Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Shrimp Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Amendment 13, 56039-56047 [06-8257]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 186 (Tuesday, September 26, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 56039-56047]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-8257]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 622

[Docket No. 051128312-6192-02; I.D. 111605A]
RIN 0648-AS15


Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; 
Shrimp Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Amendment 13

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: NMFS issues this final rule to implement Amendment 13 to the 
Fishery Management Plan for the Shrimp Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico 
(Amendment 13), as prepared and submitted by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery 
Management Council (Council). This final rule establishes a 10-year 
moratorium on issuance of Federal Gulf shrimp vessel permits; requires 
owners of vessels fishing for or possessing royal red shrimp from the 
Gulf of Mexico exclusive economic zone (EEZ) to have a royal red shrimp 
endorsement; requires owners or operators of all federally permitted 
Gulf shrimp vessels to report information on landings and vessel and 
gear characteristics; and requires vessels selected by NMFS to carry 
observers and/or install an electronic logbook provided by NMFS. In 
addition, Amendment 13 establishes biological reference points for 
penaeid shrimp and status determination criteria for royal red shrimp. 
The intended effects of this final rule are to provide essential 
fisheries data, including bycatch data, needed to improve management of 
the fishery and to control access to the fishery. Finally, NMFS informs 
the public of the approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this final 
rule and publishes the OMB control numbers for those collections.

DATES: This final rule is effective October 26, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) 
may be obtained from 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.
    Comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of 
the collection-of-information requirements contained in this proposed 
rule may be submitted in writing to Jason Rueter at the Southeast 
Regional Office address (above) and to David Rostker, Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB), by e-mail at David--Rostker@omb.eop.gov, 
or by fax to 202-395-7285.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Branstetter, telephone: 727-551-
5796; fax: 727-824-5308; e-mail: Steve.Branstetter@noaa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The shrimp fishery in the Gulf of Mexico is 
managed under the FMP. The FMP was prepared by the Council and is 
implemented under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 
Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations 
at 50 CFR part 622.
    On November 23, 2005, NMFS published a notice of availability of

[[Page 56040]]

Amendment 13 and requested public comment (70 FR 70780). On April 5, 
2006, NMFS published the proposed rule to implement Amendment 13 and 
requested public comment on the proposed rule (71 FR 17062). NMFS 
approved Amendment 13 on February 21, 2006. The rationale for the 
measures in Amendment 13 is provided in the amendment and in the 
preamble to the proposed rule and is not repeated here.

Comments and Responses

    Following is a summary of the comments NMFS received on Amendment 
13 and the proposed rule and the respective NMFS' responses.
    Comment 1: Penaeid shrimp stocks are not overfished or undergoing 
overfishing, thus, there is no biological reason for a moratorium on 
the issuance of new vessel permits in the Gulf penaeid shrimp fishery. 
The only rationale for such action is based on economics, in violation 
of national standard 5.
    Response: NMFS disagrees there is no biological reason to establish 
a moratorium in the Gulf shrimp fishery. Although shrimp stocks are not 
overfished or undergoing overfishing, shrimp effort directly impacts 
bycatch species, such as the overfished red snapper stock. The intent 
of the moratorium is to cap the fishery at its recent level of 
participants and reduce the possibility of future entry into the 
fishery should the currently poor economic situation change. Capping 
participation in the fishery reduces the potential for future increases 
in red snapper bycatch and improves the probability of rebuilding this 
overfished stock.
    Comment 2: The Council violated the National Environmental Policy 
Act and the Administrative Procedures Act by taking final action on an 
incomplete document. As requested by the Council, NMFS presented new 
information to the Council as a hand-out at the meeting. The Council 
members had little time to review the new information before taking 
final action on the amendment. The completed analyses were not 
incorporated into the document when the Council voted to submit the 
amendment to the Secretary of Commerce.
    Response: At its March 2005 meeting, the Council added new 
alternatives to the document to consider a more recent control date for 
the fishery. One possible date was May 2, 2005. Analyses of the impacts 
of this potential control date could not be entirely completed prior to 
the Council's review of the document during its May 11-12, 2005, 
meeting. NMFS' preliminary results presented to the Council at the May 
2005 meeting did provide comparative information among the various 
alternatives, and the results did not change with subsequent post-
meeting completion of the analytical report. Therefore, the information 
before the Council at its May 2005 meeting was accurate, and provided 
the Council with a sound basis for making an informed decision. The 
verbatim minutes of the May 2005 Council meeting illustrate the 
extensive and informed discussions among Council members regarding the 
comparative impacts and benefits attributable to the various control 
date alternatives.
    Comment 3: The Council considered more current control date 
alternatives based on public input at the March 2005 meeting from Asian 
American shrimp fishermen who were not aware permits had been required 
since December 5, 2002. By adding the new alternatives for a control 
date, including the May 2, 2005, date, the Council led the public to 
believe a change to a May 2, 2005, control date was likely. In previous 
actions to establish permit moratoria in the reef fish fishery, the 
Council revised control dates to more current dates to better ensure 
inclusion of active participants. Had the Council chosen the May 2, 
2005, control date, an additional 285 vessels would have qualified for 
a moratorium permit. Maintaining the December 6, 2003, control date 
specifically affects small isolated fishing communities in violation of 
national standard 8.
    Response: Between December 5, 2002, and May 2, 2005, 2,951 vessels 
had been issued Federal shrimp permits. Of those, 285 would not meet 
the December 6, 2003, control date; therefore, the number of permitted 
vessels under the moratorium would be 2,666. Of the 285 ineligible 
vessels, NMFS determined 126 were not active in the fishery during 2002 
(the last year of data available during the time the Council 
deliberated on this issue), and may no longer be in the fishery. In 
addition, 87 of the remaining 159 active vessels only operated in state 
waters. Therefore, NMFS estimated 72 vessels active in the EEZ fishery 
would be excluded under the moratorium. Of these vessels, 45 are large 
and 27 are small, and NMFS estimated most of the impacts would be 
imposed on the 45 large vessels; the small vessels were more likely to 
continue fishing in state waters. Nevertheless, vessels can continue to 
fish in the EEZ by obtaining a moratorium permit through transfer. 
Given the number of inactive permits identified in the analysis, NMFS 
believes many latent permits currently exist. Although at the present 
time it is not possible to assess the impacts of the very active 2005 
hurricane season on the shrimp fleet, many vessels were damaged or 
stranded on land. These vessels may or may not become active in the 
fishery again. It is unknown how many were already inactive. 
Nevertheless, under the moratorium, owners of vessels permitted prior 
to the December 6, 2003, control date will be eligible for a moratorium 
permit. Therefore, there is expected to be a surplus of moratorium 
permits available for those owners of vessels who did not qualify but 
wish to continue participating in the fishery. Thus, NMFS disagrees 
that the moratorium is in violation of national standard 8. The 
moratorium is intended to reduce speculation in the fishery, cap 
capacity, and provide for the sustained participation of dependent 
fishing communities. With the availability of moratorium permits 
through transfer from inactive vessels, the moratorium should not 
prohibit continued participation by those wishing to do so.
    Comment 4: There has been a decline in the number of participating 
shrimp vessels for the past 3 years due to economic conditions in the 
fishery. NMFS estimates this trend is expected to continue through 
2012. Many permitted vessels are not currently active in the fishery 
because they cannot do so profitably. Consequently, there is no 
justification for a moratorium in the foreseeable future.
    Response: Although the number of vessels has declined, until the 
last 2 or 3 years, effort had remained high because of increased 
efficiency of the vessels in the fishery, including new and larger 
vessels that have replaced older smaller vessels. Even so, based on the 
number of permits issued in the fishery, NMFS estimates there is still 
excess capacity in the fishery, and fewer vessels could harvest the 
available crop in a more profitable manner. As noted in the previous 
responses, the intent of the moratorium is to cap the current 
participation and to prevent future expansion of the fishery should 
economic conditions improve.
    Comment 5: There was insufficient notice to the industry in regard 
to the permit requirement, the subsequent control date, and the 
establishment of a moratorium.
    Response: Until the shrimp vessel permit system was implemented, 
NMFS did not have a specific mechanism to contact shrimp vessel owners 
who fished in the EEZ. However, NMFS made numerous efforts to 
communicate information regarding the shrimp vessel permit requirements 
to the industry. In

[[Page 56041]]

late 2002, NMFS distributed Gulf shrimp vessel permit applications to 
various fishermen's associations and unions, including Asian-American 
groups, throughout the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic. Outreach 
efforts continued through 2003 to these various communities regarding 
permit requirements. NMFS additionally notified the public of the final 
rule establishing a requirement for a shrimp vessel permit by 
publishing the final rule in the Federal Register and distributing news 
bulletins of this new requirement throughout the southeast region. A 
news bulletin was mailed in August 2002 to all existing commercial 
permit holders, all state agencies, enforcement groups, other Federal 
agencies, Sea Grant, the Gulf and Atlantic state commissions, non-
governmental organizations, and the media. Another news bulletin was 
issued in September 2002 announcing the December 5, 2002, effective 
date of the permit requirement. This bulletin was distributed to all 
Federal, state and local government groups within NMFS' mail lists, 
commercial fishing associations, fishing clubs, recreational fishing 
associations, marinas, fishing centers, and tackle manufacturers. NMFS 
additionally acquired a list of all Gulf states shrimp license holders 
from the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission, and mailed a bulletin 
announcing the shrimp vessel permit requirement to each person within 
that database. In addition to NMFS' efforts during the fall of 2002, 
the Council distributed a news bulletin to its constituent mail list as 
well.
    When the Council voted to establish the December 6, 2003, control 
date, NMFS notified the public of this action by publishing a notice in 
the Federal Register in April 2003, and distributed a news bulletin to 
Federal, state, and local government agencies; commercial, 
recreational, and non-government organizations and individuals; the 
media; and to the existing Federal shrimp vessel permit holders. In 
August 2003, NMFS issued another news bulletin to the public as a 
reminder to obtain a commercial shrimp vessel permit before the control 
date. This bulletin was distributed to the following constituent lists: 
all governments; commercial, recreational, and non-governmental 
organizations and individuals; rock shrimp permit vessel owners and 
dealers; and all Gulf shrimp permit vessel owners. The Council 
distributed a news bulletin to its constituent mail list as well.
    The Council added alternatives to establish the shrimp vessel 
permit moratorium to Amendment 13 at its May 2004 meeting. This action 
was announced in its June 2004 news bulletin. Public hearings were held 
on Amendment 13 throughout the Gulf of Mexico in February 2005. The 
dates and locations of these public hearings were published in the 
Federal Register as well as in the Council's news bulletin. The Council 
heard public testimony at its March 2005 meeting.
    When the Council voted at its March 2005 meeting to add an 
alternative to Amendment 13 to consider a new 2005 control date, NMFS 
again sent a news bulletin to the public reminding them of the permit 
requirement. In addition to the normal distribution, including all 
shrimp vessel permit holders, this bulletin was sent to a specially 
created list of more than 600 known shrimp dealers in the Gulf of 
Mexico.
    Comment 6: If a qualified vessel owned by a corporation is sold, 
and the corporation is then dissolved, but the officers or 
individual(s) behind that corporation bought a new vessel and form a 
new corporation, is the new corporation eligible for a moratorium 
permit?
    Response: Under the moratorium, a person who lost ownership or use 
of a qualified vessel after the control date, but who obtained and 
permitted a replacement vessel prior to the publication of this final 
rule would be eligible for a moratorium permit if they can successfully 
demonstrate continuity of ownership. NMFS' permit records are the sole 
basis for determining eligibility based on permit history.
    Comment 7: A person who owns a qualified vessel and is issued a 
moratorium permit will be limited in his/her ability to sell that 
vessel and upgrade to a newer vessel. Shrimp vessels are rather 
specialized, with limited other uses. The owner would need to retain 
the moratorium permit for any new vessel he/she wishes to purchase. 
Without transferring the shrimp vessel permit with the sale of the 
original vessel, the value of the original vessel will be less on the 
open market, if a potential buyer wants to use the vessel in the Gulf 
of Mexico shrimp fishery. This lower value would restrict the funds 
available to the owner to purchase or make a down payment on a newer, 
or larger, or more well-equipped vessel. This could lead to an 
obsolescence of the fleet.
    Response: As noted in the response to Comment 3, NMFS 
believes there will be a surplus of moratorium permits available for 
transfer. An owner in such a situation as proposed by the comment has 
the opportunity to acquire an additional moratorium permit which will 
allow both his original and replacement vessel to be permitted to 
continue operations in the shrimp fishery. In addition, anecdotal 
evidence indicates many of the vessels being sold, where a different 
vessel is being purchased as a replacement, are being sold to interests 
outside the Gulf of Mexico shrimp fishery.
    Comment 8: There needs to be a mechanism to allow new entrants into 
the fishery if the number of moratorium permits issued is not 
sufficient to allow the fishery to harvest at maximum sustainable 
yield.
    Response: Should only a limited number of moratorium permits be 
issued, the Council could remove the moratorium in a future amendment 
to the FMP. However, NMFS estimates that 2,666 shrimp vessels qualify 
for a moratorium permit, and this number may represent a fleet size 
that is still larger than the number of vessels required to harvest the 
available annual production of shrimp in the Gulf of Mexico. NMFS and 
the Council recognized that numerous vessels are not currently active 
in the fishery due to economic conditions, and several of these vessels 
may have left the fishery. In addition, a portion of the shrimp fleet 
was damaged and perhaps lost during the hurricanes of 2005. However, 
the inactive vessels would still qualify for a moratorium permit, and 
these permits could be transferred to a new vessel and owner should 
someone wish to enter the fishery.

Royal Red Shrimp Permit Endorsement

    Comment 9: There is an insignificant number of vessels harvesting 
royal red shrimp in the Gulf of Mexico. There is no need to impose an 
additional cost on these vessels by requiring an endorsement to the 
commercial shrimp vessel permit to harvest royal red shrimp.
    Response: NMFS recognizes there are only 10-20 vessels 
participating in this fishery. However, there is limited information in 
regard to the catch, effort, and costs associated with this specialized 
fishery. The requirement for a royal red shrimp endorsement to the 
shrimp vessel permit will specifically identify the universe of active 
or potential royal red shrimp fishermen and vessels, facilitating data 
collection efforts applicable to this fishery.

Reporting Requirements

    Comment 10: The requirement to place electronic logbooks (ELBs) on 
a sample of shrimp vessels will be too big a burden on the industry and 
small business owners, in general. There are concerns about the 
reliability of the equipment under shrimping conditions,

[[Page 56042]]

and hired captains may not be able to maintain the logbooks in a manner 
to provide accurate data on bycatch. Observers would be less of a 
burden for small businesses and would provide unbiased data.
    Response: ELBs are used as a measure of effort, not bycatch. 
Observers will be placed on a second random sample of shrimp vessels to 
document both effort and bycatch. There is no burden to the industry, 
or to the vessel crew, in having an ELB onboard. The ELB is designed to 
use Global Positioning System (GPS) information to automatically track 
the speed of the vessel. A pilot program using ELBs started in 1999, 
with increasing coverage each year. The reliability of the units, and 
the data product retrieved has provided substantial new information 
regarding the effort of the offshore shrimp fishery. The basis of the 
ELB program is to monitor vessel activity/movement via the GPS. 
Subsequent analyses of the data assume three things: (1) if the vessel 
is not moving, it is not fishing; (2) if the vessel is moving slowly, 
it is trawling; and (3) if the vessel is moving at a high rate of 
speed, it is in transit. There is no burden or involvement by the 
vessel crew in maintaining the electronic logbook onboard. The unit 
would be installed by an industry partner working cooperatively with 
NMFS, and at the end of a trip or other time frame, would be removed by 
the industry partner. The cost of the electronic logbooks is to be 
borne by NMFS, thus there is no economic cost to the industry or small 
business owner.
    Comment 11: The various data reporting requirements (ELBs, 
observers, gear characterization, landings) should be voluntary, and 
not a condition for renewal of a vessel permit.
    Response: The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires the Council to 
establish a standardized bycatch reporting methodology. To ensure 
standardization, any such methodology must incorporate a random 
sampling procedure that will accurately capture the various components 
of the fishery. Depending on the type of information needed (i.e., 
biological, economic, or social), a particular analysis may need to be 
stratified in a specific manner. For example, a study could be based on 
gear types, areas fished, geographic location of the participants, or 
size of the vessels. The existing voluntary observer program in the 
Gulf shrimp fishery illustrates the potential for non-representative 
data. Although this program has produced a large robust data base, it 
repeatedly used a small sample of vessels, primarily with home ports 
located in only two of the five Gulf states. These vessels may not 
represent a random sample of the fleet. Therefore, to ensure the 
ability to create a random sample of the existing population of shrimp 
fishermen and shrimp vessels, detailed information is needed for the 
entire universe of participants. Providing the reporting forms as part 
of the permit application provides an efficient mechanism to distribute 
the reporting forms to the fishermen and for them to return the forms 
when they submit their application to renew their federal vessel 
permit.

Classification

    The Administrator, Southeast Region, NMFS, determined that 
Amendment 13 is necessary for the conservation and management of the 
Gulf shrimp fishery and 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 an FRFA for this action. The FRFA 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 analyses follows.
    This final rule will: (1) require participants in the royal red 
shrimp fishery to obtain a royal red shrimp endorsement to the existing 
commercial shrimp vessel permit; (2) define biological reference points 
and status determination criteria definitions for the royal red and 
penaeid shrimp stocks; (3) establish a standardized bycatch reporting 
methodology by requiring a sample of permitted vessels to carry 
electronic logbooks (ELBs) and/or observers upon request; (4) require 
all permitted vessels to submit a vessel and gear characterization form 
on an annual basis; (5) establish a moratorium on the issuance of new 
Federal Gulf shrimp vessel permits based on the December 6, 2003 
control date; and (6) require all permitted vessels to report and 
certify their landings.
    The purpose of the final rule is to establish status determination 
criteria for penaeid (brown, white, and pink) and royal red shrimp 
stocks; enhance the collection of information; improve estimates of 
effort and bycatch in the fishery; and promote economic stability by 
reducing permit speculation and increasing vessel owners' flexibility 
to enter and exit the Gulf shrimp fishery.
    Eleven comments were made by the public in response to the proposed 
rule. No changes were made in the final rule as a result of these 
comments. Of the eleven comments, four raised issues regarding the 
economic impacts of the proposed actions. First, one comment indicated 
that the requirement to place ELBs on a sample of shrimp vessels will 
place an excessive burden on the industry and small business owners. 
Since the cost of the ELBs is to be borne by NMFS, there is no direct 
economic cost to the industry or small business owners. The only burden 
to the industry from this requirement is the time necessary to 
coordinate the installation and removal of the unit by the agency or 
its contractor. Second, one comment indicated that, since there is an 
insignificant number of vessels harvesting royal red shrimp in the Gulf 
of Mexico, there is no need to impose an additional cost on these 
vessels by requiring an endorsement to the commercial shrimp vessel 
permit in order to harvest royal red shrimp. The endorsement is 
necessary to identify the universe of active or potential royal red 
shrimp fishermen and vessels, and the additional cost of $20 to obtain 
the endorsement is not expected to significantly reduce profit for 
these vessels.
    Finally, two comments raised concerns with the economic impacts of 
the permit moratorium. The first comment stated that these impacts 
would specifically affect small isolated fishing communities. NMFS 
identified approximately 72 active vessels in the Gulf shrimp EEZ 
fishery that will not qualify for moratorium permits and acknowledges 
that certain small, isolated fishing communities could be impacted by 
the permit moratorium, particularly if these non-qualifying vessels are 
forced to cease operations in the EEZ. However, it is estimated that 27 
of these vessels are small and could shift activity from the EEZ into 
state waters, thereby avoiding any impacts to the communities that 
serve these particular vessels. Furthermore, NMFS estimates that, of 
the qualifying 2,666 vessels, 438 were not active in the Gulf shrimp 
fishery in 2002. The moratorium permits issued to these inactive, 
qualifying vessels should be available for purchase by non-qualifying 
vessel owners. The expected purchase price was estimated to be 
approximately $5,000. However, due to the impacts of hurricanes Rita 
and Katrina, the number of qualifying inactive vessels is expected to 
be even higher, thereby increasing the number of moratorium permits 
available for purchase by non-qualifying vessels, which would in turn 
reduce the expected purchase price and

[[Page 56043]]

further reduce any impacts on small, isolated communities.
    The second comment asserted that the moratorium would reduce the 
value of a qualifying vessel, since a portion of the value would shift 
to the permit, which would reduce the financial capital available to 
the owner of the qualifying vessel who wished to sell their original 
vessel to acquire a newer, larger, or more well-equipped vessel. NMFS 
agrees that the comment is accurate if the buyer intends to use the 
vessel in the Federal Gulf shrimp fishery and does not already possess 
a moratorium permit to place on the vessel. The seller does not have to 
transfer the permit with the vessel; therefore, the buyer would have to 
purchase a moratorium permit from another seller. However, if the buyer 
of the vessel does not intend to use it in the Federal Gulf shrimp 
fishery, the seller could retain the permit and place it on their new 
vessel, and the sales price of the original vessel would be reflective 
of its value in the fishery where it is expected to be used. 
Considerable anecdotal information suggests that many repossessed Gulf 
shrimp vessels are being bought for use in other non-shrimp fisheries 
in the U.S. and abroad.
    No duplicative, overlapping or conflicting Federal rules have been 
identified.
    It is estimated that 2,951 small entities will be affected by the 
final rule. This estimate represents the number of vessels that 
obtained a Gulf shrimp permit with an effective date on or before May 
2, 2005. Certain actions would apply to all permitted vessels, while 
others would only apply to a subset of those permitted vessels. The 
actions specific to the royal red shrimp fishery would affect 15 small 
entities at most, though all but one of these entities is included in 
the larger group of 2,951.
    The average annual gross revenue per permitted vessel is estimated 
to be $100,477, with a range of $0 to $473,564. This wide range 
illustrates a high degree of heterogeneity between permitted vessels 
with respect to their gross revenues. Further, gross revenue earned 
from the various fisheries these entities operate in differs 
considerably between vessels. On average, permitted vessels rely on the 
Gulf food shrimp fishery for nearly 79 percent of their gross revenues. 
Therefore, most permitted vessels have a relatively high degree of 
dependency on the Gulf food shrimp fishery. However, some permitted 
vessels are inactive or ``latent'' and appear to have no reliance on 
the Gulf food shrimp fishery. ``Small'' vessels (vessels less than 60 
ft (18.3 m) in length) generate lower gross revenues on average 
($30,568) relative to ``large'' vessels (vessels of 60 ft (18.3 m) or 
more in length) ($132,890). The range of gross revenues for large 
vessels is $0 and $473,564 while that of small vessels is $0 and 
$246,391. All royal red shrimp vessels fall into the ``large'' vessel 
category.
    The fleet of permitted vessels is much more homogeneous with 
respect to its physical characteristics, though some differences do 
exist. On average, small vessels are smaller in regards to almost all 
of their physical attributes (e.g., they use smaller crews, fewer and 
smaller nets, have less engine horsepower and fuel capacity, etc.). 
Small vessels are also older on average. Large vessels also tend to be 
steel-hulled. Conversely, fiberglass hulls are most prominent among 
small vessels, though steel and wood hulls are also common. Nearly two-
thirds of the large vessels have freezing capabilities while few small 
vessels have such equipment. Small vessels rely on ice for 
refrigeration and storage, though more than one-third of large vessels 
also rely on ice. Some vessels are so small that they rely on live 
wells for storage.
    An important difference between large and small vessels is with 
respect to their dependency on the food shrimp fishery. The percentage 
of gross revenues from food shrimp landings is nearly 87 percent for 
large vessels, but only slightly more than 61 percent for small 
vessels. Thus, on average, large vessels are more dependent than their 
smaller counterparts on the food shrimp fishery. However, dependency on 
food shrimp is much more variable within the small vessel sector than 
the large vessel sector. That is, many small vessels are quite 
dependent on food shrimp landings, while others show little if any 
dependency.
    When examining the distribution of gross revenues across vessels, 
of the 2,951 permitted vessels, 554 vessels did not have any verifiable 
Gulf food shrimp landings in 2002. Large and small vessels comprised 
approximately 75 percent and 25 percent of the active group, 
respectively. Small vessels represented a majority (53 percent) of the 
inactive group. If inactive or ``latent'' vessels are removed from 
consideration, for the permitted group as a whole, dependency on Gulf 
shrimp revenues increases to more than 97 percent. For large vessels, 
dependency on Gulf shrimp revenues increased to nearly 98 percent. 
Consistent with the statistics above, when the inactive vessels are 
removed from consideration, the change in dependency on Gulf shrimp 
revenues is most dramatic for the small vessels, with nearly 94 percent 
of their gross revenues coming from Gulf shrimp landings.
    According to the most recent projections, on average, both small 
and large vessels are experiencing significant economic losses, ranging 
from a -27 percent rate of return in the small vessel sector to a -36 
percent rate of return in the large vessel sector, or -33 percent on 
average for the fishery as a whole. Therefore, almost any but the most 
minor additional financial burden would be expected to generate a 
significant adverse impact on directly affected vessels and potentially 
hasten additional exit from the fishery.
    The Small Business Administration defines a small business that 
engages in commercial fishing as a firm that is independently owned and 
operated, is not dominant in its field of operation, and has annual 
receipts up to $3.5 million per year. There are insufficient data 
regarding potential ownership affiliation between vessels to identify 
whether an individual entity controlled sufficient numbers of vessels 
to achieve large entity status. Therefore, it is assumed that each 
vessel represents a separate business entity and, based on the revenue 
profiles provided above, all entities in the Gulf of Mexico shrimp 
fishery are assumed to be small entities. Since all permitted vessels 
would be directly affected by one or more of the actions in this final 
rule and all vessels are considered to be small entities, the final 
rule will affect a substantial number of small entities. However, as 
explained below, the vast majority of these vessels will not be 
impacted under the most significant actions.
    The determination of significant economic impact can be ascertained 
by examining two issues: disproportionality and profitability. The 
disproportionality question is: will the regulations place a 
substantial number of small entities at a significant competitive 
disadvantage to large entities? Even though there is considerable 
diversity among the permitted vessels with respect to physical and 
operational characteristics, all entities are considered to be small 
entities and so disproportionality of impacts between large and small 
entities is not an issue.
    The profitability question is: will the regulations significantly 
reduce profit for a substantial number of small entities? According to 
the most recent projections, on average, both small and large vessels 
are experiencing significant economic losses, ranging anywhere from a -
27 percent rate of return in the small vessel sector to a -36 percent 
rate of return in the large vessel

[[Page 56044]]

sector, or -33 percent on average for the fishery as a whole. 
Therefore, almost any but the most minor additional financial burden 
would be expected to significantly reduce profit since profits are 
negative, on average, throughout the fishery.
    The royal red shrimp endorsement requirement would result in an 
additional cost of $20 to the vessels operating in this fishery. This 
is a minimal cost and would not significantly reduce profit for the 
vessels operating in this fishery.
    The actions which define biological reference points and establish 
status determination criteria definitions for the royal red and penaeid 
shrimp stocks, require a sample of permitted vessels to carry ELBs and/
or observers upon request, require all permitted vessels to submit a 
vessel and gear characterization form on an annual basis, and require 
all permitted vessels to report and certify their landings would not 
affect vessel profitability since they impose no direct financial 
costs. NMFS expects to cover all direct financial costs associated with 
the ELB and observer programs.
    However, it should be noted that the reporting requirements will 
likely impose a minimal opportunity cost by imposing time burdens. 
Specifically, the requirement for all permitted vessel owners to submit 
a vessel and gear characterization form will generate a time burden of 
approximately 30 minutes per permitted vessel. According to the Bureau 
of Labor Statistics, the average wage of first line supervisors/
managers in the fishing, forestry, and farming industries was $18.14 
per hour as of May 2003, which is the most currently available 
information. Therefore, the form would create an annual opportunity 
cost of approximately $9 per vessel. Additionally, all permitted 
vessels will be required to submit their landings information to NMFS. 
This information could be included on either the vessel and gear 
characterization form or the existing permit application form without 
any significant increase in the estimated time burdens associated with 
either form.
    The single action that could impose significant costs and thereby 
significantly reduce the profitability of the affected small entities 
is the permit moratorium. The final rule limits participation to those 
vessels meeting the December 6, 2003 control date. Of the 2,951 
permitted vessels, 285 vessels did not obtain their permits by the 
control date and, therefore, will not be issued a moratorium permit. 
However, according to the best available data, of those 285 vessels, 
126 were not active in the Gulf shrimp fishery (EEZ or state waters) 
and an additional 87 vessels were determined to operate exclusively in 
state waters. It is therefore concluded that these 213 vessels will not 
experience direct and adverse financial impacts as a result of losing 
their permits. The remaining 72 vessels, of which 45 are large and 27 
are small, were active in the EEZ and therefore would experience direct 
and adverse financial impacts.
    Assuming these 72 vessels would only lose their shrimp landings and 
gross revenues from the EEZ (i.e. they continue their shrimping 
operations in state waters), they would face revenue losses ranging 
between 0.8 percent and 100 percent of their gross revenues, with an 
average loss of 49.3 percent per vessel. The large vessels will face a 
larger revenue loss on average (54.3 percent) than the small vessels 
(29.6 percent). However, if the small vessels shift their effort 
entirely into state waters and the large vessels exit the Gulf shrimp 
fishery instead, then only the 45 large vessels would experience a loss 
in landings and gross revenues, though that loss would be 100 percent 
of their gross revenues. On the other hand, since the permits would be 
fully transferrable under the final rule, these 72 vessels may be able 
and willing to purchase a permit from a permitted vessel in order to 
continue current operations. Given an estimated permit purchase price 
of $5,000, this cost would represent 5.7 percent of these vessels' 
average gross revenues. Thus, in the current, adverse economic climate 
in the Gulf shrimp fishery, regardless of which behavioral assumptions 
are made, profits would be significantly reduced for the 45 to 72 
directly affected vessels that would not qualify for a moratorium 
permit under the final rule.
    Two alternatives, including the no action alternative, were 
considered to the requirement for a royal red shrimp endorsement to the 
Gulf shrimp permit. One alternative would have created a separate royal 
red shrimp permit. Although the direct cost of a separate royal red 
shrimp permit would be the same as for a royal red shrimp endorsement 
to the Gulf shrimp permit, at least for participants that also possess 
a Gulf shrimp permit ($20), this alternative would have eliminated the 
relationship between participation in the royal red shrimp fishery and 
possession of a Gulf shrimp permit. As a result, vessels that did not 
qualify under the permit moratorium action and vessels from other 
fisheries would be able to obtain royal red shrimp permits, though at a 
higher cost of $50 per permit, and thereby potentially introduce 
greater instability in the royal red shrimp fishery. Stable 
participation is particularly important in the royal red shrimp fishery 
since it is managed under a hard quota of 392,000 lb (177,808 kg). The 
no action alternative would not have met the Council's objective of 
creating a readily available means to identify participants and 
operations in the royal red shrimp fishery.
    A total of nine alternatives, including three no action 
alternatives, were considered for the establishment of a standardized 
bycatch reporting methodology portion of the final rule. In general, 
the alternatives not included in the final rule would have either not 
met required mandates, imposed greater reporting and record keeping 
burdens, or not met the Council's objectives.
    Two alternatives to the final rule would have required paper 
logbooks. Paper logbooks can impose significant impacts on small 
entities. Assuming a time burden of 10 minutes per daily form, and an 
average of 182 days at sea per vessel per year, the average annual time 
burden per vessel would be approximately 30.33 hours. From an economic 
perspective, even though there is no direct cash expense from a paper 
logbook program, there is an opportunity cost associated with any time 
burden created by additional reporting requirements. As previously 
noted, opportunity cost is approximated using the average wage or 
salary of the affected persons, who in this case would be the vessel 
owners and captains as they would be responsible for submitting the 
logbook forms. Using the average wage of first line supervisors/
managers in the fishing, forestry, and farming industries, which was 
$18.14 as of May 2003 according to the BLS, the average annual 
opportunity cost per vessel of a paper logbook reporting requirement 
would be approximately $550.19 ($18.14/hour * 30.33 hours). If only a 
sample of vessels were selected to report, which was also considered 
but not proposed, then the opportunity cost would be proportionally 
less and dependent on the chosen sampling rate for the fishery as a 
whole, but still $550.19 annually per vessel.
    An alternative to the ELB requirement would have required all 
permitted vessels, rather than a statistically valid sample of vessels, 
to use ELBs. Requiring all vessels to use ELBs would have increased the 
costs and burden of the program relative to the final rule. Given that 
the final rule does not require paper logbooks, also selecting the no 
action alternative for ELBs would have resulted in the Council's 
objective

[[Page 56045]]

of improving estimates of effort and bycatch in the Gulf shrimp fishery 
to not be met.
    An alternative to the observer program would have utilized the 
existing voluntary observer program. However, such a system does not 
provide for authority to ensure adequate and random representation of 
the fleet. Thus, this alternative would not meet the Council's 
objective of improving estimates of effort and bycatch in the Gulf 
shrimp fishery. Given that Section 303(a)(11) of the Magnuson-Stevens 
Act requires the establishment of a standardized bycatch reporting 
methodology, and bycatch data can only be practically collected by 
observers in this fishery, the no action alternative would cause the 
Council to not be in compliance and, thus, was not chosen.
    Two alternatives, including the no action alternative, were 
considered to the vessel and gear characterization form requirement. 
The no action alternative and the alternative to require only a sample 
of permitted vessels to submit the vessel/gear characterization form 
would have reduced the minimal opportunity cost associated with the 
form. However, since ELBs do not collect gear information and the ELB 
and observer programs require certain census level information to 
ensure that statistically valid samples are selected, both alternatives 
would not have met the Council's objective of improving estimates of 
effort and bycatch in the Gulf shrimp fishery.
    One alternative was considered to the requirement for all vessels 
to report and certify their landings to NMFS. This alternative would 
have continued NMFS' current practice of only having selected vessels, 
as opposed to all vessels, individually report their landings 
information. Maintaining this current practice would severely limit the 
Council's ability to determine whether or not permitted vessels are 
active in the fishery and the extent of that participation. In turn, 
this lack of information would significantly hamper the Council's 
ability to potentially develop alternatives for long-term effort 
management in the fishery in the future, which is inconsistent with the 
Council's objectives.
    Including the no action alternative, three alternatives were 
considered to the permit moratorium. The no action alternative would 
not achieve the Council's objective of promoting economic stability by 
reducing permit speculation and increasing vessel owners' flexibility 
to enter and exit the Gulf shrimp fishery.
    Another alternative would have used a qualification date of May 18, 
2004 rather than December 6, 2003 control date. Under this alternative, 
the number of non-qualifying vessels would be 161, which is 124 fewer 
vessels than under the final rule. Of those 161 vessels, 68 vessels 
were not active in the Gulf shrimp fishery and 46 operated in state 
waters only according to the best available data. Thus, it is concluded 
that these 114 vessels' profits would not have been affected under this 
alternative. Assuming that the remaining 47 vessels would lose all 
their landings and gross revenues from the EEZ, losses per vessel would 
range between 0.9 percent and 100 percent of their gross revenues, with 
an average loss in gross revenues of 48.4 percent. Conversely, if it is 
assumed that small vessels shift their operations into state waters and 
large vessels exit the fishery, then only the 26 large vessels would be 
directly impacted. For these vessels, they would lose 100 percent of 
their gross revenues. However, since the permits would be fully 
transferrable under this alternative, the 47 vessels that have been 
active in the EEZ may be able and willing to purchase a permit from a 
qualifying vessel in order to continue current operations. Given an 
estimated permit purchase price of $5,000, this cost would represent 
5.2 percent of these vessels' average gross revenues. Although this 
alternative would generate somewhat less adverse economic impacts 
relative to the action, it would also allow for a higher number of 
latent or speculative permit holders, which is contrary to the 
Council's objectives.
    Another alternative would have allowed all vessels that possessed a 
valid permit within 1 year of the publication date of the final rule 
implementing these actions to qualify for a moratorium permit. Since 
the date of the final rule's publication is presently unknown, it was 
assumed that all vessels that possessed a permit on at least one day 
during the current calendar year would qualify under this alternative. 
Thus, using this assumption, 347 vessels would be denied a moratorium 
permit under this alternative according to currently available 
information. Of those 347 vessels, 88 were not active in the Gulf 
shrimp fishery and 72 only operated in state waters. Thus, it is 
concluded that these 160 vessels' profits would not have been affected 
under this alternative. The other 187 vessels were active in the EEZ 
and, thus, would have been directly impacted. Specifically, assuming 
these vessels would lose all their landings and gross revenues from the 
EEZ, the percentage losses in gross revenues would range from 0.2 
percent to 100 percent, with an average loss of 71.8 percent. If it is 
assumed that small vessels shift their operations into state waters and 
large vessels exit the fishery, then only the 168 large vessels would 
be directly impacted. These 168 large vessels would lose 100 percent of 
their gross revenues. However, since the permits would be fully 
transferrable under this alternative, the 187 vessels active in the EEZ 
may be able and willing to purchase a permit from a qualifying vessel 
in order to continue current operations. Given an estimated permit 
purchase price of $5,000, this cost would represent 4.3 percent of 
these vessels' average gross revenues. However, if all the owners of 
these 187 vessels were to renew their permits prior to the publication 
of the final rule, then none of these vessels would be impacted under 
this alternative. Although this alternative could potentially generate 
less adverse economic impacts than the final rule, based on currently 
available information, it is more likely that it would generate greater 
adverse economic impacts. Furthermore, since this alternative would 
continue to allow individuals to apply for and receive valid permits 
until the publication of the final rule, it could also lead to a 
considerably higher number of latent or speculative permit holders, 
which is contrary to the Council's objectives.
    Copies of the FRFA are available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).
    Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness 
Act of 1996 states that, for each rule or group of related rules for 
which an agency is required to prepare an FRFA, the agency shall 
publish one or more guides to assist small entities in complying with 
the rule, and shall designate such publications as ``small entity 
compliance guides.'' As part of this rulemaking process, NMFS prepared 
a fishery bulletin, which also serves as a small entity compliance 
guide. The fishery bulletin will be sent to all vessel permit holders 
for the Gulf shrimp fishery.
    This final rule contains collection-of-information requirements 
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) and which have been 
approved by OMB. Following are the OMB control numbers and the 
estimated average public reporting burdens, per response, including the 
time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, 
gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing 
the collections of information: (1) Application for a royal red shrimp 
endorsement--0648-0205,

[[Page 56046]]

20 minutes; (2) electronic logbook installation and data downloads--
0648-0543, 31 minutes; (3) notification for observer placement prior to 
a trip--0648-0205, 4 minutes; (4) vessel and gear characterization 
form--0648-0542, 20 minutes; (5) submission of landings data--0648-
0205, 5 minutes; and (6) basis for Gulf shrimp moratorium permit--0648-
0205, 1 minute. Send comments regarding these burden estimates or any 
other aspect of the collection-of-information requirements, including 
suggestions for reducing the burden, to NMFS and by e-mail to OMB (see 
ADDRESSES).
    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required 
to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure 
to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements 
of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently 
valid OMB control number.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 622

    Fisheries, Fishing, Puerto Rico, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Virgin Islands.

    Dated: September 20, 2006.
Samuel D. Rauch III
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.

0
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 622 is amended as 
follows:

PART 622--FISHERIES OF THE CARIBBEAN, GULF, AND SOUTH ATLANTIC

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

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

0
2. In Sec.  622.4, paragraphs (a)(2)(xi) and (g)(1) are revised, and 
paragraph (s) is added to read as follows:


Sec.  622.4  Permits and fees.

    (a) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (xi) Gulf shrimp fisheries--(A) Gulf shrimp permit. For a person 
aboard a vessel to fish for shrimp in the Gulf EEZ or possess shrimp in 
or from the Gulf EEZ, a commercial vessel permit for Gulf shrimp must 
have been issued to the vessel and must be on board. See paragraph (s) 
of this section regarding a moratorium on commercial vessel permits for 
Gulf shrimp and the associated provisions. See the following paragraph, 
(a)(2)(xi)(B) of this section, regarding an additional endorsement 
requirement related to royal red shrimp.
    (B) Gulf royal red shrimp endorsement. Effective March 26, 2007, 
for a person aboard a vessel to fish for royal red shrimp in the Gulf 
EEZ or possess royal red shrimp in or from the Gulf EEZ, a commercial 
vessel permit for Gulf shrimp with a Gulf royal red shrimp endorsement 
must be issued to the vessel and must be on board.
* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (1) Vessel permits, licenses, and endorsements and dealer permits. 
A vessel permit, license, or endorsement or a dealer permit issued 
under this section is not transferable or assignable, except as 
provided in paragraph (m) of this section for a commercial vessel 
permit for Gulf reef fish, in paragraph (n) of this section for a fish 
trap endorsement, in paragraph (o) of this section for a king mackerel 
gillnet permit, in paragraph (p) of this section for a red snapper 
license, in paragraph (q) of this section for a commercial vessel 
permit for king mackerel, in paragraph (r) of this section for a 
charter vessel/headboat permit for Gulf coastal migratory pelagic fish 
or Gulf reef fish, in paragraph (s) of this section for a commercial 
vessel moratorium permit for Gulf shrimp, in Sec.  622.17(c) for a 
commercial vessel permit for golden crab, in Sec.  622.18(e) for a 
commercial vessel permit for South Atlantic snapper-grouper, or in 
Sec.  622.19(e) for a commercial vessel permit for South Atlantic rock 
shrimp. A person who acquires a vessel or dealership who desires to 
conduct activities for which a permit, license, or endorsement is 
required must apply for a permit, license, or endorsement in accordance 
with the provisions of this section. If the acquired vessel or 
dealership is currently permitted, the application must be accompanied 
by the original permit and a copy of a signed bill of sale or 
equivalent acquisition papers. In those cases where a permit, license, 
or endorsement is transferable, the seller must sign the back of the 
permit, license, or endorsement and have the signed transfer document 
notarized.
* * * * *
    (s) Moratorium on commercial vessel permits for Gulf shrimp. The 
provisions of this paragraph (s) are applicable through October 26, 
2016.
    (1) Date moratorium permits are required. Beginning March 26, 2007, 
the only valid commercial vessel permits for Gulf shrimp are those 
issued under the moratorium criteria in this paragraph (s).
    (2) Initial eligibility for a moratorium permit. Initial 
eligibility for a commercial vessel moratorium permit for Gulf shrimp 
is limited to a person who
    (i) Owns a vessel that was issued a Federal commercial vessel 
permit for Gulf shrimp on or before December 6, 2003; or
    (ii) On or before December 6, 2003, owned a vessel that was issued 
a Federal commercial vessel permit for Gulf shrimp and, prior to 
September 26, 2006, owns a vessel with a Federal commercial permit for 
Gulf shrimp that is equipped for offshore shrimp fishing, is at least 5 
net tons (4.54 metric tons), is documented by the Coast Guard, and is 
the vessel for which the commercial vessel moratorium permit is being 
applied.
    (3) Application deadline and procedures. An applicant who desires a 
commercial vessel moratorium permit for Gulf shrimp must submit an 
application to the RA postmarked or hand delivered not later than 
October 26, 2007. After that date, no applications for additional 
commercial vessel moratorium permits for Gulf shrimp will be accepted. 
Application forms are available from the RA. Failure to apply in a 
timely manner will preclude permit issuance even when the applicant 
otherwise meets the permit eligibility criteria.
    (4) Determination of eligibility. NMFS' permit records are the sole 
basis for determining eligibility based on permit history. An applicant 
who believes he/she meets the permit eligibility criteria based on 
ownership of a vessel under a different name, as may have occurred when 
ownership has changed from individual to corporate or vice versa, must 
document his/her continuity of ownership.
    (5) Incomplete applications. If an application that is postmarked 
or hand-delivered in a timely manner is incomplete, the RA will notify 
the applicant of the deficiency. If the applicant fails to correct the 
deficiency within 30 days of the date of the RA's notification, the 
application will be considered abandoned.
    (6) Notification of ineligibility. If the applicant does not meet 
the applicable eligibility requirements of paragraph (s)(2) of this 
section, the RA will notify the applicant, in writing, of such 
determination and the reasons for it.
    (7) Permit transferability. Commercial vessel moratorium permits 
for Gulf shrimp are fully transferable, with or without the sale of the 
vessel. To request that the RA transfer a commercial vessel moratorium 
permit for Gulf shrimp, the owner of a vessel that is to receive the 
transferred permit must complete the transfer information on the 
reverse of the permit and return the permit and a completed application 
for transfer to the RA. Transfer

[[Page 56047]]

documents must be notarized as specified in paragraph (g)(1) of this 
section.
    (8) Renewal. (i) Renewal of a commercial vessel moratorium permit 
for Gulf shrimp is contingent upon compliance with the recordkeeping 
and reporting requirements for Gulf shrimp specified in Sec.  
622.5(a)(1)(iii).
    (ii) A commercial vessel moratorium permit for Gulf shrimp that is 
not renewed will be terminated and will not be reissued during the 
moratorium. A permit is considered to be not renewed when an 
application for renewal, as required, is not received by the RA within 
1 year of the expiration date of the permit.

0
3. In Sec.  622.5, paragraph (a)(1)(iii) is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  622.5  Recordkeeping and reporting.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (iii) Gulf shrimp--(A) General reporting requirement. The owner or 
operator of a vessel that fishes for shrimp in the Gulf EEZ or in 
adjoining state waters, or that lands shrimp in an adjoining state, 
must provide information for any fishing trip, as requested by the SRD, 
including, but not limited to, vessel identification, gear, effort, 
amount of shrimp caught by species, shrimp condition (heads on/heads 
off), fishing areas and depths, and person to whom sold.
    (B) Electronic logbook reporting. The owner or operator of a vessel 
for which a Federal commercial vessel permit for Gulf shrimp has been 
issued and who is selected by the SRD must participate in the NMFS-
sponsored electronic logbook reporting program as directed by the SRD. 
In addition, such owner or operator must provide information regarding 
the size and number of shrimp trawls deployed and the type of BRD and 
turtle excluder device used, as directed by the SRD. Compliance with 
the reporting requirements of this paragraph (a)(1)(iii)(B) is required 
for permit renewal.
    (C) Vessel and Gear Characterization Form. All owners or operators 
of vessels applying for or renewing a commercial vessel moratorium 
permit for Gulf shrimp must complete an annual Gulf Shrimp Vessel and 
Gear Characterization Form. The form will be provided by NMFS at the 
time of permit application and renewal. Compliance with this reporting 
requirement is required for permit issuance and renewal.
    (D) Landings report. The owner or operator of a vessel for which a 
Federal commercial vessel permit for Gulf shrimp has been issued must 
annually report the permitted vessel's total annual landings of shrimp 
and value, by species, on a form provided by the SRD. Compliance with 
this reporting requirement is required for permit renewal.
* * * * *

0
4. In Sec.  622.8, paragraph (a)(5) is added to read as follows:


Sec.  622.8  At-sea observer coverage.

    (a) * * *
    (5) Gulf shrimp. A vessel for which a Federal commercial vessel 
permit for Gulf shrimp has been issued must carry a NMFS-approved 
observer, if the vessel's trip is selected by the SRD for observer 
coverage. Vessel permit renewal is contingent upon compliance with this 
paragraph (a)(5).
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 06-8257 Filed 9-25-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S