Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Comprehensive Amendment to the Fishery Management Plans of the U.S. Caribbean, 62073-62084 [05-21559]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 208 (Friday, October 28, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 62073-62084]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-21559]


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

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 Magnuson-Stevens 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;

[[Page 62074]]

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 13\th\ 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

[[Page 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 socio-economic 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

[[Page 62076]]

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 two-panel 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

[[Page 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 (EFH-HAPCs) 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 Magnuson-
Stevens 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 Magnuson-Stevens 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

[[Page 62078]]

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 year-round 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

[[Page 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 nm\2\ 
(1.5 km\2\) 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 nm\2\ (1.5 km\2\) 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

[[Page 62080]]

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 nm\2\ (1.5 km\2\) 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.

0
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR parts 600 and 622 are 
amended as follows:

PART 600--MAGNUSON-STEVENS ACT PROVISIONS

0
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.


Sec.  600.725  [Amended]

0
2. In Sec.  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

0
3. The authority citation for part 622 continues to read as follows:

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

0
4. In Sec.  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:


Sec.  622.2  Definitions and acronyms.

* * * * *
    Caribbean queen conch or queen conch means the species, Strombus 
gigus, or a part thereof.
* * * * *

0
5. In Sec.  622.6, paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(A) is revised to read as 
follows:


Sec.  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.
* * * * *

0
6. In Sec.  622.31, paragraph (l) is added to read as follows:


Sec.  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

[[Page 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.

0
7. In Sec.  622.32, paragraph (b)(1)(ii) is revised, and paragraph 
(b)(1)(iv) is added to read as follows:


Sec.  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[deg]34' W. longitude 
which includes Lang Bank east of St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands.
* * * * *

0
8. In Sec.  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:


Sec.  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[deg]11.898'                64[deg]56.328'
------------------------------------------------------------------------
B             18[deg]11.645'                64[deg]56.225'
------------------------------------------------------------------------
C             18[deg]11.058'                64[deg]57.810'
------------------------------------------------------------------------
D             18[deg]11.311'                64[deg]57.913'
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A             18[deg]11.898'                64[deg]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[deg]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.
* * * * *

0
9. In Sec.  622.38, paragraphs (a), (d), and (f) are revised to read as 
follows:


Sec.  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.
* * * * *

0
10. In Sec.  622.40, paragraph (b)(1)(i) is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  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

[[Page 62082]]

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.
* * * * *

0
11. In Sec.  622.41, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  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.
* * * * *

0
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
 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