawling is 

prohibited within the specified closed 

area(s). 

(1) Procedure for determining need for 

and extent of closures. Each year, in 

accordance with the applicable 

framework procedure established in the 

FMP for the Shrimp Fishery in the Gulf 

of Mexico (FMP), the RA will, if 

necessary, establish a seasonal area 

closure for the shrimp fishery in all or 

a portion of the areas of the Gulf EEZ 

specified in paragraphs (l)(2) through 

(l)(4) of this section. The RA’s 

determination of the need for such 

closure and its geographical scope and 

duration will be based on an annual 

assessment, by the Southeast Fisheries 

Science Center, of the shrimp effort and 

associated shrimp trawl bycatch 

mortality on red snapper in the 10–30 

fathom area of statistical zones 10–21, 

compared to the 74-percent target 

reduction of shrimp trawl bycatch 

mortality on red snapper from the 

benchmark years of 2001–2003 

established in the FMP. The framework 

procedure provides for adjustment of 

this target reduction level, consistent 

with the red snapper stock rebuilding 

plan and the findings of subsequent 

stock assessments, via appropriate 

rulemaking. The assessment will be 

based on shrimp effort data for the most 

recent 12-month period available and 

will include a recommendation 

regarding the geographical scope and 

duration of the closure. The Southeast 

Fisheries Science Center’s assessment 

will be provided to the RA on or about 

March 1 of each year. If the RA 

determines that a closure is necessary, 

the closure falls within the scope of the 

potential closures evaluated in the FMP, 

and good cause exists to waive notice 

and comment, NMFS will implement 

the closure by publication of a final rule 

in the Federal Register. If such good 

cause waiver is not justified, NMFS will 

implement the closure via appropriate 

notice and comment rulemaking. NMFS 

intends that any closure implemented 

consistent with this paragraph (l) will 

begin on the same date and time as the 

Texas closure. 

(2) Eastern zone. The eastern zone is 

bounded by rhumb lines connecting, in 

order, the following points: 

Point North lat. West long. 

A ............... 29°14′ .................. 88°57′ 

B ............... 29°24′ .................. 88°34′ 

C ............... 29°34′ .................. 87°38′ 

D ............... 30°04′ .................. 87°00′ 

E ............... 30°04′ .................. 88°41′ 

F ............... 29°36′ .................. 88°37′ 

G ............... 29°21′ .................. 88°59′ 

A ............... 29°14′ .................. 88°57′ 

(3) Louisiana zone. The Louisiana 

zone is bounded by rhumb lines 

connecting, in order, the following 

points: 

Point North lat. West long. 

A ............... 29°09.1′ ............... 93°41.4′ 

B ............... 29°09.25′ ............. 92°36′ 

C ............... 28°35′ .................. 90°44′ 

D ............... 29°09′ .................. 89°48′ 

E ............... 28°57′ .................. 89°34′ 

F ............... 28°40′ .................. 90°09′ 

G ............... 28°18′ .................. 90°33′ 

H ............... 28°25′ .................. 91°37′ 

I ................ 28°21.7′ ............... 93°28.4′ 

A ............... 29°09.1′ ............... 93°41.4′ 

(4) Texas zone. The Texas zone is 

bounded by rhumb lines connecting, in 

order, the following points: 

Point North lat. West long. 

A ............... 29°09.1′ ............... 93°41.4′ 

B ............... 28°44′ .................. 95°15′ 

C ............... 28°11′ .................. 96°17′ 

D ............... 27°44′ .................. 96°53′ 

E ............... 27°02′ .................. 97°11′ 

F ............... 26°00.5′ ............... 96°57.3′ 

G ............... 26°00.5′ ............... 96°35.85′ 

H ............... 26°24′ .................. 96°36′ 

I ................ 26°49′ .................. 96°52′ 

J ................ 27°12′ .................. 96°51′ 

K ............... 27°39′ .................. 96°33′ 

L ............... 27°55′ .................. 96°04′ 

M .............. 28°21.7′ ............... 93°28.4′ 

A ............... 29°09.1′ ............... 93°41.4′ 

(m) * * * The recreational fishery for 

red snapper in or from the Gulf EEZ is 

closed from January 1 through May 31 

and from October 1 through December 

31, each year. * * * 

* * * * * 

5. In § 622.37, paragraph (d)(1)(iv) is 

revised to read as follows: 

§ 622.37 Size limits. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(iv) Red snapper—16 inches (40.6 

cm), TL, for a fish taken by a person 

subject to the bag limit specified in 

§ 622.39 (b)(1)(iii) and 13 inches (38.1 

cm), TL, for a fish taken by a person not 

subject to the bag limit. 

* * * * * 

6. In § 622.39, paragraph (b)(1)(iii) is 

revised to read as follows: 

§ 622.39 Bag and possession limits. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(iii) Red snapper—2. However, no red 

snapper may be retained by the captain 

or crew of a vessel operating as a charter 

vessel or headboat. The bag limit for 

such captain and crew is zero. 

* * * * * 

7. In § 622.41, paragraph (m) is added 

to read as follows: 

§ 622.41 Species specific limitations. 

* * * * * 

(m) Required gear in the Gulf reef fish 

fishery. For a person on board a vessel 

to fish for Gulf reef fish in the Gulf EEZ, 

the vessel must possess on board and 

such person must use the gear as 

specified in paragraphs (m)(1) through 

(m)(3) of this section. 

(1) Non-stainless steel circle hooks. 

Non-stainless steel circle hooks are 

required when fishing with natural 

baits. 

(2) Dehooking device. At least one 

dehooking device is required and must 

be used to remove hooks embedded in 

Gulf reef fish with minimum damage. 

The hook removal device must be 

constructed to allow the hook to be 

secured and the barb shielded without 

re-engaging during the removal process. 

The dehooking end must be blunt, and 

all edges rounded. The device must be 

of a size appropriate to secure the range 

of hook sizes and styles used in the Gulf 

reef fish fishery. 

(3) Venting tool. At least one venting 

tool is required and must be used to 

deflate the swimbladders of Gulf reef 

fish to release the fish with minimum 

damage. This tool must be a sharpened, 

hollow instrument, such as a 

hypodermic syringe with the plunger 

removed, or a 16-gauge needle fixed to 

a hollow wooden dowel. A tool such as 

a knife or an ice-pick may not be used. 

The venting tool must be inserted into 

the fish at a 45-degree angle 

approximately 1 to 2 inches (2.54 to 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
59998 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 23, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

5.08 cm) from the base of the pectoral 

fin. The tool must be inserted just deep 

enough to release the gases, so that the 

fish may be released with minimum 

damage. 

8. In § 622.42, paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and 

(a)(2) are revised to read as follows: 

§ 622.42 Quotas. 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(i) Red snapper—2.55 million lb (1.16 

million kg), round weight. 

* * * * * 

(2) Recreational quota for red 

snapper. The following quota applies to 

persons who harvest red snapper other 

than under commercial vessel permits 

for Gulf reef fish and the commercial 

quota specified in paragraph (a)(1)(i) of 

this section—2.45 million lb (1.11 

million kg), round weight. 

* * * * * 

9. In § 622.48, paragraph (i) is revised 

to read as follows: 

§ 622.48 Adjustment of management 

measures. 

* * * * * 

(i) Gulf shrimp. Closed seasons and 

areas, target effort and fishing mortality 

reduction levels, bycatch reduction 

criteria, BRD certification and 

decertification criteria, BRD testing 

protocol, certified BRDs, and BRD 

specification. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 07–5245 Filed 10–19–07; 12:54 pm] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS