Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 641

[Docket No. 930946-3338; ID 090993A]

RIN 0648-AE58

Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico

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 5 to the

Fishery Management Plan for the Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of

Mexico (FMP) and to make other changes to the regulations This rule

imposes a moratorium on additional participants in the Gulf of Mexico

reef fish fishery who may use fish traps; imposes additional

restrictions on the use of fish traps; increases the minimum allowable

size of red snapper; requires that most finfish be maintained with head

and fins intact through landing; closes an area southwest of Dry

Tortugas, Florida, to all fishing during May and June each year;

creates a special management zone (SMZ) in the EEZ off Alabama in which

there are gear restrictions; and adds to the management measures that

may be adjusted via a framework procedure the establishment or

modification of SMZs and associated gear restrictions. In addition,

NMFS simplifies and clarifies the regulations to conform them to

current usage. The intended effects of this rule are to reduce fishing

mortality of the reef fish resources so that they may be protected and

rebuilt, to enhance enforceability of the regulations, and to otherwise

clarify the regulations.

EFFECTIVE DATES: February 7, 1994, except that Sec. 641.4(o) is

effective February 7, 1994, through February 7, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert Sadler, 813-893-3161.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The reef fish fishery of the Gulf of Mexico

is managed under the FMP. The FMP was prepared by the Gulf of Mexico

Fishery Management Council (Council) and is implemented through

regulations at 50 CFR part 641 under the authority of the Magnuson

Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson Act).

Detailed descriptions, backgrounds, and rationales for the

management measures in Amendment 5 and the additional measures proposed

by NMFS were included in the proposed rule (58 FR 52063, October 6,

1993) and are not repeated here.

Comments and Responses

Comments were received from 141 entities (including seven that

opposed all measures proposed under Amendment 5, but did not offer

specific rationale). Several comments referred to a specific management

measure but suggested disapproval of all of Amendment 5. A minority

report signed by four Council members objected to all provisions of

Amendment 5 except for the requirement that all fish be landed with

head and fins intact. Comments and responses are summarized, by

subject, as follows.

Moratorium on Fish Traps

Comment: Nineteen individuals, one fish house, and the minority

report objected to the fish trap moratorium as unfair and unnecessary.

Most of the commenters anticipated severe economic impacts and

disruption of their communities if the moratorium is approved.

Generally, the individual commenters were persons who had not landed

reef fish from fish taps before the cutoff date (November 19, 1992)

and, therefore, would not be eligible for fish trap endorsements on

their reef fish permits.

Response: The moratorium was developed in response to public

testimony at Council meetings in 1992 that fishery and ecological

damage, user group conflicts, and other social and economic impacts are

expected if the trap fishery expands. Amendment 5 provides some data

indicating that the use of fish traps in the Gulf of Mexico may be

expanding, in terms of number of participants and geographical range.

However, little or no data are available to assess catch composition or

ecological effects of trap deployment. Although the number of reef fish

vessels is capped by the permit moratorium, there is no limitation on

the number of currently permitted vessels that may use fish traps, and

each vessel may use up to 100 fish traps. The expressed intent of

Amendment 5 is to freeze participation in the fish trap fishery at

levels existing at the time of Council deliberations and public

testimony (November 19, 1992). This includes all those who have

historically depended on the fish trap fishery in the Gulf and who were

participating in the fishery as of the specified cut-off date. It

excludes only new participants entering after that date.

Since all landings by fish traps are required to be reported,

vessel logbook records were selected as the means to verify use of fish

traps. There are approximately 273 reef fish vessel permits that

currently authorize the use of fish traps. Of these, 120 reported

landings from fish traps by November 19, 1992, and 60 reported only

after that date. The other 93 reported no reef fish landings with traps

from 1991 to date.

The Council rejected more severe fish trap management proposals,

including a total ban, and instead proposed the moratorium as an

interim measure to control access to the trap fishery until better

information could be obtained on ecological, biological, social, and

economical effects. NMFS concurs with the Council proposal. Amendment 5

recognizes the need for better information, some of which may become

available under a current NMFS research project.

Comment: Many of the comments also claimed that the Council acted

without adequate public notification, most specifically to fishermen

who made significant financial investments in the trap fishery but

would be ineligible to continue trap fishing under the moratorium.

Response: The Council provided notification of proposed limitations

on the use of fish traps in the reef fish fishery as follows: (1) A

Federal Register notice (57 FR 47235, October 15, 1992) and a news

release sent to Council constituents, NMFS statistical agents, Sea

Grant agents, and newspapers announced upcoming public hearings on

proposed changes to the reef fish regulations, including additional

regulations on the use of fish traps--possibly prohibiting their use,

and provided an opportunity for written comments or participation at

the hearings; (2) a Federal Register notice (57 FR 48510, October 26,

1992) and a November 4, 1992, news release sent to Council

constituents, NMFS statistical agents, Sea Grant agents, and newspapers

announced the Council's scheduled meetings of November 16-19, 1992,

specified the agenda, which included additional regulations on the use

of fish traps, and scheduled a period at the meeting for public

testimony on the proposed changes; (3) a Federal Register notice (57 FR

48510, October 26, 1992) announced a public meeting of the Council's

Reef Fish Advisory Panel and its Standing and Special Reef Fish

Scientific and Statistical Committee scheduled for November 9-10, 1992,

and specified the agenda, which included additional regulations on the

use of fish traps--possibly prohibiting their use; and (4) a newsletter

distributed to Council constituents in early December 1992 announced

the Council's vote on November 19, 1992, for the moratorium. Eight

public hearings at various locations between Key West, Florida, and

Galveston, Texas, were held by the Council prior to the cutoff date,

including a hearing attended by a relatively large number of

participants at the Council meeting on November 18, 1992.

Comment: One individual suggested a total ban on the use of fish

traps in the Gulf of Mexico; another suggested establishing an SMZ to

ban fish traps in the Florida Keys, instead of implementing the

proposed fish trap moratorium.

Response: A total ban on the use of fish traps was proposed in

draft Amendment 5, but later was rejected by the Council in Amendment 5

based on a review of available data and objections raised by the public

and NMFS. According to the analyses and data provided in Amendment 5, a

fish trap ban would not comply with the Magnuson Act national standards

or other applicable law. The moratorium is intended as a temporary

control on the range and extent of the fishery, pending collection of

additional fishery data (as referenced above).

Require Fish Traps To Be Returned to Port on Each Trip

Comment: Four individuals and the Council minority report opposed

this measure as burdensome and unnecessary. Several commenters cited

vessel safety problems and stated that their fishing efforts would be

limited by the number of traps their vessels could carry. However, one

individual supported the proposed requirement.

Response: The current regulations, which do not require that fish

traps be returned to shore after each fishing trip, cause problems with

locating and inspecting, dock-side or in transit, fish traps for

enforcement purposes. Amendment 5 recognizes the costs and limitations

associated with returning all traps to port after each trip,

particularly for smaller vessels unable to carry safely all the traps

they now use. Nonetheless, the Council determined that this measure

provides benefits by providing enforcement opportunities for inspection

of fish traps for compliance with construction, quantity, and tagging

requirements. Moreover, many fish trap fishermen currently utilize this

practice, and therefore would not be affected by the requirement. This

requirement does not inherently create a vessel safety problem. Vessel

owners and operators are encouraged to carry only that number of traps

which can be safely carried given the size and weight of the traps, the

size and tonnage of the vessel, and applicable weather conditions.

Lastly, for these reasons, NMFS concurs with the Council and the

individual commenter supporting the measure.

Buoying Requirements for Fish Traps

Comment: An environmental organization supported this measure. The

minority report objected to the requirement for surface buoys for each

single trap or end traps in a string of traps as increasing the chances

of lost traps and ghost fishing in areas of strong currents and

frequent ship traffic. The report argues that the presently allowed

submerged buoys are sufficient.

Response: The current regulations allow trap buoys to be submerged

and released with pop-up devices. This creates an enforcement problem

locating fish traps at sea and may lead to increased numbers of lost

traps. The requirement for surface buoys for individual traps, or for

each end trap of traps that are connected by a line, is needed to

enhance spotting of traps from the air or at sea for enforcement

purposes. This requirement was not objected to by public comments. No

fishermen agreed with the objections raised in the minority report.

Since available information indicates a need for more effective

regulation of the fish trap fishery, NMFS concurs with the Council and

the environmental organization and supports this management measure as

an appropriate means of regulating fish traps.

Special Management Zones (SMZs) Off Alabama

Amendment 5 proposes to establish three large SMZs off Alabama,

wherein reef fish bag limits and a ``no-sale'' provision would apply to

fishing for reef fish with buoy gear, longlines, or gear with more than

three hooks per line. In response to concerns raised about the proposed

SMZs, NMFS invited public comment on the proposed rule on the following

specific concerns:

(1) What are the effects of establishing areas totaling

approximately 820 square miles (2,124 square km) in which fishing under

the commercial allocations would be severely limited;

(2) What are the effects of the 3-hook limit on the recreational

and commercial user groups;

(3) What are the effects on the rebuilding plan of increasing

availability of red snapper to the recreational fishery, particularly

those in Alabama; and

(4) Are the Alabama SMZs consistent with the fairness and equity

criteria proposed under the proposed framework procedure for adding

SMZs and, if not, should they be consistent?

Comment: The minority report objected to the establishment of the

SMZs. In addition, a total of 105 entities commented on the proposal,

with 74 comments in support and 31 in opposition.

The minority report objected to the SMZs as unfair and therefore in

violation of the Magnuson Act. The report also claimed that: (1) The

Council acted without adequate public notification; (2) no information

was presented on historical uses of the tracts; (3) testimony that

commercial reef fish fishermen also had constructed reefs was ignored

by the Council; and (4) the size of the tracts is so large that

enforcement is impractical. In addition, 26 individuals, two commercial

fishing organizations, and two fish houses offered various objections

to the proposed SMZ designations and gear restrictions. Several

disagreed with a statement in Amendment 5 that pulse and derby fishing

on the red snapper resource was concentrated on the proposed SMZs off

Alabama starting in April 1992. Additionally, a number of commenters

objected to implications in Amendment 5 that the three tracts contained

virtually no natural reefs or hard bottom area. Tracts B and C were

frequently identified as having significant natural reef fish habitat.

Many of the reef fish fishermen claimed that once the red snapper

season closes, bandit gear hook-and-line fishing occurs for vermilion

snapper in the tracts. In addition, several fish houses and fishermen

commented that the vermilion snapper fishery in tracts B and C

typically is separated geographically and in time from the winter

fishery for red snapper. Several comments indicated that vermilion

snapper are relatively low-valued fish which have to be targeted with

large numbers of hooks per line; i.e., they cannot profitably be fished

commercially with three hooks or less. According to one dealer, the

vermilion snapper fishery in the tracts includes as many as 18 vessels

out of Pensacola, Florida, and a similar number from the Destin,

Florida, area. Other commenters indicated that up to 150 commercial

vessels would be impacted adversely by the 3-hook rule. This

information was not available to the Council during debate on Amendment

5.

Several individuals also commented that this proposal, in effect,

unfairly allocates part of the total allowable catch to reef fish

harvesters who meet the 3-hook limit at the expense of users of

longlines, buoy gear, or lines with more than three hooks. In addition,

several of the public comments claim that enforcement efforts would be

complicated by allowing harvest of fish other than reef fish with lines

having more than three hooks and by the unusually large size of the

three tracts. One commenter recommended disapproving tract C; another

recommended disapproving both tracts B and C.

An environmental organization indicated general support for the

SMZs as a means of offering recreational fishing opportunities, but

expressed concern over the resulting impacts on other fisheries once

reef fish gear is restricted. The organization also indicated a need to

control fishing effort on natural reefs.

Response: Concerning the minority report, NMFS has concluded that

the Council provided adequate notification of Council meetings and

public hearings on Amendment 5 (as outlined in our response to comments

on the fish trap moratorium). Eight public hearings were held by the

Council on Amendment 5, including a hearing attended by a relatively

large number of participants in the reef fish fishery at the Council

meeting on November 18, 1992.

Many of the objections raised by the minority report and individual

commenters which contest statements found in Amendment 5 are

supportable by available NMFS information. For example, red snapper

commercial landings for 1992 totalled only about 130,000 pounds from

the statistical grid which includes tracts B and C (statistical grid

10) and were less than previous years. This does not support the

contention in Amendment 5 that pulse overfishing occurred in these two

tracts, or that the artificial reefs produced additional red snapper

which were then taken and landed in commercial quantities. Moreover,

these data do not indicate that the short red snapper season caused

more persons to take excessive advantage of the artificial reefs in

tracts B and C.

The contention of many commenters that the proposed SMZs,

particularly tracts B and C, supported a valuable vermilion snapper

fishery is also supported by available data. NMFS commercial landing

records for 1962-1990 indicate that statistical grid 10 produced the

largest landings of vermilion snapper of all the Gulf grids

(approximately 12 percent of the Gulf-wide catch). The actual catch

from tracts B and C may be higher than 12 percent since 28 percent of

the 1962-1990 vermilion snapper landings cannot be traced to any

statistical grid, and part of tract C extends seaward of the grid 10

boundary.

Due to its proximity to shore, tract A is more readily available

for the harvest of red snapper and could contribute to rapid harvest

upon opening of the 1993 red snapper commercial harvest period.

Additionally, landings data and several of the public comments indicate

that tract A does not support a large fishery for vermilion snapper and

as an SMZ would pose less adverse impact on historical fisheries.

Therefore, tract A appears to be in greater need of the proposed

protection as an SMZ than the other two tracts. The 3-hook rule could

slow the rate of red snapper harvest in that tract should those who

previously used non-conforming gear choose not to compensate by

increasing effort or the number of lines per boat. Tract A also would

incur the least amount of at-sea time needed by enforcement staff to

verify the number of hooks on each reef fish line being used in the

tract.

Tract B (360 square miles (932 square km)) and tract C (360 square

miles (932 square km)) are significantly larger than tract A (100

square miles (259 square km)) and, according to public comments,

contain natural reefs and substantial hard bottom habitat, which is

important for supporting the vermilion snapper fishery. Without

additional rationale, tracts B and C do not appear to be appropriate

candidates for the proposed SMZ designation and gear restrictions,

mainly because of public and NMFS concerns over adverse impacts to the

vermilion snapper fishery documented in those areas.

For these reasons, NMFS approves only tract A for the SMZ

designation and gear restrictions proposed by the Council. Approval of

SMZ tracts B and C is not appropriate given the public comments and

landings data which indicate the presence of an important fishery for

vermilion snapper that was not addressed in Amendment 5 and that would

be unnecessarily eliminated by the 3-hook limit and ``no-sale''

provision.

Comment: Seventy-two individuals, one wildlife organization, and

one recreational fishing organization supported the SMZs and gear

restrictions. The individuals included recreational fishermen and a

builder of artificial reefs, all of whom indicated as a rationale for

their support that artificial reef fish communities (primarily red

snapper) are in need of protection from efficient commercial reef fish

fishing gear. Other comments covered related topics and noted that the

gear restriction would not in itself prohibit commercial fishing but

may extend the season. Several commenters suggested management measures

outside the scope of the proposed rule (i.e., allow only rod-and-reel

fishing in the SMZs). However, many of the 74 comments that supported

the SMZs provided little or no detailed rationale regarding the areas

of concern listed in the proposed rule.

Response: NMFS acknowledges that SMZ designation of some nearshore

artificial reefs may protect the reef fish resources from over

exploitation (for the reasons stated above), and therefore has approved

tract A.

Landings data from the statistical grid that contains tracts B and

C do not support the Council's contention that a significant red

snapper fishery in those tracts displaced either persons who

constructed the artificial reefs or who traditionally fished with fewer

hooks per line. Furthermore, Amendment 5 does not clearly indicate or

analyze the extent of the vermilion snapper commercial fishery whose

participants rely on those tracts for income year round. Unlike red

snapper, vermilion snapper has not been shown to be overfished;

moreover, artificial reefs have not been shown to be of specific

benefit to vermilion snapper.

In addition to the 3-hook rule, a ban on reef fish commercial

longlining (including use of three hooks or less per line) also was

proposed for the area within tract C where that gear currently is

allowed. Amendment 5 did not adequately address the impacts resulting

from the proposed prohibition, particularly on the deepwater grouper

longline fishery.

As indicated by some of the comments, the 3-hook rule in itself

does not prohibit all commercial fishing. Available information,

however, indicates that moving the boundary of the longline and buoy

gear restricted area outside tract C, in combination with the 3-hook

rule in tracts B and C, would effectively have eliminated the

historical fisheries in those tracts.

Framework Procedure for Establishing SMZs

Comment: One environmental organization supported the regulatory

amendment procedure as critical to protecting artificial reefs. One

individual and the minority report objected to the procedure because

they believe it would result in the placement of additional artificial

reefs in tracts B and C, which they believe contain economically

valuable natural reef or line bottom habitat.

Response: It is conceivable that approving the framework procedure

could encourage additional construction of artificial reefs (as

acknowledged in Amendment 5). However, the present disapproval of

tracts B and C should resolve this issue. Furthermore, the framework

procedure is designed to provide for a thorough scientific evaluation

of the benefits and costs and environmental impacts of future proposed

SMZs. The framework procedure specifies that each SMZ would have to be

extensively reviewed by the Council's advisors, monitoring team, and

scientific committee prior to Council review and submittal for

abbreviated rulemaking. Moreover, each framework request must comply

with the six criteria listed in the procedure, including fairness,

equity, and consideration of natural bottom habitat. This would include

tracts B and C should the Council choose to resubmit a revised

framework proposal addressing these areas. Accordingly, NMFS concurs

with the proposed framework procedure for establishing SMZs.

Increases in the Minimum Size Limit for Red Snapper

Comment: Six fishermen contended that additional release mortality

and economic impacts of the increased size limit (including elimination

of a market size) would outweigh any benefits. These concerns also were

contained in the minority report, which noted the potential for imports

replacing that size of red snapper in the U.S. market. One commenter

also noted text from the regulation amendment prepared by the Council

in 1990 that cites impacts of additional mortality in support of the

status quo. Several fishermen feared decreased demand by consumers for

the larger size fillets. Other comments indicated that red snapper are

not in need of additional protection. An environmental organization and

a recreational fishing organization commented in favor of the increased

size limits.

Response: Although there may be some initial short-term adverse

economic impacts associated with the incremental size limit increases,

NMFS economic analyses indicate that the longer term economic gains

should outweigh short-term revenue losses.

Concerning the comment on an earlier Council document that

supported status quo, information is now available that supports the

Council's proposal. For example, red snapper price information from the

1993 season indicates that there was a modest price premium paid for

the one- to two-pound size in the early part of 1993, but by the end of

the season, prices generally were the same for all size categories.

The major advantage of the incremental size increases is that it

will allow for harvest of the fish when yield per recruit is maximized.

Additionally, it aids in the rebuilding of the stock and reduces the

urgency to implement in 1994 the program to reduce bycatch of juvenile

red snapper in the shrimp trawl fishery. The FMP calls for a 50 percent

bycatch reduction in the shrimp fishery by 1994. However, this goal

could not be achieved without significant economic losses to the shrimp

fishery. More recent stock assessment analyses assuming implementation

of the size limit increases indicate various probabilities of stock

recovery by the target year of 2009, based on the following dates for

reaching the specified bycatch reduction goal of 50 percent: early

1994-95 percent, 1995--90 percent; or 1996--70 percent. Moreover, a

very active research program is underway that potentially will provide

bycatch and mortality information leading to the desired bycatch

reduction goal without adversely impacting the fisheries for either

shrimp or red snapper. For these reasons, NMFS concurs with the

proposed increases in the minimum size limit for red snapper.

Mutton Snapper Spawning Aggregation Closure

Comment: The minority report questioned the need for protection of

the aggregation, given that mutton snapper have not been shown to be

overfished. One individual claimed that no significant bycatch of

mutton snapper occurs while fishing for yellowtail snapper, and that

closure of the area to all fishing is therefore unnecessary.

Response: Mutton snapper have been shown to be particularly

vulnerable to harvest during the spawning season. Species that

aggregate for spawning are vulnerable to fishing effort and

traditionally are easier to catch at that time. In addition, they may

be caught before spawning activity occurs. While the resource may not

be overfished Gulf-wide, local overfishing could occur in the

aggregation. Moreover, allowing fishing for other species could

complicate enforcement of the closure, and vessels targeting mutton

snapper could have the opportunity to discard their catch before being

boarded by an authorized officer. The benefits of the action could be

reduced significantly by mutton snapper release mortality as part of

fishing for other species. For these reasons, the proposed closure to

all fishing is necessary to protect the spawning individuals during

this critical period. Accordingly, NMFS concurs with the spawning

aggregation closure.

Finfish Landed With Head and Fins Intact

Comment: An environmental organization supported this proposal.

Response: NMFS concurs with the Council and the commenter.

Changes From the Proposed Rule

Section 641.4(b)(2)(xiii)(C) requires an applicant for a vessel

permit to sign a statement that he or she will allow an authorized

officer reasonable access to his or her property to examine fish traps

for compliance with the regulations. NMFS finds that this requirement

is unnecessary. Accordingly, as a technical amendment, this final rule

removes Sec. 641.4(b)(2)(xiii)(C).

Section 641.4(o)(1) in the proposed rule specified that a fish trap

endorsement will not be issued or renewed unless the vessel for which

the endorsement is requested and its current owner have records of

landings of reef fish from fish traps in the EEZ of the Gulf of Mexico

during 1991 or 1992, as reported on fishing vessel logbooks received by

the Science and Research Director on or before November 19, 1992. As a

result, persons with the qualifying catch record, but who have sold or

transferred the vessel from which reef fish were harvested with fish

traps and reported to NMFS, would be ineligible if the current

regulations are implemented. NMFS finds that this requirement is

inconsistent with the Council's intent, which was to limit the use of

fish traps to those persons who had participated in the fish trap

fishery and whose reports had been received as of November 19, 1992.

Accordingly, Sec. 641.4(o)(1) is re-written to specify that a fish trap

endorsement will not be issued or renewed unless the current owner of

the vessel for which the endorsement is requested has a record of

landings of reef fish from fish traps in the EEZ of the Gulf of Mexico

during 1991 or 1992, as reported on fishing vessel logbooks received by

the Science and Research Director on or before November 19, 1992.

Changes from the proposed rule to effect implementation of the

moratorium have been made at Sec. 641.4 (a)(4) and (o)(2) and

Sec. 641.7(y). For the initial implementation of the moratorium on fish

trap endorsements, NMFS intends to reissue the permit for each vessel

that meets the criteria for the fish trap endorsement. Such reissued

permit will have a ``Date Issued'' of February 7, 1994, the effective

date of this final rule, and will be endorsed for the use of fish

traps. On and after that date, a fish trap endorsement is valid only

when it is on such a reissued permit. A fish trap endorsement on a

permit issued before that date will not be valid. Each owner of a

vessel that has a permit that currently authorizes the use of fish

traps will receive by January 24, 1994, either a reissued permit with a

fish trap endorsement or a letter advising him or her that the current

fish trap endorsement on the permit will not be valid as of February 7,

1994.

With removal from the regulations of the specific information that

must be included in required reports by fishing vessels, the term

``statistical area'' is no longer used. Accordingly, this final rule

removes the definition of ``statistical area'' from Sec. 641.2 and

removes Figure 2, which depicts the statistical grids, from Appendix A.

Depiction of the grids is included with the reporting forms that are

provided by the Science and Research Director.

The proposed rule to implement Amendment 5 contained changes to

Sec. 641.5(d), the reporting requirements for dealers and processors.

The proposed changes were minor, primarily for standardization. More

substantive changes to these reporting requirements are contained in

Amendment 7 to the FMP, the proposed rule for which was published on

October 27, 1993 (58 FR 57771). Accordingly, the proposed changes to

Sec. 641.5(d) in the rule to implement Amendment 5 are deleted.

In Sec. 641.22, paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(A) is revised to clarify that

untreated jute string may not be wrapped or overlapped when used as

degradable material. Wrapping or overlapping overly prolongs the time

for the material to degrade.

In Secs. 641.6(e) and 641.22(b)(7), language in the proposed rule

regarding buoys on each end of a ``string'' of traps is revised. Trap

fishermen refer to traps placed in a line as a ``string,'' even when

such traps are not connected. For clarity, this final rule requires

buoys for marking individual, separate traps or each end trap of traps

that are connected by a line.

In Sec. 641.23(d), for the reasons discussed above, proposed SMZs B

and C have been deleted. Concomitantly, in Appendix A, the proposed

change to Table 2, and that part of the proposed change to Figure 5

that would have moved the seaward limits of the longline and buoy gear

restricted area so that all of proposed SMZ C would be shoreward of the

limits, are deleted.

Figures 4 and 5 in Appendix A have been enlarged to more clearly

depict the seaward limits of the stressed area and of the longline and

buoy gear restricted area, respectively. Figures 3 through 6 now depict

each of the limits separately for the eastern and western portions of

the Gulf of Mexico.

Partial Disapproval of Amendment 5

On December 16, 1993, the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary)

partially disapproved Amendment 5. As discussed above, the provisions

that would have established tracts B and C as SMZs were disapproved.

Classification

The Secretary determined that Amendment 5 is necessary for the

conservation and management of the reef fish fishery and that it is

consistent with the national standards, other provisions of the

Magnuson Act, and other applicable law, with the exception of the

provisions that would have established SMZs B and C.

The Council prepared a regulatory impact review as part of

Amendment 5. A summary of the regulatory impacts was contained in the

proposed rule and is not repeated here.

The Council prepared an initial regulatory flexibility analysis

(RFA) for this action. The initial RFA has been adopted as final

without change. The final RFA concludes that the measures in this final

rule, considered individually, would not have a significant economic

impact on small entities, but, considered collectively, would have a

significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

The Council prepared a final supplemental environmental impact

statement (SEIS) for Amendment 5 that discusses the impacts on the

environment of the reef fish fishery and the impacts that would result

from implementation of the amendment. The final SEIS was filed with the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). EPA published on October 15,

1993, (58 FR 53512) a notice of availability of the final SEIS for a

30-day comment period.

The Council determined that the proposed rule would be implemented

in a manner that is consistent to the maximum extent practicable with

the approved coastal zone management programs of Alabama, Florida,

Louisiana, and Mississippi. Texas does not have an approved coastal

zone management program. These determinations were submitted for review

by the responsible state agencies under section 307 of the Coastal Zone

Management Act. Louisiana and Mississippi agreed with this

determination. Alabama and Florida did not respond within the statutory

time period; therefore, state agency agreement with the consistency

determination is presumed.

This final rule involves, but does not change, collection-of-

information requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act,

specifically, fishing vessel permits and fishing vessel reports. These

requirements were previously approved by the Office of Management and

Budget under OMB Control Numbers 0648-0205 and 0648-0016, respectively.

The public reporting burdens for these collections of information,

estimated to average 15 and 10-18 minutes per response, respectively,

are not changed by this rule. Send comments regarding these burdens or

any other aspect of these collections of information, including

suggestions for reducing the burdens, to Edward E. Burgess, Southeast

Regional Office, NMFS, 9450 Koger Boulevard, St. Petersburg, FL 33702,

and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of

Management and Budget (Attention: NOAA Desk Officer), Washington, DC

20503.

This rule is not significant and is not subject to review under

E.O. 12866.

This final rule does not contain policies with federalism

implications sufficient to warrant preparation of a federalism

assessment under E.O. 12612.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 641

Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: December 30, 1993.

Nancy Foster,

Deputy Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries

Service.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 50 CFR part 641 is

amended as follows:

PART 641--REEF FISH FISHERY OF THE GULF OF MEXICO

1. The authority citation for part 641 continues to read as

follows:

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

2. In Sec. 641.1, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 641.1 Purpose and scope.

* * * * *

(b) This part governs conservation and management of reef fish in

the Gulf of Mexico EEZ, except that Secs. 641.5 and 641.25 also apply

to fish from adjoining state waters. The boundary between the Gulf of

Mexico EEZ and the Atlantic Ocean EEZ begins at the intersection of the

outer boundary of the EEZ and 83 deg.00'W. longitude, proceeds north to

24 deg.35'N. latitude (near Dry Tortugas), east to Marquesas Key, then

through the Florida Keys to the mainland.

Sec. 641.2 [Amended]

3. In Sec. 641.2, the definition for ``Statistical area'' is

removed.

4. In Sec. 641.4, paragraphs (b)(2)(xiii)(C) and (b)(2)(xiv) are

removed; paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(4), (b)(1), (b)(2) introductory text,

(b)(2)(xi), (b)(2)(Xiii)(B), (h), (i), and (k) are revised; and new

paragraph (o) is added to read as follows:

Sec. 641.4 Permits and fees.

(a) * * *

(1) As a prerequisite to selling reef fish and to be eligible for

exemption from bag the limits specified in Sec. 641.24(b), an owner or

operator of a vessel that fishes in the EEZ must obtain an annual

vessel permit.

* * * * *

(4) To possess or use a fish trap in the EEZ, an annual vessel

permit for reef fish with a valid fish trap endorsement thereon must be

issued to the vessel and must be on board the vessel. (See paragraph

(o)(2) of this section for information on the validity of a fish trap

endorsement.) In addition, a color code for marking the vessel and trap

buoys must be obtained from the Regional Director.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(1) An application for a vessel permit must be submitted and signed

by the owner or operator of the vessel. The application must be

submitted to the Regional Director at least 30 days prior to the date

on which the applicant desires to have the permit made effective.

(2) A permit applicant must provide the following information:

* * * * *

(xi) A sworn statement by the applicant certifying that more than

50 percent of his or her earned income was derived from commercial

fishing, that is, sale of the catch, or charter or headboat operations,

during either of the two calendar years preceding the application;

* * * * *

(xiii) * * *

(B) The applicant's desired color code for use in identifying his

or her vessel and buoys (white is not an acceptable color code).

* * * * *

(h) Display. A permit or endorsement issued under this section must

be carried on board the fishing vessel and such vessel must be

identified as provided for in Sec. 641.6. The operator of a fishing

vessel must present the permit or endorsement for inspection upon

request of an authorized officer.

(i) Sanctions and denials. A permit or endorsement issued pursuant

to this section may be revoked, suspended, or modified, and a permit or

endorsement application may be denied, in accordance with the

procedures governing enforcement-related permit sanctions and denials

found at subpart D of 15 CFR part 904.

* * * * *

(k) Replacement. A replacement permit or endorsement may be issued.

An application for a replacement permit or endorsement will not be

considered a new application. A fee, the amount of which is stated with

the application form, must accompany each request for a replacement.

* * * * *

(o) Moratorium on fish trap endorsements. The provisions of this

paragraph (o) are effective through February 7, 1997.

(1) A fish trap endorsement will not be issued or renewed unless

the current owner of the permitted vessel for which the endorsement is

requested has a record of landings of reef fish from fish traps in the

EEZ of the Gulf of Mexico during 1991 or 1992, as reported on fishing

vessel logbooks received by the Science and Research Director on or

before November 19, 1992. An owner will not be issued fish trap

endorsements for vessels in numbers exceeding the number of vessels for

which the owning entity had the requisite reported landings in 1991 or

1992.

(2) A fish trap endorsement on a vessel permit issued under this

section that has a ``Date Issued'' of February 7, 1994, or later, is

valid. Endorsements on permits issued before that date are not valid.

(3) An owner of a vessel with a fish trap endorsement may transfer

the endorsement to another vessel owned by the same entity by returning

the existing endorsement with an application for an endorsement for the

replacement vessel.

(4) A fish trap endorsement is not transferable upon purchase of a

vessel with a fish trap endorsement, the provisions of paragraph (1)(3)

of this section regarding purchase of a vessel with a reef fish permit

notwithstanding.

(5) A fish trap endorsement that is not renewed or that is revoked

will not be reissued.

5. In Sec. 641.5, paragraphs (b), (c), (f), (g), and (i) are

revised to read as follows:

Sec. 641.5 Recordkeeping and reporting.

* * * * *

(b) Vessels fishing with fish traps. The owner or operator of a

vessel for which a fish trap endorsement has been issued under

Sec. 641.4, or the owner or operator of a vessel that uses a fish trap

in adjoining state waters, must maintain a fishing record on a form

available from the Science and Research Director. These forms must be

submitted to the Science and Research Director so as to be received not

later than 7 days after the end of each fishing trip. If no fishing

occurred during a month, a report so stating must be submitted on one

of the forms to be received not later than 7 days after the end of each

month. Information to be reported is indicated on the form and its

accompanying instructions.

(c) Vessels not fishing with fish traps. The owner or operator of a

vessel for which a reef fish permit has been issued under Sec. 641.4,

or the owner or operator of a vessel that harvests reef fish in

adjoining state waters, and who is selected by the Science and Research

Director, must maintain a fishing record on a form available from the

Science and Research Director. These forms must be submitted to the

Science and Research Director on a monthly basis (or more frequently,

if requested by the Science and Research Director) so as to be received

not later than 7 days after the end of the reporting period. If no

fishing occurred during a reporting period, a report so stating must be

submitted on one of the forms to be received not later than 7 days

after the end of the reporting period. Information to be reported is

indicated on the form and its accompanying instructions.

* * * * *

(f) Charter vessels. The owner or operator of a charter vessel that

fishes for or lands reef fish under the bag limits in the Gulf of

Mexico EEZ or in adjoining state waters, and who is selected by the

Science and Research Director, must maintain a daily fishing record for

each trip on forms provided by the Science and Research Director. These

forms must be submitted to the Science and Research Director on a

weekly basis so as to be received not later than 7 days after the end

of each week (Sunday). Information to be reported is indicated on the

form and its accompanying instructions.

(g) Headboats. The owner or operator of a headboat that fishes for

or lands reef fish under the bag limits in the Gulf of Mexico EEZ or in

adjoining state waters, and who is selected by the Science and Research

Director, must maintain a daily fishing record for each trip, or a

portion of such trips as specified by the Science and Research

Director, on forms provided by the Science and Research Director. These

forms must be submitted to the Science and Research Director at least

monthly so as to be received not later than 7 days after the end of

each month. Information to be reported is indicated on the form and its

accompanying instructions.

* * * * *

(i) Additional data and inspection. Additional data will be

collected by authorized statistical reporting agents, as designees of

the Science and Research Director, and by authorized officers. An owner

or operator of a fishing vessel and a dealer or processor are required

upon request to make reef fish or parts thereof available for

inspection by the Science and Research Director or an authorized

officer.

6. In Sec. 641.6, the section heading and paragraphs (a) through

(e) are revised to read as follows:

Sec. 641.6 Vessel and gear identification.

(a) Official number. A vessel for which a permit has been issued

under Sec. 641.4 must display its official number--

(1) On the port and starboard sides of the deckhouse or hull and on

an appropriate weather deck so as to be clearly visible from an

enforcement vessel or aircraft;

(2) In block arabic numerals in contrasting color to the

background;

(3) At least 18 inches (45.7 cm) in height for fishing vessels over

65 feet (19.8 m) in length and at least 10 inches (25.4 cm) in height

for all other vessels; and

(4) Permanently affixed to or painted on the vessel.

(b) Color code. In addition to its official number, a vessel for

which a fish trap endorsement has been issued under Sec. 641.4 must

display its color code--

(1) On the port and starboard sides of the deckhouse or hull and on

an appropriate weather deck so as to be clearly visible from an

enforcement vessel or aircraft;

(2) In the form of a circle at least 20 inches (50.8 cm) in

diameter; and

(3) Permanently affixed to or painted on the vessel.

(c) Duties of operator. The operator of each fishing vessel

specified in paragraph (a) or (b) of this section must--

(1) Keep the official number and color code clearly legible and in

good repair; and

(2) Ensure that no part of the fishing vessel, its rigging, fishing

gear, or any other material aboard obstructs the view of the official

number and color code from an enforcement vessel or aircraft.

(d) Fish traps. A valid identification tag, available from the

Regional Director, must be affixed to each fish trap used or possessed

in the EEZ and to each fish trap aboard a vessel for which a fish trap

endorsement has been issued under Sec. 641.4. Such tag shows the

specific tag number (normally 1 through 100, or less), the permit

number, and the month and year through which the permit and tag are

valid.

(e) Buoys. Each buoy used to mark a fish trap, or each end trap of

traps that are connected by a line, must display the designated color

code and permit number so as to be easily distinguished, located, and

identified.

* * * * *

7. In Sec. 641.7, paragraphs (a), (b), (g), (i), (k), (l), and (s)

are revised and new paragraphs (y) through (cc) are added to read as

follows:

Sec. 641.7 Prohibitions.

(a) Falsify information specified in Sec. 641.4(b)(2) on an

application for a vessel permit, or information on an application for

an endorsement on a permit.

(b) Fail to display a permit or endorsement, as specified in

Sec. 641.4(h).

* * * * *

(g) Possess a finfish without its head and fins intact, as

specified in Sec. 641.21(b).

* * * * *

(i) Use or possess in the EEZ a fish trap that does not conform to

the requirements for escape windows, panels and access doors with

degradable fasteners, mesh sizes, and buoys, as specified in

Sec. 641.22 (b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(3), and (b)(7).

* * * * *

(k) Fish or possess in the EEZ more than 100 fish traps per vessel,

as specified in Sec. 641.22(b)(5).

(l) Pull or tend a fish trap, except during the hours specified in

Sec. 641.22(b)(6)(i); tend, open, pull, or otherwise molest or have in

possession another person's fish trap, except as specified in

Sec. 641.22(b)(6)(ii); or fail to retrieve all fish traps and return

them to port on each trip, as specified in Sec. 641.22(b)(6)(iii).

* * * * *

(s) Purchase, barter, trade, or sell, or attempt to purchase,

barter, trade, or sell, a reef fish possessed under the bag limits, as

specified in Sec. 641.24(g).

* * * * *

(y) Use or possess in the EEZ a fish trap without a valid fish trap

endorsement, as specified in Sec. 641.4(a)(4) and (o)(2).

(z) During May and June, fish in Riley's Hump, as specified in

Sec. 641.23(c).

(aa) In a special management zone, fish for reef fish with

prohibited or unauthorized fishing gear, or, after having fished in a

special management zone for species other than reef fish, exceed the

possession and landing limits for reef fish; as specified in

Sec. 641.23(d).

(bb) Make any false statement, oral or written, to an authorized

officer concerning the taking, catching, harvesting, landing, purchase,

sale, possession, or transfer of a reef fish.

(cc) Interfere with, obstruct, delay, or prevent by any means an

investigation, search, seizure, or disposition of seized property in

connection with enforcement of the Magnuson Act.

8. In Sec. 641.21, paragraphs (a)(1) and (b) are revised to read as

follows:

Sec. 641.21 Harvest limitations.

(a) * * *

(1) Red snapper--

(i) Effective through December 31, 1995--14 inches (35.6 cm) total

length;

(ii) Effective January 1, 1996, through December 31, 1997--15

inches (38.1 cm) total length;

(iii) Effective January 1, 1998--16 inches (40.6 cm) total length.

* * * * *

(b) Head and fins intact.

(1) Except as specified in paragraphs (b)(2), (b)(3), and (b)(4) of

this section, a finfish possessed in the EEZ in the Gulf of Mexico must

have its head and fins intact and such finfish taken from the EEZ must

have its head and fins intact through landing. Such finfish may be

eviscerated, gilled, and scaled but must otherwise be maintained in a

whole condition.

(2) Shark, swordfish, and tuna species are exempt from the

requirements of paragraph (b)(1) of this section.

(3) Bait is exempt from the requirements of paragraph (b)(1) of

this section.

(i) For the purpose of this paragraph (b)(3), 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 cubic inches (7.6 cubic cm) 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 (b)(3)(i) of this section notwithstanding, a finfish

or part thereof possessed in or landed from the EEZ that is

subsequently sold, purchased, traded, or bartered or attempted to be

sold, purchased, traded, or bartered as a finfish species, rather than

as bait, is not bait.

(4) Legal-sized finfish possessed for consumption at sea aboard the

harvesting vessel are exempt from the requirements of paragraph (b)(1)

of this section provided--

(i) Such finfish do not exceed any applicable bag limit;

(ii) Such finfish do not exceed 1.5 pounds (680 gm) of finfish

parts per person on board; and

(iii) The vessel is equipped to cook such finfish on board.

* * * * *

9. In Sec. 641.22, in paragraph (b)(3) introductory text, the

reference to ``Figure 3'' is revised to read ``Figure 2''; paragraphs

(b)(2)(i), (b)(2)(ii), (b)(2)(iii) introductory text, (b)(2)(iii)(A),

(b)(5) and (b)(6) are revised; and new paragraph (b)(7) is added to

read as follows:

Sec. 641.22 Gear restrictions.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(2) * * *

(i) A panel or access door must be located opposite each side of

the trap that has a funnel.

(ii) The opening covered by each panel or access door must be 144

square inches (929 square cm) or larger, with one dimension of the area

equal to or larger than the largest interior axis of the trap's throat

(funnel) with no other dimension less than 6 inches (15.2 cm).

(iii) The hinges and fasteners of each panel or access door must be

constructed of one of the following degradable materials:

(A) Untreated jute string of 3/16-inch (4.76-mm) diameter or

smaller that is not wrapped or overlapped; or

* * * * *

(5) Effort limitation. The maximum number of traps that may be

assigned to, possessed, or fished in the EEZ by a vessel is 100.

(6) Tending traps.

(i) A reef fish trap may be pulled or tended only during the period

from official (civil) sunrise to official (civil) sunset.

(ii) Except for inspection of a fish trap by an authorized officer,

a reef fish trap may be tended only by a person aboard the vessel for

which the fish trap endorsement has been issued under Sec. 641.4 to

fish such trap, or aboard another vessel if such vessel has on board

written consent of the owner or operator of the vessel with the fish

trap endorsement. Such written consent is valid solely for the removal

of fish traps from the EEZ, and harvest of fish incidental to such

removal, when vessel or equipment breakdown prevents the vessel with

the fish trap endorsement from retrieving its traps.

(iii) The operator of a vessel from which a fish trap is deployed

in the EEZ must retrieve all the vessel's fish traps and return them to

port on each trip. A fish trap that is not returned to port on a trip,

and its attached line and buoy, may be disposed of in any appropriate

manner by the Secretary (including an authorized officer). If an owner

of such trap or the operator of the responsible vessel can be

ascertained, the owner and/or operator is subject to appropriate civil

penalties.

(7) Buoys. A buoy that floats on the surface must be attached to

each fish trap, or to each end trap of traps that are connected by a

line, used in the EEZ.

10. In Sec. 641.23, in paragraphs (a)(3) and (b)(3), the concluding

parenthetical phrases are revised; and new paragraphs (c) and (d) are

added to read as follows:

Sec. 641.23 Area limitations.

(a) * * *

(3) * * * (See also Appendix A, Figures 3 and 4.)

(b) * * *

(3) * * * (See also Appendix A, Figures 5 and 6.)

(c) Riley's Hump seasonal closure. From May 1 through June 30 each

year, Riley's Hump, southwest of Dry Tortugas, Florida, is closed to

all fishing. Riley's Hump is enclosed by rhumb lines joining the

following points in the order listed:

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

Point Latitude Longitude

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

A...................... 24 deg.32.2' N......... 83 deg.08.7' W.

B...................... 24 deg.32.2' N......... 83 deg.05.2' W.

C...................... 24 deg.28.7' N......... 83 deg.05.2' W.

D...................... 24 deg.28.7' N......... 83 deg.08.7' W.

A...................... 24 deg.32.2' N......... 83 deg.08.7' W.

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

(d) Special management zones (SMZs).

(1) The following artificial reef and surrounding area is

established as an SMZ: Alabama--A. The area is bounded by rhumb lines

connecting the following points in the order listed:

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

Point Latitude Longitude

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

A...................... 30 deg.02.5' N......... 88 deg.07.7' W.

B...................... 30 deg.02.6' N......... 87 deg.59.3' W.

C...................... 29 deg.55.0' N......... 87 deg.55.5' W.

D...................... 29 deg.54.5' N......... 88 deg.07.5' W.

A...................... 30 deg.02.5' N......... 88 deg.07.7' W.

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

(2) In the SMZ specified in paragraph (d)(1) of this section,

fishing for reef fish is limited to hook-and-line gear with three or

less hooks per line and spearfishing gear. For the purpose of this

paragraph (d)(2), fishing for reef fish means possessing reef fish

aboard or landing reef fish from--

(i) A vessel that is operating as a charter vessel or headboat;

(ii) A recreational vessel, that is, a vessel that is not in a

commercial fishery; or

(iii) A vessel that has been issued a permit under Sec. 641.4 when

the reef fish aboard or landed from the vessel exceed a bag limit

specified in Sec. 641.24(b), for a species that has a bag limit, or

exceed 5 percent by weight of all fish aboard, for other reef fish.

(3) A person aboard a vessel that uses in an SMZ gear other than

hook-and-line gear with three or fewer hooks per line and spearfishing

gear to fish for species other than reef fish may not possess reef fish

in excess of the bag limits specified in Sec. 641.24(b), for those

species that have a bag limit, and in excess of 5 percent by weight of

all fish aboard, for other reef fish, and may not land from a trip on

which fishing was conducted in an SMZ, reef fish in excess of those

limits.

11. In Sec. 641.24, in paragraph (c)(1), the phrase ``as required

by the U.S. Coast Guard for trips of over 12 hours'' is removed; and

paragraphs (a) and (g) are revised to read as follows:

Sec. 641.24 Bag and possession limits.

(a) Applicability.

(1) Bag limits apply to a person--

(i) Who fishes from a fixed structure in the EEZ; or

(ii) Aboard a vessel that fishes in the EEZ, or aboard a fishing

vessel that possesses reef fish in the EEZ,

(A) Without a permit specified in Sec. 641.4 on board,

(B) With trawl gear or entangling net gear on board,

(C) With a longline or buoy gear on board when such vessel is

fishing or has fished on its present trip in the longline and buoy gear

restricted area specified in Sec. 641.23(b),

(D) That is operating as a charter vessel or headboat, or

(E) For a species for which the quota specified in Sec. 641.25 has

been reached and closure has been effected.

(2) For the purpose of paragraph (a)(1)(ii)(B) of this section, a

vessel is considered to have trawl gear on board when trawl doors and a

net are on board. Removal from the vessel of all trawl doors or all

nets constitutes removal of trawl gear.

(3) For the purpose of paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(C) of this section, a

vessel is considered to have a longline on board when a power-operated

longline hauler, a cable of diameter and length suitable for use in the

longline fishery, and gangions are on board. Removal of any one of

these three elements, in its entirety, constitutes removal of a

longline.

* * * * *

(g) Sale. A reef fish possessed under the bag limits specified in

paragraph (b) of this section may not be purchased, bartered, traded,

or sold, or attempted to be purchased, bartered, traded, or sold.

Sec. 641.27 [Amended]

12. In Sec. 641.27, in paragraph (a), the reference to

``641.24(a)(2)(ii)'' is revised to read ``641.24(a)(1)(ii)(B)''.

13. Section 641.28 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 641.28 Adjustment of management measures.

In accordance with the procedures and limitations of the Fishery

Management Plan for the Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico, the

Regional Director may--

(a) Establish or modify for species or species groups in the reef

fish fishery the following: target dates for rebuilding overfished

species, total allowable catch, bag limits, size limits, vessel trip

limits, closed seasons or areas, gear restrictions, and quotas; and

(b) Establish or modify special management zones and the gear

restrictions applicable in each.

Appendix A to Part 641--[Amended]

14. In Appendix A to part 641, Figures 2, 4, Seaward Limits of the

Stressed Area, and 5 are removed; Figure 4, Examples of mesh sizes

meeting the measurement criteria, is redesignated as Figure 2; and new

Figures 3 through 6 are added to read as follows:

BILLING CODE 3510-22-M

TR07JA94.002

TR07JA94.003

TR07JA94.004

TR07JA94.005

[FR Doc. 94-118 Filed 1-6-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-22-C