Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources of the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic; Amendment 8

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 622

[Docket No. 970606131-7131-01; I.D. 041497C]

RIN 0648-AG25

Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic;

Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources of the Gulf of Mexico and South

Atlantic; Amendment 8

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Proposed rule, request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS issues this proposed rule to implement Amendment 8 to the

Fishery Management Plan for the Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources of

the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic (FMP). Amendment 8 would revise

the earned income requirement for a commercial vessel permit for king

or Spanish mackerel, establish a moratorium on the issuance of

commercial vessel permits for king mackerel, extend the management area

for cobia to include the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) off the states

of Virginia through New York, specify allowable gear in the fisheries

for coastal migratory pelagic resources, allow the retention of up to

five cut-off king mackerel in excess of an applicable commercial trip

limit, and add to the management measures that may be established or

modified by the FMP's framework procedure. In addition, NMFS proposes

to clarify that a Federal vessel permit is not required for the use of

a sea bass pot north of Cape Hatteras, NC; clarify what constitutes

commercial fishing for the purpose of obtaining a commercial vessel

permit; revise the definition of ``charter vessel'' to conform to a new

definition of charter fishing in the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery

Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act); make explicit

the authority of NMFS to reopen a fishery that has been closed

prematurely, i.e., prior to a quota having been reached; and correct

references in the codified text

aining a commercial vessel

permit; revise the definition of ``charter vessel'' to conform to a new

definition of charter fishing in the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery

Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act); make explicit

the authority of NMFS to reopen a fishery that has been closed

prematurely, i.e., prior to a quota having been reached; and correct

references in the codified text. The intended effects of this rule are

to protect king and Spanish mackerel from overfishing and maintain

healthy stocks while still allowing catches by important commercial and

recreational fisheries and to clarify and correct the regulations.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before August 7, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments on the proposed rule must be sent to Mark

Godcharles, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 9721 Executive Center

Drive N., St. Petersburg, FL 33702.

Comments regarding the collection-of-information requirements

contained in this rule should be sent to Edward E. Burgess, Southeast

Regional Office, NMFS, 9721 Executive Center Drive N., St. Petersburg,

FL 33702, and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,

Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Washington, DC 20503 (Attention:

NOAA Desk Officer).

Copies of Amendment 8, which includes an environmental assessment,

a regulatory impact review (RIR), and an initial regulatory flexibility

analysis (IRFA), may be obtained from the South Atlantic Fishery

Management Council, Southpark Building, One Southpark Circle, Suite

306, Charleston, SC 29407-4699; Phone: 803-571-4366; Fax: 803-769-4520

or from the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, Suite 1000, 3018

U.S. Highway 301 North, Tampa, FL 33619; Phone: 813-228-2815; Fax: 813-

225-7015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Godcharles, 813-570-5305.

tained from the South Atlantic Fishery

Management Council, Southpark Building, One Southpark Circle, Suite

306, Charleston, SC 29407-4699; Phone: 803-571-4366; Fax: 803-769-4520

or from the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, Suite 1000, 3018

U.S. Highway 301 North, Tampa, FL 33619; Phone: 813-228-2815; Fax: 813-

225-7015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Godcharles, 813-570-5305.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The fisheries for coastal migratory pelagic

resources are managed under the FMP. The FMP was prepared jointly by

the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council and the South Atlantic

Fishery Management Council (Councils) and is implemented under the

authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act by regulations at 50 CFR part

622.

In Amendment 8, the Councils propose to add two fishery problem

statements to the FMP, increase the minimum earned income requirement

to qualify for a commercial mackerel permit, implement a 5-year

moratorium on issuing new permits for commercial king mackerel fishing

in the EEZ and establish criteria for transferring permits during the

moratorium, specify authorized gears and requirements for testing

experimental gears used to harvest species managed under the FMP,

extend the cobia management area to include the Mid-Atlantic EEZ, and

make major revisions to the FMP's framework procedure for changing

catch specifications.

Earned Income Requirement for Mackerel Permits

d establish criteria for transferring permits during the

moratorium, specify authorized gears and requirements for testing

experimental gears used to harvest species managed under the FMP,

extend the cobia management area to include the Mid-Atlantic EEZ, and

make major revisions to the FMP's framework procedure for changing

catch specifications.

Earned Income Requirement for Mackerel Permits

Currently, to obtain a commercial king or Spanish mackerel permit,

a vessel owner or operator must document that at least 10 percent of

his/her earned income was derived from the sale of fish during one of

the 3 calendar years preceding the application. The Councils propose to

require that at least 25 percent of earned income, or at least $10,000,

must have been derived from the sale of fish or from charter fishing

during one of the 3 calendar years preceding the application. As

recently defined in the Magnuson-Stevens Act, ``charter fishing''

includes operations of either a charter vessel or a headboat. The

Councils chose this alternative as the least restrictive option to

differentiate more equitably between fishermen subject to bag limits

and fishermen subject to the quotas--the latter being fishermen who are

primarily dependent on king and Spanish mackerel for their livelihoods.

The Councils expect the revised earned income or gross sales

requirement would eliminate from participation under the quotas some

fishermen who currently qualify for commercial permits based on sales

of small amounts of fish. Under the revised requirement, such fishermen

would be restricted to the bag limits.

Effective on the first of the month following the date that is 13

months after the date of publication of the final rule to implement

Amendment 8, the ``revised earned income implementation date,'' only

those vessel permits for king or Spanish mackerel that were issued

under the revised earned income or gross sales requirement would be

valid for king or Spanish mackerel

ed to the bag limits.

Effective on the first of the month following the date that is 13

months after the date of publication of the final rule to implement

Amendment 8, the ``revised earned income implementation date,'' only

those vessel permits for king or Spanish mackerel that were issued

under the revised earned income or gross sales requirement would be

valid for king or Spanish mackerel. Under this implementation schedule,

a king or Spanish mackerel permit that is valid on the date of

publication of the final rule would remain valid through the date of

expiration stated on the permit. King and Spanish mackerel permits

issued after the date of publication of the final rule would be valid

for the normal period, generally 1 year, if the revised earned income

or gross sales requirement is met, and would be valid until the revised

earned income implementation date, if the revised earned income or

gross sales requirement is not met.

Moratorium on Commercial Permits for King Mackerel

The Councils propose a moratorium on commercial permits for king

mackerel effective through October 15, 2000. To obtain a king mackerel

permit under the moratorium, a vessel owner must have owned a vessel

with a commercial vessel permit for king mackerel on or before October

16, 1995, the control date for the king mackerel fishery (60 FR 53576,

October 16, 1995).

Under the proposed permit moratorium, separate Federal

atorium on commercial permits for king

mackerel effective through October 15, 2000. To obtain a king mackerel

permit under the moratorium, a vessel owner must have owned a vessel

with a commercial vessel permit for king mackerel on or before October

16, 1995, the control date for the king mackerel fishery (60 FR 53576,

October 16, 1995).

Under the proposed permit moratorium, separate Federal

commercial permits for king and Spanish mackerel would be issued

instead of the existing combined Federal commercial permit for king and

Spanish mackerel.

Under the moratorium, a commercial vessel permit for king mackerel

that is not renewed or that is revoked would not be reissued. A permit

is considered to be not renewed when an application for renewal is not

received by the Regional Administrator, Southeast Region, NMFS, within

1 year of the permit expiration date. (The designation ``Regional

Administrator'' appears in the regulatory text as ``Regional Director''

or ``RD''.)

An owner or operator of a vessel that does not have a king mackerel

permit on the date of publication of the final rule to implement

Amendment 8 would have to submit an application for a permit to the

Regional Administrator, postmarked or hand delivered not later than 90

days after the date of publication of the final rule.

Under the moratorium, an owner would not be issued initial

commercial vessel permits in numbers exceeding the number of vessels

permitted in the king mackerel fishery that he/she owned simultaneously

on or before October 16, 1995. For example, an owner who owned two

permitted vessels at one time on or before October 16, 1995, and

currently owns one permitted vessel, would qualify for an additional

permit for a vessel he/she owns. On the other hand, an owner who owned

only one permitted vessel on or before October 16, 1995, but who

currently owns a second permitted vessel, would not qualify for an

additional permit

95. For example, an owner who owned two

permitted vessels at one time on or before October 16, 1995, and

currently owns one permitted vessel, would qualify for an additional

permit for a vessel he/she owns. On the other hand, an owner who owned

only one permitted vessel on or before October 16, 1995, but who

currently owns a second permitted vessel, would not qualify for an

additional permit. This would not preclude an owner from acquiring

additional permits through transfers of permits under the moratorium.

An owner would be allowed to transfer a permit to another vessel

owned by the same entity. In addition, an owner whose earned income or

gross sales qualified for a commercial vessel permit would be able to

transfer the permit to the buyer of the permitted vessel or to the

owner of another vessel. Such new owner could receive an initial king

mackerel permit without meeting the earned income or gross sales

requirement and would have 1 full calendar year to meet that

requirement, plus an additional 3 \1/2\ months to document his/her

earned income or gross sales and apply for renewal and for NMFS to

process the application and issue a renewed permit. The new owner,

rather than the vessel operator, would be required to meet the earned

income or gross sales requirement for such renewal. The grace period,

i.e., 1 full calendar year plus 3 \1/2\ months, would also be available

to an owner who loses an earned-income or gross-sales qualifying

operator. Finally, an owner of a vessel whose permit was qualified for

by an operator could transfer the permit to the operator if the

operator buys the vessel.

The Councils propose the moratorium to stabilize participation in

the king mackerel fishery and prevent further increases in effort on

stocks that are currently undergoing rebuilding. For commercial king

mackerel fisheries, the Councils want to prevent speculative entry, and

possibly reduce the number of permitted vessels, while they consider a

limited access program

perator buys the vessel.

The Councils propose the moratorium to stabilize participation in

the king mackerel fishery and prevent further increases in effort on

stocks that are currently undergoing rebuilding. For commercial king

mackerel fisheries, the Councils want to prevent speculative entry, and

possibly reduce the number of permitted vessels, while they consider a

limited access program. NMFS's permit records indicate an increase of

102 percent in the number of commercial king mackerel permits issued

from the 1987/88 to the 1993/94 fishing year (1,280 to 2,588). The

Councils believe that continuation of the moratorium through October

15, 2000, would allow ample time to develop a long-range limited access

program that would provide a more equitable distribution of catch among

current participants who have had a historical dependence on the

fishery.

The 90-day period for applications for king mackerel permits under

the moratorium for vessels not currently permitted would allow a basis

for planning further management measures. After that 90-day period, the

maximum number of vessels permitted for king mackerel under the

moratorium would be known, rather than being subject to additional

applications/permits. In addition, the 90-day period would limit the

duration of the administrative functions of ascertaining eligibility

for and issuing permits under the moratorium criterion.

Effective on the first of the month following the date that is 13

months after the date of publication of the final rule to implement

Amendment 8, the ``moratorium implementation date,'' only those vessel

permits for king mackerel that were issued under the moratorium

criterion would be valid for king mackerel. (The moratorium

implementation date would be the same date as the revised earned income

implementation date.) Under this implementation schedule, a king

mackerel permit that is valid on the date of publication of the final

rule would remain valid through the date of expiration stated on the

permit

king mackerel that were issued under the moratorium

criterion would be valid for king mackerel. (The moratorium

implementation date would be the same date as the revised earned income

implementation date.) Under this implementation schedule, a king

mackerel permit that is valid on the date of publication of the final

rule would remain valid through the date of expiration stated on the

permit. King mackerel permits renewed after the date of publication of

the final rule would be valid for the normal period, generally 1 year,

if the moratorium criterion is met, and would be valid until the

moratorium implementation date, if the moratorium criterion is not met.

Extend the Cobia Management Area

The Councils propose to extend the cobia management area northward

to include the area of authority of the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management

Council. By repositioning the northern boundary at the New York/

Connecticut boundary, the cobia management area would be expanded to

include the EEZ off the states of Virginia through New York. With this

proposal, the Councils are trying to provide more consistency with

National Standard 3 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, which requires that,

to the extent practicable, an individual stock of fish be managed as a

unit throughout its range.

The proposal would extend into the Mid-Atlantic EEZ two management

measures for cobia--the recreational/commercial bag limit of 2 fish per

person per day, regardless of the number of trips or duration of a

trip; and the minimum size limit of 33 inches (83.8 cm), fork length.

Authorized Gear

at,

to the extent practicable, an individual stock of fish be managed as a

unit throughout its range.

The proposal would extend into the Mid-Atlantic EEZ two management

measures for cobia--the recreational/commercial bag limit of 2 fish per

person per day, regardless of the number of trips or duration of a

trip; and the minimum size limit of 33 inches (83.8 cm), fork length.

Authorized Gear

The Councils propose to specify, revise, and clarify the gear

allowed to be used in directed fishing in the EEZ of the Gulf, South

Atlantic, and Mid-Atlantic for all coastal pelagic species.

Accordingly, the proposed rule contains new and revised definitions of

fishing gears. Hook-and-line gear would be defined to include automatic

reel, bandit gear, buoy gear, handline, longline, and rod and reel.

Each of the hook-and-line gears would be defined. (The current

definition of buoy gear would not be changed.) Three types of gillnets,

i.e., long gillnet, stab net, and trammel net, would be defined and the

definition of run-around gillnet would be revised. ``Long gillnet''

would be defined as a gillnet that has a float line that is more than

1,000 yd (914 m) in length. The current regulations at 50 CFR 622.31(d)

contain restrictions on the use of such a gillnet for coastal migratory

pelagic fish in the Gulf, Mid-Atlantic, or South Atlantic EEZ. The term

``long gillnet'' would simplify references to such a gillnet. The

Councils propose the changes to clarify intent, prevent gear conflicts,

and, by specifying possession limits for incidental catch when gear not

authorized in directed fishing is on board, enhance enforceability.

King Mackerel, Atlantic Migratory Group

For the Atlantic migratory group of king mackerel in the area north

of Cape Lookout Light, NC (i.e., north of 34 deg.37.3'

uch a gillnet. The

Councils propose the changes to clarify intent, prevent gear conflicts,

and, by specifying possession limits for incidental catch when gear not

authorized in directed fishing is on board, enhance enforceability.

King Mackerel, Atlantic Migratory Group

For the Atlantic migratory group of king mackerel in the area north

of Cape Lookout Light, NC (i.e., north of 34 deg.37.3'

N. lat.), all gear would be allowed in the directed fishery for this

group except a long gillnet. In that area, the proposal would allow the

use of drift gillnets, which currently is prohibited throughout the

management area for all coastal pelagic species. South of Cape Lookout

Light, NC, proposed authorized gear would be automatic reel, bandit

gear, handline, and rod and reel.

King Mackerel, Gulf Migratory Group

For the Gulf migratory group of king mackerel, the Councils re-

specified that the only authorized gears for directed fishing for this

group would remain hook-and-line gear and run-around gillnet. The use

of unauthorized gears in directed fishing for Gulf migratory group king

mackerel would continue to be prohibited as would the possession of

king mackerel on vessels with a drift gillnet or a long gillnet on

board. Also, the purse seine incidental catch allowance for king

mackerel would remain unaffected. However, fishermen would be allowed

to make multi-species trips with unauthorized gear on board (e.g.,

shrimp trawls, crab and lobster traps) and commercially harvest king

mackerel using authorized gear. Such commercial harvest would be

subject to the existing trip limits. Currently, the regulations do not

allow multi-species trips or the possession of Gulf group king mackerel

on board vessels carrying unauthorized gear. In specifying authorized

gears in Amendment 5 (55 FR 29370, July 19, 1990), the Councils did not

intend to disallow traditional multi-species fishing practices in the

Gulf of Mexico.

Spanish Mackerel, Atlantic Migratory Group

ting trip limits. Currently, the regulations do not

allow multi-species trips or the possession of Gulf group king mackerel

on board vessels carrying unauthorized gear. In specifying authorized

gears in Amendment 5 (55 FR 29370, July 19, 1990), the Councils did not

intend to disallow traditional multi-species fishing practices in the

Gulf of Mexico.

Spanish Mackerel, Atlantic Migratory Group

For vessels fishing in the EEZ north of Cape Lookout, NC, the

Councils propose the following authorized gears for the Atlantic

migratory group of Spanish mackerel: Automatic reel, bandit gear,

handline, rod and reel, cast net, run-around gillnet, stab net, and

drift gillnet. South of Cape Lookout, their proposals would allow

automatic reel, bandit gear, handline, rod and reel, cast net, run-

around gillnet, and stab net.

For vessels gillnetting Spanish mackerel in the EEZ off the Florida

east coast north of the Dade/Monroe County, FL, boundary, the Councils

propose additional regulations regarding gillnet construction and

deployment. The float line for a gillnet used for directed Spanish

mackerel fishing could not be longer than 800 yd (732 m). Additionally,

the float line would have to contain a maximum of nine distinctive

floats that would be different from the usual net buoys, spaced

uniformly at a distance of 100 yd (91.44 m) or less, and bear the

official number of the vessel from which the gillnet is deployed.

Under the proposals, a vessel targeting Spanish mackerel could have

two gillnets on board, but only one could be deployed at any one time.

The stretched-mesh sizes of the two gillnets would have to differ by at

least 0.25 inch (0.64 cm); the gillnet used to capture Spanish mackerel

still would have to comply with the current minimum mesh size, i.e.,

3.5 inches (8.9 cm), stretched mesh. The gillnet could not be soaked

for more than 1 hour

mackerel could have

two gillnets on board, but only one could be deployed at any one time.

The stretched-mesh sizes of the two gillnets would have to differ by at

least 0.25 inch (0.64 cm); the gillnet used to capture Spanish mackerel

still would have to comply with the current minimum mesh size, i.e.,

3.5 inches (8.9 cm), stretched mesh. The gillnet could not be soaked

for more than 1 hour. The soak period would begin with placement of the

first mesh in the water and end with its retrieval back on board the

vessel in a continuous effort to completely remove the gillnet from the

water. Limiting soak time to no more than 1 hour prevents

indiscriminate use of nets, reduces incidental take of non-targeted

species, and improves the quality of harvested fish.

Spanish Mackerel, Gulf Migratory Group

For the Gulf migratory group of Spanish mackerel, the Councils

proposed no revisions. Consequently, authorized gears would remain all

gears except long gillnets, drift gillnets, and purse seines.

Cero

For cero in the South Atlantic and Gulf EEZ, the Council proposes

to authorize all gears except long gillnets.

Cobia

For cobia in the Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic EEZ, the proposed

authorized gears are automatic reel, bandit gear, handline, rod and

reel, and pelagic longline. Authorized gears in the Gulf EEZ would be

all gears except long gillnets.

Dolphin

For dolphin in the South Atlantic EEZ, proposed authorized gears

are automatic reel, bandit gear, handline, pelagic longline, and rod

and reel. Authorized gears in the Gulf EEZ would be all gears except

long gillnets.

Little Tunny

For little tunny in the South Atlantic EEZ south of Cape Lookout,

NC, proposed authorized gears are automatic reel, bandit gear,

handline, pelagic longline, and rod and reel. In the South Atlantic EEZ

north of Cape Lookout, the Councils propose to allow all gears except

long gillnets. In the Gulf EEZ, authorized gears would be all gears

except long gillnets.

Bluefish

illnets.

Little Tunny

For little tunny in the South Atlantic EEZ south of Cape Lookout,

NC, proposed authorized gears are automatic reel, bandit gear,

handline, pelagic longline, and rod and reel. In the South Atlantic EEZ

north of Cape Lookout, the Councils propose to allow all gears except

long gillnets. In the Gulf EEZ, authorized gears would be all gears

except long gillnets.

Bluefish

For bluefish in the Gulf EEZ, authorized gears would be all gears

except long gillnets.

Unauthorized Gear

Under Amendment 8, unauthorized gear could not be used in directed

fishing for any coastal migratory pelagic species. Possession of

coastal migratory pelagic fish would be prohibited for a vessel which

fished in the Gulf, Mid-Atlantic, or South Atlantic EEZ with a long

gillnet on board. The existing prohibition for possessing king or

Spanish mackerel on a vessel that fished in the Gulf EEZ with a drift

gillnet on board would remain in effect. Otherwise, as proposed, for a

vessel with unauthorized gear on board that has fished in the EEZ, the

incidental catch of king and Spanish mackerel and cobia would be

limited to the bag limit and would be unlimited for coastal migratory

pelagic species without bag limits. No changes are proposed for

incidental catch allowances for king and Spanish mackerel taken by

purse seines and for king mackerel taken in a gillnet with a mesh size

less than 4.75 inches (12.1 cm), stretched mesh.

Experimental Gears

catch of king and Spanish mackerel and cobia would be

limited to the bag limit and would be unlimited for coastal migratory

pelagic species without bag limits. No changes are proposed for

incidental catch allowances for king and Spanish mackerel taken by

purse seines and for king mackerel taken in a gillnet with a mesh size

less than 4.75 inches (12.1 cm), stretched mesh.

Experimental Gears

The Councils also propose certain specifications and criteria for

the use of experimental gear to harvest coastal migratory pelagic fish

in the South Atlantic and Mid-Atlantic. Use of experimental gear, i.e.,

gear not authorized by the regulations, would constitute exempted

fishing when conducted under a permit issued pursuant to regulations on

exempted fishing, contained in 50 CFR 600.745(b). Those regulations

adequately address the Councils' concerns related to the development

and testing of experimental gear in directed coastal migratory pelagic

fisheries. Consequently, no additional regulations are proposed.

Exemption to King Mackerel Trip Limits

To minimize waste, the Councils propose to allow the retention on a

vessel holding a commercial king mackerel permit of five cut-off king

mackerel per trip (i.e., king mackerel that have been damaged/severed

by predators, such as barracuda or sharks, during capture). Such

damaged king mackerel would not be counted against commercial vessel

trip limits, could not be sold or purchased, and would be exempt from

the requirement that fish be landed with heads and fins intact.

Atlantic Group King Mackerel Trip Limits

Under another regulatory action, NMFS implemented the trip limits

proposed in Amendment 8 for commercial vessels fishing for Atlantic

group king mackerel. They became effective September 23, 1996 (61 FR

48848; September 17, 1996). Accordingly, this proposed rule does not

include those trip limits.

Additional Measures in Amendment 8

Amendment 8 contains several measures that do not require changes

in 50 CFR part 622.

tion, NMFS implemented the trip limits

proposed in Amendment 8 for commercial vessels fishing for Atlantic

group king mackerel. They became effective September 23, 1996 (61 FR

48848; September 17, 1996). Accordingly, this proposed rule does not

include those trip limits.

Additional Measures in Amendment 8

Amendment 8 contains several measures that do not require changes

in 50 CFR part 622.

Problems in the Fishery

To the ten fishery problems already identified in the FMP, the

Councils propose to add two more, namely:

11. Localized reduction in abundance of fish due to high fishing

pressure; and

12. Disruption of markets.

The proposals identify the Councils' concerns that increased

fishing effort for some species (e.g., dolphin) could reduce

availability in some areas, negatively impact markets, and cause user

conflicts.

Revise the FMP Annual Framework Adjustment Process

Annual Stock Assessment Procedure

The Councils propose the following revisions regarding the

development of the annual report by the Mackerel Stock Assessment Panel

(Panel). They would clarify that stock condition would be assessed in

alternate, even-numbered years. For fish groups that can be managed

separately, the Councils also would require estimates of the spawning

potential ratio (SPR) and fishing mortality rates (F) relative to 20,

30, and 40 percent SPRs (F20%SPR,

F30%SPR,

F40%SPR). The additional information

would help determine and avoid overfished conditions and overfishing

and provide information necessary for rebuilding stocks to maximum

sustainable yield (MSY). The Councils also propose to remove the

requirement that the Panel calculate allowable biological catch (ABC)

separately for eastern and western groups of Gulf group king mackerel

when stock identification data support division.

The Councils also would require the Panel to estimate the current

mixing rate of Atlantic and Gulf migratory groups of king mackerel in

the south Florida mixing zone

The Councils also propose to remove the

requirement that the Panel calculate allowable biological catch (ABC)

separately for eastern and western groups of Gulf group king mackerel

when stock identification data support division.

The Councils also would require the Panel to estimate the current

mixing rate of Atlantic and Gulf migratory groups of king mackerel in

the south Florida mixing zone. That estimate would help in tracking

quotas, determining the impacts of changing seasonal boundary lines now

separating these groups, and evaluating the impacts of establishing a

permanent boundary to separate the two groups. The information also

could aid the Councils in their considerations regarding development of

separate FMPs for coastal migratory pelagic species. That possibility

would be explored in a Council staff report to be prepared after next

year's stock assessment.

Optimum Yield, Overfishing Definitions, and Rebuilding Programs

The Councils propose to revise the definitions of overfished and

overfishing, and to restructure rebuilding programs. The proposals,

initially recommended by the SPR Management Strategy Committee, have

been endorsed by the Panel. The proposed definitions would specify that

a mackerel group would be considered overfished if its transitional SPR

is below 20 percent; the current FMP definition specifies a higher SPR

of 30 percent. Based on these definitions and SPR estimates generated

for the 1997 stock assessment, no mackerel groups would currently be

considered to be overfished. Consequently, if the proposals are

approved, no rebuilding programs would be immediately necessary.

However, the Councils' proposals would, for overfished stocks, require

recovery above overfished levels within a specified time frame, as well

as continued rebuilding to the new optimum yield (OY) targets. The

Councils propose to specify long-term OY at 30 and 40 percent SPRs,

respectively, for the Gulf and Atlantic migratory groups of king and

Spanish mackerel

ould be immediately necessary.

However, the Councils' proposals would, for overfished stocks, require

recovery above overfished levels within a specified time frame, as well

as continued rebuilding to the new optimum yield (OY) targets. The

Councils propose to specify long-term OY at 30 and 40 percent SPRs,

respectively, for the Gulf and Atlantic migratory groups of king and

Spanish mackerel.

For stocks that are not overfished, that is, stocks whose

transitional SPR is equal to or greater than 20 percent, the act of

overfishing would be defined as harvesting at a level which exceeds the

fishing mortality rate associated with the threshold static SPR of 20

percent (F20%SPR). When such

overfishing occurs, the stock may become overfished and, therefore, a

program to reduce fishing mortality rates toward management target

levels, i.e., OY, would be implemented, even if the stock or migratory

group is not in an overfished condition.

The Councils also propose a definition of overfishing for a stock

or migratory group for which insufficient information is available to

determine if it is overfished, based on its transitional SPR. For those

species or groups, overfishing would be defined as a fishing mortality

rate in excess of the fishing mortality rate corresponding to a default

threshold static SPR of 30 percent. Again, if such overfishing occurs,

a program to reduce fishing mortality rates to at least the level

corresponding to management target levels would be implemented.

Councils' Review of Annual Assessment Report

In addition to proposing changes to the procedure for the annual

review of the stock assessment report, the Councils propose an

alternative for considering information received separately from the

annual assessment report. In either instance, the Councils would

consult with their Advisory Panels and Scientific and Statistical

Committees to review the Panel's annual report or other information,

respectively, and provide advice before taking final action

al

review of the stock assessment report, the Councils propose an

alternative for considering information received separately from the

annual assessment report. In either instance, the Councils would

consult with their Advisory Panels and Scientific and Statistical

Committees to review the Panel's annual report or other information,

respectively, and provide advice before taking final action. Currently,

the FMP states that the Councils may convene such advisory groups for

these purposes. The requirement to hold a public hearing at the time

and place where the Councils consider the Panel's report, or

information received separately, would apply in either instance.

FMP Framework Management Options Available to the Councils

The Councils would revise five of the nine management measures in

the FMP that may be adjusted under the annual framework process and add

two more. They propose to add the ability to change overfishing levels

and reallocate total allowable catch (TAC) between the commercial and

recreational sectors of the Atlantic group Spanish mackerel fishery.

The proposed revisions would allow the Councils to recommend zero

quotas and bag limits, gear prohibitions, reopenings of closed seasons

or areas, and closures or reopenings of spawning seasons or areas.

The Councils recommend the proposals to clarify the range of

options available and to allow for more timely implementation of

management measures than is possible through the FMP amendment process.

For example, the Councils would be able to respond more quickly to new

information and rapid changes in the stocks indicating a need to adjust

overfishing levels or establish zero bag limits and quotas to avoid

rapid stock depletion. The Councils also want the option of prohibiting

certain gears under the framework process in order to respond quickly

to loopholes in the regulations that frustrate their intent, such as

have occurred in the construction and use of drift gillnets for king

mackerel off the east coast of Florida

anagement Council (Gulf Council) be responsible,

respectively, for the Atlantic and Gulf migratory groups of king and

Spanish mackerel. This proposal would increase administrative

efficiency and reduce costs and burdens to fishermen in this area who

desire to participate in the management process, but now have to

interact with both Councils.

Regulatory Changes That May Be Implemented by NMFS

The Councils' proposed modification of the FMP mirrors those

previously discussed above under the heading FMP Framework Management

Options Available to Councils. The changes would allow NMFS to

implement any of the options that could be adjusted annually by the

Councils. However, under the new authority that would be granted to

NMFS, any reallocation of TAC for Atlantic group Spanish mackerel could

not exceed 10 percent of the recreational allocation or the commercial

quota in any given year. The Councils chose the 10-percent limitation

to ensure that allocations/quotas would be changed gradually and, thus,

minimize social and economic impacts on recreational and commercial

fisheries. Also, any proposed adjustment could be implemented over

several years to reach a desired goal, but would have to be assessed

each year relative to changes in TAC and the potential social and

economic impacts to either sector of the fishery.

The proposed modifications would explicitly authorize NMFS to

reopen a commercial mackerel fishery that was closed prematurely, i.e.,

before the quota was taken. Excessive harvesting capacities in

commercial mackerel fisheries and smaller sub-quotas for gears/

geographical areas have increased the likelihood that premature

closures may occur, especially when adverse weather conditions reduce

harvest rates immediately preceding a projected closure date. The

ability to reopen a commercial fishery would ensure the full economic

benefit of commercial quotas without adversely affecting the resource

ial mackerel fisheries and smaller sub-quotas for gears/

geographical areas have increased the likelihood that premature

closures may occur, especially when adverse weather conditions reduce

harvest rates immediately preceding a projected closure date. The

ability to reopen a commercial fishery would ensure the full economic

benefit of commercial quotas without adversely affecting the resource.

NMFS's existing authority to effect quota closures and the added

authority to reopen would also apply to recreational fisheries if, in

the future, the Councils take action to control recreational harvest by

quotas in addition to, or as a substitute for, bag limits. As is the

case with closures, reopenings would be accomplished through

notification in the Federal Register.

Optimum Yield

The Councils propose to revise the definition of OY to conform with

the proposed overfishing definitions and SPR targets. The South

Atlantic Council's and Gulf Council's targets would be set at OYs of 40

and 30 percent static SPR, respectively. ABCs would be calculated based

on each Council's chosen OY target.

Currently, the OY definition in the FMP states that the long-term

OY goal for mackerels and cobia is MSY. The Councils believe that this

definition may drive spawning stock levels toward the overfished level.

They consider the newly proposed definition to be more risk-averse,

i.e., revising and resetting OY targets at SPRs of 30 and 40 percent

would decrease the risks of overfishing more than setting them at MSY.

Availability of and Comments on Amendment 8

OY goal for mackerels and cobia is MSY. The Councils believe that this

definition may drive spawning stock levels toward the overfished level.

They consider the newly proposed definition to be more risk-averse,

i.e., revising and resetting OY targets at SPRs of 30 and 40 percent

would decrease the risks of overfishing more than setting them at MSY.

Availability of and Comments on Amendment 8

Additional background and rationale for the measures discussed

above are contained in Amendment 8, the availability of which was

announced in the Federal Register on April 23, 1997 (62 FR 19733).

Written comments on Amendment 8 are solicited and must be received by

June 23, 1997. Comments that are received by June 23, 1997, whether

specifically directed to the amendment or the proposed rule, will be

considered in the approval/disapproval decision on Amendment 8.

Comments received after that date will not be considered in the

approval/disapproval decision. All comments received on Amendment 8 or

on this proposed rule during their respective comment periods will be

addressed in the preamble to the final rule.

Additional Changes Proposed by NMFS

In accordance with the northern limit of the regulations on sea

bass in the South Atlantic EEZ, NMFS proposes to clarify, at

Secs. 622.4(a)(2)(vi), 622.6(b)(1), and 622.40(b)(3)(i), that the

permitting, marking, and construction requirements for the use of a sea

bass pot apply in the EEZ between the latitudes of Cape Hatteras, NC,

and Cape Canaveral, FL.

To clarify what constitutes commercial fishing for the purpose of

obtaining a commercial vessel permit, NMFS proposes to replace the

phrase ``sale of fish from the applicant's vessels,'' where it appears

in Sec

(3)(i), that the

permitting, marking, and construction requirements for the use of a sea

bass pot apply in the EEZ between the latitudes of Cape Hatteras, NC,

and Cape Canaveral, FL.

To clarify what constitutes commercial fishing for the purpose of

obtaining a commercial vessel permit, NMFS proposes to replace the

phrase ``sale of fish from the applicant's vessels,'' where it appears

in Sec. 622.4(a)(2), with the phrase ``harvest and first sale of

fish.'' Literal application of the replaced language would preclude a

crew member of a fishing vessel from using salary or shares from

fishing to meet an earned income from fishing requirement for a permit

if such crew member became a vessel owner or operator. Such application

was not intended by the Councils. The revised language would, however,

preclude a person from using the income from fish purchased and resold

to meet an earned income from fishing or gross sales requirement for a

permit.

A recent amendment to the Magnuson-Stevens Act defines the term

``charter fishing'' as ``fishing from a vessel carrying a passenger for

hire * * * who is engaged in recreational fishing.'' To ensure

compatibility with this newly defined term, NMFS proposes to revise the

definition of ``charter vessel'' in Sec. 622.4 and to substitute the

words ``charter fishing'' for the words ``charter or headboat

operations'' where they appear in Sec. 622.4(a)(2)(v) and (vi). As

newly defined, ``charter fishing'' encompasses operations of both

charter vessels and headboats.

As noted above, the Councils propose to make explicit the authority

of NMFS to reopen a commercial mackerel fishery that has been closed

prematurely. NMFS recently approved similar action proposed by the Gulf

Council in Amendment 14 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Reef

Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico. The rationale for these actions

generally applies to all fisheries in which there are quota closures

e Councils propose to make explicit the authority

of NMFS to reopen a commercial mackerel fishery that has been closed

prematurely. NMFS recently approved similar action proposed by the Gulf

Council in Amendment 14 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Reef

Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico. The rationale for these actions

generally applies to all fisheries in which there are quota closures.

Accordingly, for standardization among fisheries, NMFS proposes to add

the explicit authority to reopen the following fisheries in which there

are provisions for quota closures, if they are prematurely closed: Gulf

and South Atlantic allowable octocoral (50 CFR 622.42(b)(1)); and royal

red shrimp in the Gulf (50 CFR 622.42(d)).

To conform with the proposed new definition of ``hook-and-line

gear,''

NMFS proposes clarifying language where that phrase is used in

connection with authorized or prohibited gears in the snapper-grouper

fishery off the southern Atlantic states (50 CFR 622.35(e)(2)(i) and

622.41(d)(1) and (3)).

NMFS also proposes to make technical corrections to references in

the codified text as follows: In the definition of ``Dealer'' at

Sec. 622.2, the reference would be revised to read ``Sec. 622.10''; in

the description of the reef fish longline and buoy gear restricted area

at Sec. 622.34(c), the reference to figures 1 and 2 would be removed;

in the description of the reef fish stressed area at Sec. 622.34(g),

the reference to figures 3 and 4 would be removed; and in the

restrictions regarding purchase of South Atlantic snapper-grouper at

Sec. 622.45(d)(2), the reference would be revised to read

``Sec. 622.4(a)(2)(vi)''.

As discussed above, Amendment 8 proposes additional marking

requirements for gillnets used for Atlantic group Spanish mackerel.

Inclusion of that new requirement would necessitate restructuring the

existing regulations at 50 CFR 622.6(b), (c), and (d)

ns regarding purchase of South Atlantic snapper-grouper at

Sec. 622.45(d)(2), the reference would be revised to read

``Sec. 622.4(a)(2)(vi)''.

As discussed above, Amendment 8 proposes additional marking

requirements for gillnets used for Atlantic group Spanish mackerel.

Inclusion of that new requirement would necessitate restructuring the

existing regulations at 50 CFR 622.6(b), (c), and (d). For ease of

understanding and for clarity, this proposed rule restates the existing

gear identification requirements for traps, pots, and their associated

buoys without substantive change.

Classification

At this time, NMFS has not determined that the amendment that this

rule would implement is consistent with the national standards of the

Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws. NMFS, in making that

determination, will take into account the data, views, and comments

received during the comment period on Amendment 8.

This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for

purposes of E.O. 12866.

The Councils prepared an IRFA, based on the RIR, that describes the

impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities.

Based on the IRFA, NMFS has concluded that Amendment 8, if approved and

implemented through final regulations, would have significant economic

impacts on a substantial number of small entities. A summary of the

IRFA's assessment of the significant impacts on small entities, as

supplemented by NMFS where necessary, follows.

The Councils intend that the proposed management measures continue

the recovery of the stocks, limit the introduction of new gear, and

provide a more flexible and responsive regulatory system. Increasing

entry of participants in the fishery has resulted in shorter seasons to

fill quotas. Uncertainty of stock identification of migratory groups of

king mackerel continues to complicate management of this species

nd that the proposed management measures continue

the recovery of the stocks, limit the introduction of new gear, and

provide a more flexible and responsive regulatory system. Increasing

entry of participants in the fishery has resulted in shorter seasons to

fill quotas. Uncertainty of stock identification of migratory groups of

king mackerel continues to complicate management of this species. While

the proposed management measures relate to all eight major objectives

of the FMP, the objectives to recover and stabilize the stocks, to

provide for flexible management, to provide for management of the

specific migratory groups, and to optimize the social and economic

benefits of the coastal migratory pelagic fisheries are the most

germane. The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides the legal basis for the

rule.

Amendment 8 will affect most of the 3,819 vessels from Atlantic and

Gulf states (1,722 and 2,097 vessels, respectively) that have permits

to operate in mackerel fisheries in the EEZ. For Atlantic states, 1,093

vessels possess commercial permits, 393 possess charter/headboat

permits, and 236 vessels possess both permits. For Gulf states, 1,266

vessels possess commercial permits, 613 possess charter/headboat

permits, and 218 vessels possess both permits. All of the commercial

fishing and charter/headboat businesses that would be affected by

Amendment 8 are considered small entities for the purposes of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act. There are no data that describe the precise

average or range of operating costs or annual gross revenues. A

substantial number of small entities are expected to be affected for

purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The Councils concluded that no single proposed measure in Amendment

8 would significantly affect revenues of the small entities expected to

be impacted by the proposed rule

There are no data that describe the precise

average or range of operating costs or annual gross revenues. A

substantial number of small entities are expected to be affected for

purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The Councils concluded that no single proposed measure in Amendment

8 would significantly affect revenues of the small entities expected to

be impacted by the proposed rule. However, the Councils also concluded

that the cumulative effect of the amendment's 21 proposed management

measures (not including a number of proposed ``no action'' measures)

could change annual revenues in excess of 5 percent. The RIR and

associated IRFA contain an analysis, largely qualitative, of the

economic impacts of the 21 proposed management measures and their

rejected alternatives. Management measures that should result in the

greatest revenue changes for small entities include the moratorium on

new entrants, changes in income qualifications for commercial fishing

permits, and changed commercial trip limits for Atlantic group king

mackerel. Further, the proposed increase in the income requirement for

obtaining a king or Spanish mackerel commercial permit may eliminate as

many as 5 percent of the currently permitted vessels from participation

in the mackerel fisheries. Whether these vessels would cease business

operations entirely is not known, but switching to a higher reliance on

alternative fisheries may significantly reduce their overall incomes

and/or increase their costs of fishing.

The proposed management measures will not create any changed or

increased compliance costs related to reporting and record keeping

other than those resulting from the gear marking requirements. Refer to

the discussion below concerning this rule's collection-of-information

requirements that are subject to approval under the Paperwork Reduction

Act (PRA)

and/or increase their costs of fishing.

The proposed management measures will not create any changed or

increased compliance costs related to reporting and record keeping

other than those resulting from the gear marking requirements. Refer to

the discussion below concerning this rule's collection-of-information

requirements that are subject to approval under the Paperwork Reduction

Act (PRA). However, there will be increased compliance costs associated

with the restrictions on the use of gillnets and the additional marking

requirement for gillnets, each applicable to the harvest of Atlantic

group Spanish mackerel in a portion of the EEZ off the east coast of

Florida. These costs were not formally addressed in the RIR. The

proposal to limit lengths of gillnets used for Spanish mackerel and to

require special buoys marked with the owner's permit number on such

gillnets used in the prescribed area will require small compliance

costs to modify the gear so that it will be legal under the preferred

alternative. Additionally, the management measures to limit the types

of commercial gear in the fishery to a specified number of gear types

will have a compliance cost to the extent that some fishermen may be

currently using non-conforming gear and would have to undergo costs of

switching to an alternative gear. There are no estimates available of

the amount of the compliance costs related to the preferred gear

measures. The operators will not have to acquire new skills to meet the

additional requirements.

There are no existing Federal rules which may duplicate, overlap,

or conflict with the proposed rule.

The Councils considered significant alternatives for most of the

proposed management measures. The rejected alternative for the

moratorium on new entrants was the status quo. It was rejected on the

basis that new entrants would tend to contribute to an increase in

overall effort

quirements.

There are no existing Federal rules which may duplicate, overlap,

or conflict with the proposed rule.

The Councils considered significant alternatives for most of the

proposed management measures. The rejected alternative for the

moratorium on new entrants was the status quo. It was rejected on the

basis that new entrants would tend to contribute to an increase in

overall effort. The result would be increased costs that would offset

revenue increases expected from stock improvements and subsequent

increases in the commercial quota. The proposed moratorium will result,

based on the October 16, 1995, control date, in some 141 vessel owners

becoming ineligible for renewal of their king mackerel permits. These

individuals will, however, be eligible for new king mackerel permits

through the permit

transfer measures of Amendment 8 and for Spanish mackerel permits.

Alternatives to the newly proposed permit requirement of a minimum

of 25 percent of gross annual income or at least $10,000 in sales

derived from commercial or for-hire business included the status quo of

a single requirement of 10 percent of income from fishing and other,

more restrictive requirements. The status quo has less of an effect on

small businesses than the proposed alternative because an estimated 145

fishermen will lose their permits with the proposed change. This level

of impact was deemed to be acceptable, because most of the 145 permit

holders who will be disqualified are fishermen who are more correctly

identified as recreational fishermen who sell their catch. The more

restrictive alternatives would have mandated a larger dependence on

fishing as a source of income and would have eliminated an unacceptably

large number of historical commercial fishermen.

No alternatives were considered for the more restrictive trip

limits for Atlantic migratory group king mackerel, with the exception

of an alternative to have more restrictive trip limits in the Florida

Keys

estrictive alternatives would have mandated a larger dependence on

fishing as a source of income and would have eliminated an unacceptably

large number of historical commercial fishermen.

No alternatives were considered for the more restrictive trip

limits for Atlantic migratory group king mackerel, with the exception

of an alternative to have more restrictive trip limits in the Florida

Keys. Even though the status quo was not considered, the proposed

regulation would reduce overall revenues by restricting overall catches

relative to the status quo, particularly in the area where a 500 pound

daily limit is proposed. In this area, an estimated 24 percent of

commercial king mackerel revenues will be foregone, with an unknown

effect on the ability of certain fishermen to remain in the fishery.

The Councils considered the negative effect on small business

acceptable because the restriction could potentially lengthen the

season while slowing catch rates and increasing seasonal prices.

Although not mentioned among the proposed measures that would

significantly affect revenues of small entities, the proposal to limit

gear to specified gear types was contrasted with the rejected

alternative of maintaining the status quo. While the status quo would

not entail additional compliance costs (in meeting new allowable gear

specifications) and new gear innovation and development would not be

possible, the Councils rejected the status quo as not offering

resolution of the current enforcement problems in differentiating

between legal and non-legal gear and not providing the opportunity to

develop new, beneficial gears for the Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic

fisheries

ompliance costs (in meeting new allowable gear

specifications) and new gear innovation and development would not be

possible, the Councils rejected the status quo as not offering

resolution of the current enforcement problems in differentiating

between legal and non-legal gear and not providing the opportunity to

develop new, beneficial gears for the Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic

fisheries.

Other proposed measures include the identification of an additional

problem of localized fishing, a continuation of regulations governing

the at-sea transfer of Spanish mackerel, a rejection of dealer permits

and a moratorium on new charter vessel permits, decisions to make no

major changes in the management for cobia and dolphin, and other

measures largely of a technical nature. Rejected alternatives were

considered for all of these, but since most of the decisions involved

maintaining the status quo, there are only minor effects on small

entities from all these other proposals considered jointly.

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.

The proposed rule contains a new collection-of-information

requirement subject to the PRA--namely, the requirement that the float

line of a gillnet used or possessed in the EEZ off Florida north of

25 deg.20.4' N. lat. be marked with distinctive floats bearing the

official number of the vessel using or possessing it. This requirement

has been submitted to OMB for approval. The public reporting burden for

this new collection of information is estimated at 20 minutes per

float.

This rule involves the collection of information on applications

for commercial vessel permits. That collection is currently approved

under OMB Control No

ive floats bearing the

official number of the vessel using or possessing it. This requirement

has been submitted to OMB for approval. The public reporting burden for

this new collection of information is estimated at 20 minutes per

float.

This rule involves the collection of information on applications

for commercial vessel permits. That collection is currently approved

under OMB Control No. 0648-0205 and its public reporting burden is

estimated at 20 minutes per response. This rule also involves the

collection of information on fishing records of vessels permitted in

the commercial king or Spanish mackerel fisheries. That collection is

currently approved under OMB Control No. 0648-0016 and its public

reporting burden is estimated at 15 minutes per response. Finally, this

rule restates without significant change the collection of information

for the marking of traps, pots, and associated buoys in the Caribbean,

Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic EEZ. That collection is currently

approved under OMB Control No. 0648-0305 and its public reporting

burden is estimated at 7 minutes per trap, pot, or buoy. These

reporting burden estimates include the time for reviewing instructions,

searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data

needed, and completing and reviewing the collections of information.

Public comment is sought regarding: whether this proposed

collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of

the functions of the agency, including whether the information will

have practical utility; the accuracy of the burden estimate; ways to

enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be

collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of

information, including through the use of automated collection

techniques or other forms of information technology. Send comments on

these, or any other aspects of the collection of information, to NMFS

and OMB (see ADDRESSES).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 622

enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be

collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of

information, including through the use of automated collection

techniques or other forms of information technology. Send comments on

these, or any other aspects of the collection of information, to NMFS

and OMB (see ADDRESSES).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 622

Fisheries, Fishing, Puerto Rico, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Virgin Islands.

Dated: June 17, 1997.

Rolland A. Schmitten,

Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries

Services.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 622 is

proposed to be amended as follows:

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

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

follows:

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

2. In Sec. 622.1, footnote 2 to Table 1 is revised to read as

follows:

Sec. 622.1 Purpose and scope.

* * * * *

Table 1.--FMPs Implemented Under Part 622

* * * * * * *

2 Only king and Spanish mackerel and cobia are managed

under the FMP in the Mid-Atlantic.

* * * * * * *

3. In Sec. 622.2, in the definition of ``Dealer'', the reference

``Sec. 600.15'' is revised to read ``Sec. 600.10''; definitions of

``Automatic reel'', ``Bandit gear'', ``Handline'', ``Hook-and-line

gear'', ``Long gillnet'', ``Longline'', ``Rod and reel'', ``Stab net'',

and ``Trammel net'' are added in alphabetical order; and the

definitions of ``Charter vessel'' and ``Run-around gillnet'' are

revised to read as follows:

Sec. 622.2 Definitions.

* * * * *

Automatic reel means a reel that remains attached to a vessel when

in use from which a line and attached hook(s) are deployed. The line is

payed out from and retrieved on the reel electrically or hydraulically.

Bandit gear means a rod and reel that remain attached to a vessel

when in use

r vessel'' and ``Run-around gillnet'' are

revised to read as follows:

Sec. 622.2 Definitions.

* * * * *

Automatic reel means a reel that remains attached to a vessel when

in use from which a line and attached hook(s) are deployed. The line is

payed out from and retrieved on the reel electrically or hydraulically.

Bandit gear means a rod and reel that remain attached to a vessel

when in use

from which a line and attached hook(s) are deployed. The line is payed

out from and retrieved on the reel manually, electrically, or

hydraulically.

* * * * *

Charter vessel means a vessel less than 100 gross tons (90.8 mt)

that meets the requirements of the USCG to carry six or fewer

passengers for hire and that engages in charter fishing at any time

during the calendar year. A charter vessel with a commercial permit, as

required under Sec. 622.4(a)(2), is considered to be operating as a

charter vessel when it carries a passenger who pays a fee or when there

are more than three persons aboard, including operator and crew.

* * * * *

Handline means a line with attached hook(s) that is tended directly

by hand.

* * * * *

Hook-and-line gear means automatic reel, bandit gear, buoy gear,

handline, longline, and rod and reel.

* * * * *

Long gillnet means a gillnet that has a float line that is more

than 1,000 yd (914 m) in length.

Longline means a line that is deployed horizontally to which

gangions and hooks are attached. A longline may be a bottom longline,

i.e., designed for use on the bottom, or a pelagic longline, i.e.,

designed for use off the bottom. The longline hauler may be manually,

electrically, or hydraulically operated.

* * * * *

Rod and reel means a rod and reel unit that is not attached to a

vessel, or, if attached, is readily removable, from which a line and

attached hook(s) are deployed. The line is payed out from and retrieved

on the reel manually, electrically, or hydraulically

ongline, i.e.,

designed for use off the bottom. The longline hauler may be manually,

electrically, or hydraulically operated.

* * * * *

Rod and reel means a rod and reel unit that is not attached to a

vessel, or, if attached, is readily removable, from which a line and

attached hook(s) are deployed. The line is payed out from and retrieved

on the reel manually, electrically, or hydraulically.

Run-around gillnet means a gillnet, other than a long gillnet,

that, when used, encloses an area of water.

* * * * *

Stab net means a gillnet, other than a long gillnet, or trammel net

whose weight line sinks to the bottom and submerges the float line.

* * * * *

Trammel net means two or more panels of netting, suspended

vertically in the water by a common float line and a common weight

line, with one panel having a larger mesh size than the other(s), to

entrap fish in a pocket of netting.

* * * * *

4. In Sec. 622.4, in paragraph (d), the reference

``Sec. 622.6(b)(1)(i)'' is revised to read ``Sec. 622.6(b)(1)(i)(B)'';

paragraphs (a)(2)(iv) through (vi) and (g) are revised; and paragraphs

(a)(2)(iii) and (q) are added to read as follows:

Sec. 622.4 Permits and fees.

(a) * * *

(2) * * *

(iii) King mackerel. For a person aboard a vessel to be eligible

for exemption from the bag limits and to fish under a quota for king

mackerel in or from the Gulf, Mid-Atlantic, or South Atlantic EEZ, a

commercial vessel permit for king mackerel must have been issued to the

vessel and must be on board. To obtain or renew a commercial vessel

permit for king mackerel valid through the end of the month that is 13

months after the date of publication of the final rule that contains

this paragraph (a)(2)(iii), at least 10 percent of the applicant's

earned income must have been derived from commercial fishing (i.e.,

harvest and first sale of fish) during one of the 3 calendar years

preceding the application

renew a commercial vessel

permit for king mackerel valid through the end of the month that is 13

months after the date of publication of the final rule that contains

this paragraph (a)(2)(iii), at least 10 percent of the applicant's

earned income must have been derived from commercial fishing (i.e.,

harvest and first sale of fish) during one of the 3 calendar years

preceding the application. To obtain or renew a commercial vessel

permit for king mackerel valid after the end of the month that is 13

months after the date of publication of the final rule that contains

this paragraph (a)(2)(iii), at least 25 percent of the applicant's

earned income, or at least $10,000, must have been derived from

commercial fishing (i.e., harvest and first sale of fish) or from

charter fishing during one of the 3 calendar years preceding the

application. See paragraph (q) of this section regarding a moratorium

on commercial vessel permits for king mackerel, initial permits under

the moratorium, transfers of permits during the moratorium, and limited

exceptions to the earned income or gross sales requirement for a

permit.

(iv) Spanish mackerel. For a person aboard a vessel to be eligible

for exemption from the bag limits and to fish under a quota for Spanish

mackerel in or from the Gulf, Mid-Atlantic, or South Atlantic EEZ, a

commercial vessel permit for Spanish mackerel must have been issued to

the vessel and must be on board. To obtain or renew a commercial vessel

permit for Spanish mackerel valid through the end of the month that is

13 months after the date of publication of the final rule that contains

this paragraph (a)(2)(iv), at least 10 percent of the applicant's

earned income must have been derived from commercial fishing (i.e.,

harvest and first sale of fish) during one of the 3 calendar years

preceding the application

enew a commercial vessel

permit for Spanish mackerel valid through the end of the month that is

13 months after the date of publication of the final rule that contains

this paragraph (a)(2)(iv), at least 10 percent of the applicant's

earned income must have been derived from commercial fishing (i.e.,

harvest and first sale of fish) during one of the 3 calendar years

preceding the application. To obtain or renew a commercial vessel

permit for Spanish mackerel valid after the end of the month that is 13

months after the date of publication of the final rule that contains

this paragraph (a)(2)(iv), at least 25 percent of the applicant's

earned income, or at least $10,000, must have been derived from

commercial fishing (i.e., harvest and first sale of fish) or from

charter fishing during one of the 3 calendar years preceding the

application.

(v) Gulf reef fish. For a person aboard a vessel to be eligible for

exemption from the bag limits, to fish under a quota, or to sell Gulf

reef fish in or from the Gulf EEZ, a commercial vessel permit for Gulf

reef fish must have been issued to the vessel and must be on board. To

obtain or renew a commercial vessel permit for Gulf reef fish, more

than 50 percent of the applicant's earned income must have been derived

from commercial fishing (i.e., harvest and first sale of fish) or from

charter fishing during either of the 2 calendar years preceding the

application. See paragraph (m) of this section regarding a moratorium

on commercial vessel permits for Gulf reef fish and limited exceptions

to the earned income requirement for a permit.

n 50 percent of the applicant's earned income must have been derived

from commercial fishing (i.e., harvest and first sale of fish) or from

charter fishing during either of the 2 calendar years preceding the

application. See paragraph (m) of this section regarding a moratorium

on commercial vessel permits for Gulf reef fish and limited exceptions

to the earned income requirement for a permit.

(vi) South Atlantic snapper-grouper. For a person aboard a vessel

to be eligible for exemption from the bag limits for South Atlantic

snapper-grouper in or from the South Atlantic EEZ, to engage in the

directed fishery for tilefish in the South Atlantic EEZ, to use a

longline to fish for South Atlantic snapper-grouper in the South

Atlantic EEZ, or to use a sea bass pot in the South Atlantic EEZ

between 35 deg.15.3' N. lat. (due east of Cape Hatteras Light, NC) and

28 deg.35.1' N. lat. (due east of the NASA Vehicle Assembly Building,

Cape Canaveral, FL), a commercial vessel permit for South Atlantic

snapper-grouper must have been issued to the vessel and must be on

board. A vessel with longline gear and more than 200 lb (90.7

kilograms) of tilefish on board is considered to be in the directed

fishery for tilefish. It is a rebuttable presumption that a fishing

vessel with more than 200 lb of tilefish on board harvested such

tilefish in the EEZ. To obtain or renew a commercial vessel permit for

South Atlantic snapper-grouper, more than 50 percent of the applicant's

earned income must have been derived from commercial fishing (i.e.,

harvest and first sale of fish) or from charter fishing, or gross sales

of fish harvested from the owner's, operator's, corporation's, or

partnership's vessels must have been greater than $20,000, during one

of the 3 calendar years preceding the application.

* * * * *

c snapper-grouper, more than 50 percent of the applicant's

earned income must have been derived from commercial fishing (i.e.,

harvest and first sale of fish) or from charter fishing, or gross sales

of fish harvested from the owner's, operator's, corporation's, or

partnership's vessels must have been greater than $20,000, during one

of the 3 calendar years preceding the application.

* * * * *

(g) Transfer. A vessel permit or endorsement or 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, paragraph (n) of this section for a fish trap endorsement,

paragraph (p) of this section for a red snapper endorsement, or

paragraph (q) of this section for a king mackerel permit. A person who

acquires a vessel, transferred permit or endorsement, or dealership who

desires to conduct activities for which a permit or endorsement is

required must apply for a permit 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.

* * * * *

(q) Moratorium on commercial vessel permits for king mackerel. This

paragraph (q) is effective through October 15, 2000.

(1) Effective on the date of publication of the final rule that

contains this paragraph (q)(1), an initial commercial vessel permit for

king mackerel will be issued only if the vessel owner was the owner of

a vessel with a commercial vessel permit for king mackerel on or before

October 16, 1995. A king mackerel permit for a vessel whose owner does

not meet this moratorium criterion may be renewed only through the end

of the month that is 13 months after the date of publication of the

final rule that contains this paragraph (q)(1).

mackerel will be issued only if the vessel owner was the owner of

a vessel with a commercial vessel permit for king mackerel on or before

October 16, 1995. A king mackerel permit for a vessel whose owner does

not meet this moratorium criterion may be renewed only through the end

of the month that is 13 months after the date of publication of the

final rule that contains this paragraph (q)(1).

(2) To obtain a commercial vessel permit for king mackerel under

the moratorium, an owner or operator of a vessel that does not have a

king mackerel permit on the date of publication of the final rule that

contains this paragraph (q)(2) must submit an application to the RD

postmarked or hand delivered not later than 90 days after the date of

publication of the final rule that contains this paragraph (q)(2).

Other than applications for renewals of commercial vessel permits for

king mackerel, no applications for commercial vessel permits for king

mackerel will be accepted after the date that is 90 days after the date

of publication of the final rule that contains this paragraph (q)(2).

Application forms are available from the RD.

(3) An owner will not be issued initial commercial vessel permits

for king mackerel under the moratorium in numbers exceeding the number

of vessels permitted in the king mackerel fishery that he/she owned

simultaneously on or before October 16, 1995. If a vessel with a

commercial vessel permit for king mackerel on or before October 16,

1995, has been sold since that date, the owner on or before that date

retains the right to the commercial vessel permit for king mackerel

unless there is a written agreement that such right transfers to the

new owner.

(4) An owner of a permitted vessel may transfer the commercial

vessel permit for king mackerel issued under this moratorium to another

vessel owned by the same entity.

ber 16,

1995, has been sold since that date, the owner on or before that date

retains the right to the commercial vessel permit for king mackerel

unless there is a written agreement that such right transfers to the

new owner.

(4) An owner of a permitted vessel may transfer the commercial

vessel permit for king mackerel issued under this moratorium to another

vessel owned by the same entity.

(5) An owner whose percentage of earned income or gross sales

qualified for the commercial vessel permit for king mackerel issued

under the moratorium may transfer that permit to the owner of another

vessel, or to the new owner when he or she transfers ownership of the

permitted vessel. Such owner of another vessel, or new owner, may

receive a commercial vessel permit for king mackerel for his or her

vessel, and renew it through April 15 following the first full calendar

year after obtaining it, without meeting the percentage of earned

income or gross sales requirement of paragraph (a)(2)(iii) of this

section. However, to further renew the commercial vessel permit, the

owner of the other vessel, or new owner, must meet the earned income or

gross sales requirement not later than the first full calendar year

after the permit transfer takes place.

(6) An owner of a permitted vessel, the permit for which is based

on an operator's earned income and, thus, is valid only when that

person is the operator of the vessel, may transfer the permit to the

income-qualifying operator when such operator becomes an owner of a

vessel.

income or

gross sales requirement not later than the first full calendar year

after the permit transfer takes place.

(6) An owner of a permitted vessel, the permit for which is based

on an operator's earned income and, thus, is valid only when that

person is the operator of the vessel, may transfer the permit to the

income-qualifying operator when such operator becomes an owner of a

vessel.

(7) An owner of a permitted vessel, the permit for which is based

on an operator's earned income and, thus, is valid only when that

person is the operator of the vessel, may have the operator

qualification on the permit removed, and renew it without such

qualification through April 15 following the first full calendar year

after removing it, without meeting the earned income or gross sales

requirement of paragraph (a)(2)(iii) of this section. However, to

further renew the commercial vessel permit, the owner must meet the

earned income or gross sales requirement not later than the first full

calendar year after the operator qualification is removed. To have an

operator qualification removed from a permit, the owner must return the

original permit to the RD with an application for the changed permit.

(8) A commercial vessel permit for king mackerel that is not

renewed or that is revoked will not be reissued. A permit is considered

to be not renewed when an application for renewal is not received by

the RD within 1 year of the expiration date of the permit.

5. In Sec. 622.5, paragraph (a)(1)(i) is revised to read as

follows:

Sec. 622.5 Recordkeeping and reporting.

* * * * *

(a) * * *

(1) * * *

mmercial vessel permit for king mackerel that is not

renewed or that is revoked will not be reissued. A permit is considered

to be not renewed when an application for renewal is not received by

the RD within 1 year of the expiration date of the permit.

5. In Sec. 622.5, paragraph (a)(1)(i) is revised to read as

follows:

Sec. 622.5 Recordkeeping and reporting.

* * * * *

(a) * * *

(1) * * *

(i) Coastal migratory pelagic fish. The owner or operator of a

vessel that fishes for or lands coastal migratory pelagic fish for sale

in or from the Gulf, Mid-Atlantic, or South Atlantic EEZ or adjoining

state waters, or whose vessel is issued a commercial permit for king or

Spanish mackerel, as required under Sec. 622.4(a)(2)(iii) or (iv), who

is selected to report by the SRD, must maintain a fishing record on a

form available from the SRD and must submit such record as specified in

paragraph (a)(2) of this section.

* * * * *

6. In Sec. 622.6, paragraphs (c) and (d) are removed and paragraph

(b) is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 622.6 Vessel and gear identification.

* * * * *

(b) Gear identification--(1) Traps/pots and associated buoys--(i)

Traps or pots--(A) Caribbean EEZ. A fish trap or spiny lobster trap

used or possessed in the Caribbean EEZ must display the official number

specified for the vessel by Puerto Rico or the U.S. Virgin Islands so

as to be easily identified.

(B) Gulf and South Atlantic EEZ. A fish trap used or possessed in

the Gulf EEZ and a sea bass pot used or possessed in the South Atlantic

EEZ between 35 deg.15.3' N. lat. (due east of Cape Hatteras Light, NC)

and 28 deg.35.1' N. lat. (due east of the NASA Vehicle Assembly

Building, Cape Canaveral, FL), or a fish trap or sea bass pot on board

a vessel with a commercial permit for Gulf reef fish or South Atlantic

snapper-grouper, must have a valid identification tag issued by the RD

attached

ed or possessed in the South Atlantic

EEZ between 35 deg.15.3' N. lat. (due east of Cape Hatteras Light, NC)

and 28 deg.35.1' N. lat. (due east of the NASA Vehicle Assembly

Building, Cape Canaveral, FL), or a fish trap or sea bass pot on board

a vessel with a commercial permit for Gulf reef fish or South Atlantic

snapper-grouper, must have a valid identification tag issued by the RD

attached. A golden crab trap used or possessed in the South Atlantic

EEZ or on board a vessel with a commercial permit for golden crab must

have the commercial vessel permit number permanently affixed so as to

be easily distinguished, located, and identified; an identification tag

issued by the RD may be used for this purpose but is not required.

(ii) Associated buoys. A buoy that is attached to a trap or pot

must display the assigned number and color code so as to be easily

distinguished, located, and identified as follows:

(A) Caribbean EEZ. Each buoy must display the official number and

color code specified for the vessel by Puerto Rico or the U.S. Virgin

Islands, whichever is applicable.

(B) Gulf and South Atlantic EEZ. Each buoy must display the number

and color code assigned by the RD. In the Gulf EEZ, a buoy must be

attached to each trap, or each end trap if traps are connected by a

line. In the South Atlantic EEZ, buoys are not required to be used,

but, if used, each buoy must display the number and color code.

However, no color code is required on a buoy attached to a golden crab

trap.

(iii) Presumption of ownership. A Caribbean spiny lobster trap, a

fish trap, a golden crab trap, or a sea bass pot in the EEZ will be

presumed to be the property of the most recently documented owner. This

presumption will not apply with respect to such traps and pots that are

lost or sold if the owner reports the loss or sale within 15 days to

the RD.

a buoy attached to a golden crab

trap.

(iii) Presumption of ownership. A Caribbean spiny lobster trap, a

fish trap, a golden crab trap, or a sea bass pot in the EEZ will be

presumed to be the property of the most recently documented owner. This

presumption will not apply with respect to such traps and pots that are

lost or sold if the owner reports the loss or sale within 15 days to

the RD.

(iv) Unmarked traps, pots, or buoys. An unmarked Caribbean spiny

lobster trap, a fish trap, a golden crab trap, a sea bass pot, or a

buoy deployed in the EEZ where such trap, pot, or buoy is required to

be marked is illegal and may be disposed of in any appropriate manner

by the Assistant Administrator or an authorized officer.

(2) Gillnet buoys. On board a vessel with a valid Spanish mackerel

permit that is fishing for Spanish mackerel in, or that possesses

Spanish mackerel in or from, the South Atlantic EEZ off Florida north

of 25 deg.20.4' N. lat., which is a line directly east from the Dade/

Monroe County, FL, boundary, the float line of each gillnet possessed,

including any net in use, must have a maximum of nine distinctive

floats, i.e., different from the usual net buoys, spaced uniformly at a

distance of 100 yd (91.44 m) or less. Each such distinctive float must

bear the official number of the vessel.

Sec. 622.31 [Amended]

7. In Sec. 622.31, paragraph (d) is removed and paragraphs (e)

through (k) are redesignated as paragraphs (d) through (j)

respectively.

8. In Sec. 622.32, paragraph (c)(1) is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 622.32 Prohibited and limited-harvest species.

* * * * *

ce of 100 yd (91.44 m) or less. Each such distinctive float must

bear the official number of the vessel.

Sec. 622.31 [Amended]

7. In Sec. 622.31, paragraph (d) is removed and paragraphs (e)

through (k) are redesignated as paragraphs (d) through (j)

respectively.

8. In Sec. 622.32, paragraph (c)(1) is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 622.32 Prohibited and limited-harvest species.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(1) Cobia. No person may possess more than two cobia per day in or

from the Gulf, Mid-Atlantic, or South Atlantic EEZ, regardless of the

number of trips or duration of a trip.

* * * * *

Sec. 622.34 [Amended]

9. In Sec. 622.34, in the last sentence of paragraph (c), the

phrase ``and shown in Figures 1 and 2'' is removed and in paragraph (g)

introductory text, the phrase ``and shown in Figures 3 and 4'' is

removed.

10. In Sec. 622.35, paragraph (e)(2)(i) is revised to read as

follows:

Sec. 622.35 South Atlantic EEZ seasonal and/or area closures.

* * * * *

(e) * * *

(2) * * *

(i) In SMZs specified in paragraphs (e)(1)(i) through (xviii) and

(e)(1)(xxii) through (xxix) of this section, the use of a gillnet or a

trawl is prohibited, and fishing may be conducted only with handline,

rod and reel, and spearfishing gear.

* * * * *

11. In Sec. 622.37, paragraph (c)(1) is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 622.37 Minimum sizes.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(1) Cobia in the Gulf, Mid-Atlantic, or South Atlantic--33 inches

(83.8 cm), fork length.

* * * * *

12. In Sec. 622.38, paragraph (a) is revised and paragraph (h) is

added to read as follows:

Sec. 622.38 Landing fish intact.

* * * * *

d reel, and spearfishing gear.

* * * * *

11. In Sec. 622.37, paragraph (c)(1) is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 622.37 Minimum sizes.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(1) Cobia in the Gulf, Mid-Atlantic, or South Atlantic--33 inches

(83.8 cm), fork length.

* * * * *

12. In Sec. 622.38, paragraph (a) is revised and paragraph (h) is

added to read as follows:

Sec. 622.38 Landing fish intact.

* * * * *

(a) The following must be maintained with head and fins intact:

Cobia, king mackerel, and Spanish mackerel in or from the Gulf, Mid-

Atlantic, or South Atlantic EEZ, except as specified for king mackerel

in paragraph (g) of this section; South Atlantic snapper-grouper in or

from the South Atlantic EEZ; yellowtail snapper in or from the

Caribbean EEZ; and finfish in or from the Gulf EEZ, except as specified

in paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) of this section. Such fish may be

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

whole condition.

* * * * *

(h) A maximum of five cut-off (damaged) king mackerel may be

possessed in the Gulf, Mid-Atlantic, or South Atlantic EEZ on, and

offloaded ashore from, a vessel that is operating under a trip limit

for king mackerel specified in Sec. 622.44(a). Such cut-off (damaged)

king mackerel are not counted against the trip limit and may not be

sold or purchased.

13. In Sec. 622.40, the first sentence of paragraph (b)(3)(i)

introductory text is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 622.40 Limitation on traps and pots.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(3) * * *

from, a vessel that is operating under a trip limit

for king mackerel specified in Sec. 622.44(a). Such cut-off (damaged)

king mackerel are not counted against the trip limit and may not be

sold or purchased.

13. In Sec. 622.40, the first sentence of paragraph (b)(3)(i)

introductory text is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 622.40 Limitation on traps and pots.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(3) * * *

(i) A sea bass pot that is used or possessed in the South Atlantic

EEZ between 35 deg.15.3' N. lat. (due east of Cape Hatteras Light, NC)

and 28 deg.35.1' N. lat. (due east of the NASA Vehicle Assembly

Building, Cape Canaveral, FL) is required to have on at least one side,

excluding top and bottom, a panel or door with an opening equal to or

larger than the interior end of the trap's throat (funnel). * * *

* * * * *

14. In Sec. 622.41, paragraphs (c), (d)(1), and (d)(3) are revised

to read as follows:

Sec. 622.41 Species-specific limitations.

* * * * *

(c) Coastal migratory pelagic fish--(1) Authorized gear. Subject to

the prohibitions on gear/methods specified in Sec. 622.31, the

following are the only fishing gears that may be used in the Gulf, Mid-

Atlantic, and South Atlantic EEZ in directed fisheries for coastal

migratory pelagic fish:

(i) King mackerel, Atlantic migratory group--

(A) North of 34 deg.37.3' N. lat., the latitude of Cape Lookout

Light, NC--all gear except a long gillnet.

(B) South of 34 deg.37.3' N. lat.--automatic reel, bandit gear,

handline, and rod and reel.

(ii) King mackerel, Gulf migratory group--hook-and-line gear and

run-around gillnet.

(iii) Spanish mackerel, Atlantic migratory group--

(A) North of 34 deg.37.3' N. lat., the latitude of Cape Lookout

Light, NC--automatic reel, bandit gear, handline, rod and reel, cast

net, run-around gillnet, stab net, and drift gillnet.

(B) South of 34 deg.37.3' N. lat.--automatic reel, bandit gear,

handline, rod and reel, cast net, run-around gillnet, and stab net.

and

run-around gillnet.

(iii) Spanish mackerel, Atlantic migratory group--

(A) North of 34 deg.37.3' N. lat., the latitude of Cape Lookout

Light, NC--automatic reel, bandit gear, handline, rod and reel, cast

net, run-around gillnet, stab net, and drift gillnet.

(B) South of 34 deg.37.3' N. lat.--automatic reel, bandit gear,

handline, rod and reel, cast net, run-around gillnet, and stab net.

(iv) Spanish mackerel, Gulf migratory group--all gear except long

gillnet, drift gillnet, and purse seine.

(v) Cobia in the Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic EEZ, dolphin in

the South Atlantic EEZ, and little tunny in the South Atlantic EEZ

south of 34 deg.37.3' N. lat.--automatic reel, bandit gear, handline,

rod and reel, and pelagic longline.

(vi) Cero in the South Atlantic EEZ and little tunny in the South

Atlantic EEZ north of 34 deg.37.3' N. lat.--all gear except a long

gillnet.

(vii) Bluefish, cero, cobia, dolphin, and little tunny in the Gulf

EEZ--all gear except a long gillnet.

(2) Unauthorized gear. The following possession limitations apply

when fishing gears other than those specified in paragraph (c)(1) of

this section are on board:

(i) Long gillnets. A vessel with a long gillnet on board in, or

that has fished on a trip in, the Gulf, Mid-Atlantic, or South Atlantic

EEZ may not have on board on that trip a coastal migratory pelagic

fish.

(ii) Drift gillnets. A vessel with a drift gillnet on board in, or

that has fished on a trip in, the Gulf EEZ may not have on board on

that trip a king or Spanish mackerel.

(iii) Other unauthorized gear. Except as specified in paragraphs

(c)(2)(iv) of this section, a vessel with other unauthorized gear on

board in, or that has fished in, the EEZ where such gear is not

authorized in paragraph (c)(1) of this section is limited to the bag

limit for king and Spanish mackerel specified in Sec. 622.39(c)(1)(ii)

and to the limit on cobia specified in Sec. 622.32(c)(1).

(iv) Exception for king mackerel in the Gulf EEZ. Paragraph

hs

(c)(2)(iv) of this section, a vessel with other unauthorized gear on

board in, or that has fished in, the EEZ where such gear is not

authorized in paragraph (c)(1) of this section is limited to the bag

limit for king and Spanish mackerel specified in Sec. 622.39(c)(1)(ii)

and to the limit on cobia specified in Sec. 622.32(c)(1).

(iv) Exception for king mackerel in the Gulf EEZ. Paragraph

(c)(2)(iii) of this section notwithstanding, a vessel in or from the

Gulf EEZ that has a valid commercial permit for king mackerel is not

limited on a trip to the bag limit for king mackerel when it has on

board on that trip other unauthorized gear. Thus, with respect to king

mackerel in or from the Gulf EEZ, a vessel that has a commercial permit

for king mackerel may use no unauthorized gear in a directed fishery

for king mackerel. If such a vessel has a long gillnet or a drift

gillnet on board, no king mackerel may be possessed. If such a vessel

has other unauthorized gear on board, the possession of king mackerel

taken incidentally is not restricted. See also paragraph (c)(4) of this

section regarding the purse seine incidental catch allowance of king

mackerel.

(3) Gillnets--(i) King mackerel. The minimum allowable mesh size

for a gillnet used to fish in the Gulf, Mid-Atlantic, or South Atlantic

EEZ for king mackerel is 4.75 inches (12.1 cm), stretched mesh. A

vessel in such EEZ, or having fished on a trip in such EEZ, with a

gillnet on board that has a mesh size less than 4.75 inches (12.1 cm),

stretched mesh, may not possess on that trip an incidental catch of

king mackerel that exceeds 10 percent, by number, of the total lawfully

possessed Spanish mackerel on board.

outh Atlantic

EEZ for king mackerel is 4.75 inches (12.1 cm), stretched mesh. A

vessel in such EEZ, or having fished on a trip in such EEZ, with a

gillnet on board that has a mesh size less than 4.75 inches (12.1 cm),

stretched mesh, may not possess on that trip an incidental catch of

king mackerel that exceeds 10 percent, by number, of the total lawfully

possessed Spanish mackerel on board.

(ii) Spanish mackerel. (A) The minimum allowable mesh size for a

gillnet used to fish in the Gulf, Mid-Atlantic, or South Atlantic EEZ

for Spanish mackerel is 3.5 inches (8.9 cm), stretched mesh. A vessel

in such EEZ, or having fished on a trip in such EEZ, with a gillnet on

board that has a mesh size less than 3.5 inches (8.9 cm), stretched

mesh, may not possess on that trip any Spanish mackerel.

(B) On board a vessel with a valid Spanish mackerel permit that is

fishing for Spanish mackerel in, or that possesses Spanish mackerel in

or from, the South Atlantic EEZ off Florida north of 25 deg.20.4' N.

lat., which is a line directly east from the Dade/Monroe County, FL,

boundary--

(1) No person may fish with, set, place in the water, or have on

board a gillnet with a float line longer than 800 yd (732 m).

(2) No person may fish with, set, or place in the water more than

one gillnet at any one time.

(3) No more than two gillnets, including any net in use, may be

possessed at any one time; provided, however, that if two gillnets,

including any net in use, are possessed at any one time, they must have

stretched mesh sizes that differ by at least .25 inch (.64 cm).

ine longer than 800 yd (732 m).

(2) No person may fish with, set, or place in the water more than

one gillnet at any one time.

(3) No more than two gillnets, including any net in use, may be

possessed at any one time; provided, however, that if two gillnets,

including any net in use, are possessed at any one time, they must have

stretched mesh sizes that differ by at least .25 inch (.64 cm).

(4) No person may soak a gillnet for more than 1 hour. The soak

period begins when the first mesh is placed in the water and ends

either when the first mesh is retrieved back on board the vessel or the

gathering of the gillnet is begun to facilitate retrieval on board the

vessel, whichever occurs first; providing that, once the first mesh is

retrieved or the gathering is begun, the retrieval is continuous until

the gillnet is completely removed from the water.

(5) The float line of each gillnet possessed, including any net in

use, must have the distinctive floats specified in Sec. 622.6(b)(2).

(4) Purse seine incidental catch allowance. A vessel in the EEZ, or

having fished in the EEZ, with a purse seine on board will not be

considered as fishing, or having fished, for king or Spanish mackerel

in violation of a prohibition of purse seines under paragraph (c)(2) of

this section, in violation of the possession limits under paragraph

(c)(2)(iii) of this section, or, in the case of king mackerel from the

Atlantic migratory group, in violation of a closure effected in

accordance with Sec. 622.43(a), provided the king mackerel on board

does not exceed 1 percent, or the Spanish mackerel on board does not

exceed 10 percent, of all fish on board the vessel. Incidental catch

will be calculated by number and/or weight of fish. Neither calculation

may exceed the allowable percentage. Incidentally caught king or

Spanish mackerel are counted toward the quotas provided for under

Sec. 622.42(c) and are subject to the prohibition of sale under

Sec. 622.43(a)(3)(iii).

Spanish mackerel on board does not

exceed 10 percent, of all fish on board the vessel. Incidental catch

will be calculated by number and/or weight of fish. Neither calculation

may exceed the allowable percentage. Incidentally caught king or

Spanish mackerel are counted toward the quotas provided for under

Sec. 622.42(c) and are subject to the prohibition of sale under

Sec. 622.43(a)(3)(iii).

(d) * * *

(1) Authorized gear. Subject to the gear restrictions specified in

Sec. 622.31, the following are the only gear types authorized in

directed fishing for snapper-grouper in the South Atlantic EEZ: Bandit

gear, bottom longline, buoy gear, handline, rod and reel, sea bass pot,

and spearfishing gear.

* * * * *

(3) Use of sink nets off North Carolina. A vessel that has on board

a commercial permit for South Atlantic snapper-grouper, excluding

wreckfish, that fishes in the EEZ off North Carolina on a trip with a

sink net on board, may retain otherwise legal South Atlantic snapper-

grouper taken on that trip with bandit gear, buoy gear, handline, rod

and reel, or sea bass pot. For the purpose of this paragraph (d)(3), a

sink net is a gillnet with stretched mesh measurements of 3 to 4.75

inches (7.6 to 12.1 cm) that is attached to the vessel when deployed.

* * * * *

15. In Sec. 622.42, the first sentence of paragraph (c)

introductory text is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 622.42 Quotas.

* * * * *

(c) * * * King and Spanish mackerel quotas apply to persons who

fish under commercial vessel permits for king or Spanish mackerel, as

required under Sec. 622.4(a)(2)(iii) or (iv). * * *

* * * * *

16. In Sec. 622.43, paragraph (a)(3)(i) and (ii) are revised and

paragraph (c) is added to read as follows:

Sec. 622.43 Closures.

(a) * * *

(3) * * *

d as follows:

Sec. 622.42 Quotas.

* * * * *

(c) * * * King and Spanish mackerel quotas apply to persons who

fish under commercial vessel permits for king or Spanish mackerel, as

required under Sec. 622.4(a)(2)(iii) or (iv). * * *

* * * * *

16. In Sec. 622.43, paragraph (a)(3)(i) and (ii) are revised and

paragraph (c) is added to read as follows:

Sec. 622.43 Closures.

(a) * * *

(3) * * *

(i) A person aboard a vessel for which a commercial permit for king

or Spanish mackerel has been issued, as required under

Sec. 622.4(a)(2)(iii) or (iv), may not fish for king or Spanish

mackerel in the EEZ or retain fish in or from the EEZ under a bag or

possession limit specified in Sec. 622.39(c) for the closed species,

migratory group, zone, subzone, or gear, except as provided for under

paragraph (a)(3)(ii) of this section.

(ii) A person aboard a vessel for which the permit indicates both

charter vessel/headboat for coastal migratory pelagic fish and

commercial king or Spanish mackerel may continue to retain fish under a

bag and possession limit specified in Sec. 622.39(c), provided the

vessel is operating as a charter vessel or headboat.

* * * * *

(c) Reopening. When a fishery has been closed based on a projection

of the quota specified in Sec. 622.42 being reached and subsequent data

indicate that the quota was not reached, the Assistant Administrator

may file a notification to that effect with the Office of the Federal

Register. Such notification may reopen the fishery to provide an

opportunity for the quota to be reached.

17. In Sec. 622.44, paragraphs (a)(2)(i) introductory text and

(a)(2)(ii)(B) introductory text are revised to read as follows:

Sec. 622.44 Commercial trip limits.

* * * * *

(a) * * *

(2) * * *

ssistant Administrator

may file a notification to that effect with the Office of the Federal

Register. Such notification may reopen the fishery to provide an

opportunity for the quota to be reached.

17. In Sec. 622.44, paragraphs (a)(2)(i) introductory text and

(a)(2)(ii)(B) introductory text are revised to read as follows:

Sec. 622.44 Commercial trip limits.

* * * * *

(a) * * *

(2) * * *

(i) Florida east coast subzone. In the Florida east coast subzone,

king mackerel in or from the EEZ may be possessed on board or landed

from a vessel for which a commercial permit for king mackerel has been

issued, as required under Sec. 622.4(a)(2)(iii)--

* * * * *

(ii) * * *

(B) Hook-and-line gear. In the Florida west coast subzone, king

mackerel in or from the EEZ may be possessed on board or landed from a

vessel with a commercial permit for king mackerel, as required by

Sec. 622.4(a)(2)(iii), and operating under the hook-and-line gear quota

in Sec. 622.42(c)(1)(i)(A)(2)(i):

* * * * *

18. In Sec. 622.45, in paragraph (d)(2), the reference

``Sec. 622.4(a)(2)(iv)'' is revised to read ``Sec. 622.4(a)(2)(vi)''

and paragraph (h) is added to read as follows:

Sec. 622.45 Restrictions on sale/purchase.

* * * * *

(h) Cut-off (damaged) king mackerel. A cut-off (damaged) king

mackerel lawfully possessed or offloaded ashore, as specified in

Sec. 622.38(g), may not be sold or purchased.

19. In Sec. 622.48, in paragraph (d)(1), the phrase ``reopening of

a fishery prematurely closed'' is removed, and paragraph (c) is revised

to read as follows:

Sec. 622.48 Adjustment of management measures.

* * * * *

* *

(h) Cut-off (damaged) king mackerel. A cut-off (damaged) king

mackerel lawfully possessed or offloaded ashore, as specified in

Sec. 622.38(g), may not be sold or purchased.

19. In Sec. 622.48, in paragraph (d)(1), the phrase ``reopening of

a fishery prematurely closed'' is removed, and paragraph (c) is revised

to read as follows:

Sec. 622.48 Adjustment of management measures.

* * * * *

(c) Coastal migratory pelagic fish. For cobia or for a migratory

group of king or Spanish mackerel: MSY, overfishing level, TAC, quota

(including a quota of zero), bag limit (including a bag limit of zero),

minimum size limit, vessel trip limits, closed seasons or areas, gear

restrictions (ranging from regulation to complete prohibition),

reallocation of the commercial/recreational allocation of Atlantic

group Spanish mackerel, and permit requirements.

* * * * *

Secs. 622.4 and 622.44 [Amended]

20. The words ``and Spanish'' are removed in the following places:

(a) In Sec. 622.4, in the first sentence of paragraph (a)(2)(ii),

in the heading of paragraph (o), in the first sentence of paragraph

(o)(1), and in the second and third sentences of paragraph (o)(2).

(b) In Sec. 622.44, in paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(A)(2)(i).

Sec. 622.44 [Amended]

21. The words ``king and'' are removed in Sec. 622.44(b)(1)(i) and

(b)(1)(ii) introductory text.

[FR Doc. 97-16360 Filed 6-20-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-22-F