33486 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 24, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

Management section. This value will be

furnished to the tester by the government at

the time of the test. The course monitoring

tires used in a test convoy must be no more

than one year old at the commencement of

the test and must be used within two months

after removal from storage.

* * * * *

(F) Compute the grade (P) of the

NHTSA nominal treadwear value for

each candidate tire by using the

following formula:

P = Projected mileage × base course

wear raten/402

Where base course wear raten = new

base course wear rate, i.e., average

treadwear of the last 4 quarterly course

monitoring tire tests conducted by

NHTSA.

Round off the percentage to the nearest

lower 20-point increment.

* * * * *

Issued on May 11, 2000.

Rosalyn G. Millman,

Acting Administrator.

[FR Doc. 00–12873 Filed 5–23–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 648

[Docket No. 000119014–0137–02; I.D. No.

112399C]

RIN 0648–AM48

Fisheries of the Northeastern United

States; Summer Flounder, Scup, and

Black Sea Bass Fisheries; 2000

Specifications

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Final rule, final specifications,

and commercial quota adjustment for

the 2000 summer flounder, scup, and

black sea bass fisheries; notification of

commercial quota harvest.

SUMMARY: NMFS issues the final

specifications for the 2000 summer

flounder, scup, and black sea bass

fisheries. The annual specifications for

the scup fishery include a new

provision to restrict fishing in certain

areas during certain time periods to

reduce discards of scup in small-mesh

fisheries. This action contains

preliminary adjustments to the 2000

commercial quotas for the summer

flounder, scup, and black sea bass

fisheries. This action also prohibits

federally permitted commercial vessels

from landing summer flounder in the

State of Delaware for the year 2000. The

intent of this document is to comply

with implementing regulations for the

Fishery Management Plan for the

Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea

Bass Fisheries (FMP) that require NMFS

to publish measures for the upcoming

fishing year that will prevent

overfishing of these fisheries.

DATES: Effective 0001 hours, May 24,

2000, through 2400 hours, December 31,

2000.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the

Environmental Assessment (EA)/

Regulatory Impact Review (RIR)/Initial

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA),

including the Essential Fish Habitat

Assessment are available from Patricia

A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator,

Northeast Region, National Marine

Fisheries Service, One Blackburn Drive,

Gloucester, MA 01930–2298. The EA/

RIR/IRFA is accessible via the Internet

at http://www.nero.gov/ro/doc/nr.htm.

Comments regarding the collection-ofinformation requirements contained in

this final rule should be sent to the

Regional Administrator and to the

Office of Information and Regulatory

Affairs, Office of Management and

Budget (OMB), Washington, DC 20503

(Attention: NOAA Desk Officer).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Regina L. Spallone, Fishery Policy

Analyst, (978)281–9221, fax (978)281–

9135, e-mail regina.l.spallone@noaa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The FMP was developed jointly by

the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries

Commission (Commission) and the MidAtlantic Fishery Management Council

(Council) in consultation with the New

England and South Atlantic Fishery

Management Councils. The management

units specified in the FMP include

summer flounder (Paralichthys

dentatus) in U.S. waters of the Atlantic

Ocean from the southern border of

North Carolina northward to the U.S./

Canada border, and scup (Stenotomus

chrysops) and black sea bass

(Centropristis striata) in U.S. waters of

the Atlantic Ocean from 35°13.3’ N.

latitude (the latitude of Cape Hatteras

Light, NC) northward to the U.S./

Canada border. Implementing

regulations for these fisheries are found

at 50 CFR part 648, subparts A, G

(summer flounder), H (scup), and I

(black sea bass).

Pursuant to §§ 648.100 (summer

flounder), 648.120 (scup), and 648.140

(black sea bass), the Regional

Administrator, Northeast Region,

NMFS, (Regional Administrator)

implements measures for the fishing

year to assure that the target fishing

mortality (F) or exploitation rate for

each fishery, as specified in the FMP is

not exceeded. The target F or

exploitation rate and management

measures are summarized below by

species. Detailed background

information regarding the development

of the proposed specifications was

provided in the proposed specifications

for the 2000 summer flounder, scup and

black sea bass fisheries (65 FR 4547,

January 28, 2000), and is not repeated

here. NMFS will publish a proposed

and final rule for the 2000 recreational

management measures for these

fisheries in the Federal Register at a

later date.

On April 25, 2000, during the last

stages of review of this final rule, the

United States Court of Appeals for the

District of Columbia Circuit (Court)

issued an opinion on a challenge to the

1999 summer flounder specifications by

a number of environmental groups. The

Court noted that the 1999 quota, when

adopted, had only an 18-percent

likelihood of meeting the conservation

goals of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery

Conservation and Management Act

(Magnuson-Stevens Act). The Court

invalidated the 1999 quota and

remanded the case to NMFS for further

proceedings. The Court set a minimum

standard for harvest quotas to comply

with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, namely

that quotas must have at least a 50-

percent probability of achieving the

target fishing mortality rate.

Given the timing of the opinion and

the urgency of regulating the ongoing

fishery that began in January, after

careful consideration, NMFS has

concluded that it must have some

measures in place establishing quotas

for these fisheries. Therefore, rather

than leaving the fisheries unregulated

while it addresses the Court’s remand,

NMFS is proceeding with publication of

the rule as drafted at this time. In

addition, the specifications for summer

flounder are intimately linked to the

specifications for the scup and black sea

bass fisheries, which were not part of

the litigation. All of these specifications

must be in place immediately in order

to manage effectively the recreational

fishery, to monitor the state-by-state

commercial quotas, and to restrict

landings by Federal permit holders

upon attainment of those quotas—

measures necessary to control the

overall mortality on the summer

flounder stock.

NMFS considers it a matter of the

highest urgency to address the remand

of the Court and will work with its

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 24, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 33487

partners in the Council and the

Commission. NMFS intends to revise

the 2000 summer flounder quota by

August 1, 2000, to a level with at least

a 50-percent chance of not exceeding

the F target. State fisheries agencies and

fishery participants are hereby notified

that the specifications for the 2000

commercial and recreational summer

flounder fisheries will be revised

accordingly. Participants are also

reminded that any quota overages in the

2000 commercial summer flounder

fishery will be deducted from 2001

quotas, as provided under the FMP.

Summer Flounder

The FMP for summer flounder

specifies a target F for 2000 of the level

of fishing that produces maximum yield

per recruit (FMAX). Best available data

indicate that FMAX is currently equal to

0.26. The total allowable landings (TAL)

are allocated to the commercial (60

percent) and the recreational (40

percent) sectors in the proportion

required by the FMP. The commercial

sector’s quota is allocated to the coastal

states based on percentage shares

specified in the FMP, and those

allocations are detailed in this

document.

A summer flounder stock assessment

was completed by the Northeast

Fisheries Science Center’s (NEFSC)

Southern Demersal Working Group in

the Spring of 1999 and reviewed by the

Council’s Scientific and Statistical

Committee in July 1999. This

assessment is summarized in the EA/

RIR/IRFA. The assessment was the basis

of the Summer Flounder Monitoring

Committee’s (Monitoring Committee)

recommendation of a TAL of 16.815

million lb (7.627 million kg). The

Council and Commission (hereinafter,

referred to as ‘‘the Council’’) reviewed

this recommendation and did not adopt

it. Instead, the Council recommended,

and NMFS proposed, a 2000 TAL level

of 18.518 million lb (8.4 million kg).

Based on stochastic projection results,

this TAL has a 25-percent probability of

achieving (i.e., not exceeding) the target

F of 0.26 in 2000. NMFS notes that the

Commission has measures in place to

decrease discards of sublegal fish in the

commercial fishery and reduce

regulatory discards that occur as the

result of landings limits in individual

states. Specifically, the Commission has

measures in place whereby 15 percent

of each state’s quota would be

voluntarily set aside each year for

vessels to land an incidental catch

allowance (usually implemented as trip

limits) after the directed fishery has

closed. The intent of this voluntary

incidental catch set-aside is to reduce

discards by allowing fishermen to land

a certain amount of summer flounder

they catch incidentally after their state’s

fishery has closed, while trying to

ensure that the state’s overall quota is

not exceeded. NMFS anticipates that

these measures will improve the

probability of not exceeding the target.

Thus, this rule will implement the

following summer flounder measures

for 2000: (1) A TAL of 18.52 million lb

(8.40 million kg); (2) a coastwide

commercial quota of 11.11 million lb

(5.039 million kg); and (3) a coastwide

recreational harvest limit of 7.41 million

lb (3.361 million kg).

The preliminary final commercial

quotas by state for 2000 are presented in

Table 1; the total quotas are divided into

the recommended allocation between

directed and incidental catch fisheries

for purposes of illustration. These

preliminary quotas are subject to

downward adjustment dependant upon

overages of a state’s 1999 quota.

TABLE 1.—PRELIMINARY FINAL 2000 SUMMER FLOUNDER STATE COMMERCIAL QUOTAS

State Percent

share

Directed Recommended 15 percent

as incidental catch

Total

Lb Kg 1

Lb Kg 1 Lb Kg 1

Maine ....................................................... 0.04756 4,492 2,037 793 360 5,284 2,397

New Hampshire ....................................... 0.00046 43 20 8 3 51 23

Massachusetts ......................................... 6.82046 644,159 292,186 113,675 51,562 757,834 343,748

Rhode Island ............................................ 15.68298 1,481,181 671,852 261,385 118,562 1,742,566 79,041

Connecticut .............................................. 2.25708 213,170 96,692 37,618 17,063 250,788 113,756

New York ................................................. 7.64699 722,221 327,594 127,451 57,811 849,672 385,405

New Jersey .............................................. 16.72499 1,579,594 716,492 278,752 126,440 1,858,346 842,931

Delaware .................................................. 0.01779 1,680 762 297 134 1,977 897

Maryland .................................................. 2.03910 192,583 87,354 33,985 15,514 226,568 102,770

Virginia ..................................................... 21.31676 2,013,264 913,201 355,282 161,153 2,368,546 1,074,354

North Carolina .......................................... 27.44584 2,592,126 1,175,768 457,434 207,489 3,049,560 1,383,257

Total .................................................. 100.00000 9,444,512 4,283,959 1,666,679 755,993 11,111,192 5,039,951

1Kilograms are as converted from pounds and do not add to the converted total due to rounding.

Section 648.100(d)(2) provides that all

landings for sale in a state shall be

applied against that state’s annual

commercial quota. Any landings in

excess of the state’s quota must be

deducted from that state’s annual quota

for the following year. This document

contains: (1) Final specifications and (2)

associated preliminary adjustments to

each state’s 2000 quotas as a result of

known 1999 overages. The adjustment

in this document is preliminary because

it is likely that additional data will be

received from the states that would alter

the figures, including late landings

reported from either federally permitted

dealers or state statistical agencies

reporting landings by non-federally

permitted dealers. This document

utilizes preliminary 1999 landings data

that have been provided to NMFS

through December 31, 1999.

Based on dealer reports and other

available information, NMFS has

determined that the States of Maine,

Massachusetts, New Jersey, Delaware,

and Virginia exceeded their 1999

quotas. Thus far, the remaining States of

New Hampshire, Rhode Island,

Connecticut, New York, Maryland, and

North Carolina are not known to have

exceeded their 1999 quotas. The

preliminary 1999 landings and resulting

overages for all states are given in Table

2. The resulting adjusted 2000

commercial quota for each state is given

in Table 3. In Table 4, the adjustment

has been made to illustrate the

voluntary incidental catch component

of the commercial quota at 15 percent of

the total, as recommended.

33488 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 24, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 2.—SUMMER FLOUNDER PRELIMINARY 1999 LANDINGS BY STATE

State

1999 Quota 1 Preliminary 1999 landings 1999 Overage

Lb Kg 2 Lb Kg 2 Lb Kg 2

Maine ....................................................................... 4,450 2,018 5,778 2,621 1,328 602

New Hampshire ....................................................... 51 23 0 0 ...................... ......................

Massachusetts ......................................................... 757,842 343,751 804,964 365,126 47,122 21,374

Rhode Island ............................................................ 1,742,583 790,422 1,636,528 742,317 ...................... ......................

Connecticut .............................................................. 238,516 108,189 232,047 105,255 ...................... ......................

New York 3 ............................................................... 860,006 390,099 793,287 359,829 ...................... ......................

New Jersey .............................................................. 1,853,926 840,927 1,897,952 860,897 44,026 19,970

Delaware .................................................................. 4 (25,739) (11,675) 7,976 3,618 (33,715) (15,293)

Maryland .................................................................. 202,354 91,786 198,866 90,204 ...................... ......................

Virginia ..................................................................... 2,120,696 961,932 2,130,553 966,403 9,857 4,471

North Carolina 3 ........................................................ 2,974,589 1,349,274 2,800,749 1,270,398 ...................... ......................

Total 5 ................................................................ 10,755,013 4,866,746 10,508,700 4,766,666 ...................... ......................

1 Reflects quotas as published on August 26, 1999 (64 FR 46596), except as noted.

2Kilograms are as converted from pounds, and may not necessarily add due to rounding.

3 Reflects quota transfer (64 FR 71687, December 22, 1999).

4Parentheses indicate a negative number.

5Total quota is the sum of all states having allocation. A state with a negative number has an allocation of zero (0). Total quota and total landings do not equal overage because they reflect positive quota balances in several states.

TABLE 3.—SUMMER FLOUNDER FINAL ADJUSTED QUOTAS

State

2000 Initial quota 2000 Adjusted quota

Lb Kg 1 Lb Kg 1

Maine ........................................................................................................................... 5,284 2,397 3,956 1,794

New Hampshire ........................................................................................................... 51 23 51 23

Massachusetts ............................................................................................................. 757,834 343,748 710,712 322,374

Rhode Island ................................................................................................................ 1,742,566 790,041 1,742,566 790,041

Connecticut .................................................................................................................. 250,788 113,756 250,788 113,756

New York ..................................................................................................................... 849,672 385,405 849,672 385,405

New Jersey .................................................................................................................. 1,858,346 842,931 1,814,320 822,962

Delaware ...................................................................................................................... 1,977 897 2 (31,738) (14,396)

Maryland ...................................................................................................................... 226,568 102,770 226,568 102,770

Virginia ......................................................................................................................... 2,368,546 1,074,354 2,358,689 1,069,883

North Carolina .............................................................................................................. 3,049,560 1,383,257 3,049,560 1,383,257

Total 3 .................................................................................................................... 11,109,214 5,039,055 11,006,882 4,992,638

1Kilograms are as converted from pounds, and may not necessarily add due to rounding.

2Parentheses indicate a negative number.

3Total quota is the sum of all states having allocation. A state with a negative number has an allocation of zero (0).

TABLE 4.—FINAL SUMMER FLOUNDER 2000 STATE COMMERCIAL QUOTAS AND RECOMMENDED INCIDENTAL CATCH

ALLOCATIONS

State Percent

share

Directed Recommended 15 percent

as incidental catch

Total

Lb Kg 1

Lb Kg 1 Lb Kg 1

Maine ................................................... 0.04756 3,363 1,525 593 269 3,956 1,794

New Hampshire ................................... 0.00046 43 19 8 4 51 23

Massachusetts ..................................... 6.82046 604,105 274,017 106,607 48,356 710,712 322,374

Rhode Island ........................................ 15.68298 1,481,181 671,852 261,385 118,562 1,742,566 790,041

Connecticut .......................................... 2.25708 213,170 96,692 37,618 17,063 250,788 113,756

New York ............................................. 7.64699 722,221 327,594 127,451 57,811 849,672 385,405

New Jersey .......................................... 16.72499 1,542,172 699,517 272,148 123,444 1,814,320 822,962

Delaware 2 ............................................ 0.01779 0 0 00 .................... 2 (31,738)

(14,396)

Maryland .............................................. 2.03910 192,583 87,354 33,985 15,415 226,568 102,770

Virginia ................................................. 21.31676 2,004,886 909,401 353,803 160,482 2,358,689 1,069,883

North Carolina ...................................... 27.44584 2,592,126 1,175,769 457,434 207,489 3,049,560 1,383,257

Total 3 ............................................ 100.00000 9,355,850 4,243,742 1,651,032 748,896 11,006,882 4,992,638

1Kilograms are as converted from pounds and do not add to the converted total due to rounding.

2A state with a negative number has an allocation of zero (0).

3Total includes recommended directed and incidental catch allocations as calculated from the total, and may not add.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 24, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 33489

Delaware Closure

In 1999, NMFS prohibited Federal

permit holders from landing summer

flounder in the State of Delaware in the

light of deductions from the 1999 quota

for overages in 1998 (64 FR 5196,

February 3, 1999). As a result of those

deductions and further quota reductions

published in the Federal Register on

August 26, 1999 (64 FR 46596), the 1999

quota allocation to the State of Delaware

was ¥25,739 lb (¥11,675 kg). An

additional 7,976 lb (3,618 kg) of summer

flounder were landed in Delaware in

1999. The 2000 quota for Delaware is

not sufficient to offset this negative 2000

allocation and the additional landings

in 1999. Consequently, Delaware has no

commercial quota available for 2000.

The regulations at § 648.4(b) provide

that Federal permit holders agree, as a

condition of their permit, not to land

summer flounder in any state that the

Regional Administrator has determined

no longer has commercial quota

available for harvest. Therefore,

effective 0001 hours, May 24, 2000,

landings of summer flounder in

Delaware by vessels holding commercial

Federal fisheries permits are prohibited

for the remainder of the 2000 calendar

year, unless additional quota becomes

available through a quota transfer and is

announced in the Federal Register.

Federally permitted dealers are also

advised that they may not purchase

summer flounder from federally

permitted vessels that land in Delaware

for the remainder of the 2000 calendar

year, or until additional quota becomes

available through a transfer. If

additional landings were to be reported

for 1999, the commercial quota for the

State of Delaware will be re-adjusted

pursuant to § 648.100(d)(2).

Scup

The FMP established a target

exploitation rate for scup in 2000 of 33

percent. The total allowable catch (TAC)

associated with that rate is allocated 78

percent to the commercial sector and 22

percent to the recreational sector.

Discard estimates are deducted from

both TACs to establish TALs for both

sectors. The commercial TAL is

allocated to three different periods.

Scup was most recently assessed at

the 27th Northeast Regional Stock

Assessment Workshop in June 1998

(SAW 27). This assessment indicates

that scup are overexploited and at a

record low biomass level. SAW 27

concluded that spawning stock biomass

is less than one-tenth of the biomass

threshold—the maximum NEFSC

indices of spawning stock biomass

observed, or 2.77 kg/tow during 1977–

1979. The assessment is summarized in

the EA/RIR/IRFA.

NMFS disapproved both the

rebuilding schedule and the bycatch

provision for scup in Amendment 12 to

the FMP. Despite that, for the reasons

explained in the proposed rule, these

final specifications for fishing year 2000

are based on the current exploitation

rate associated with the overfishing

definition, pending submission and

approval of a rebuilding schedule that

complies with the Magnuson-Stevens

Act. The disapproval of the bycatch

provision is discussed in ‘‘Gear

Restricted Areas.’’ Failure to take any

action at all pending the submission of

the revised rebuilding schedule could

imperil the stock.

The Monitoring Committee reviewed

available data and assumed the 1999

exploitation target of 47 percent would

be achieved. The Monitoring Committee

recommended that the TAC be reduced

in proportion to the reduction in

exploitation rates from 1999 to 2000,

i.e., a 30-percent reduction. As such, the

Monitoring Committee recommended a

TAC for 2000 of 4.15 million lb (1.88

million kg) resulting in a 3.243 millionlb (1.47 million-kg) commercial TAC,

and a 0.915 million-lb (0.415 million-kg)

recreational TAC.

The Monitoring Committee also noted

the need to reduce discards in the

commercial fishery. Specifically, SAW

27 noted that F should be reduced

‘‘substantially and immediately’’ and

that, while estimates are uncertain, most

mortality in recent years was ‘‘clearly

attributable to discards, particularly

when incoming recruitment is strong.’’

The report noted that reductions ‘‘in

discards from small-mesh fisheries’’

would be particularly effective for this

stock. Thus, the Monitoring Committee

recommended that the Council

implement regulations to close areas to

fishing by trawl gear with codend mesh

sizes less than 4.5 inches (11.43 cm) to

reduce discards of scup.

In preparing data for the Monitoring

Committee deliberations, Council staff

cited data indicating that, based on the

average biomass estimates for 1998 and

1999, the 1999 exploitation rate could

be well below its target of 47 percent.

Specifically, the staff felt that it was

possible that exploitation in 1999 could

be as low as 30 percent, provided

certain assumptions were met regarding

biomass estimates. A 30-percent

exploitation rate is equal to the target in

2000. Thus, the staff recommended

maintaining the TAC as the status quo

level.

The Council reviewed the

recommendations and adopted its staff’s

recommendation, a TAC of 5.922

million lb (2.686 million kg) for 2000.

Discard estimates for the commercial

and recreational sectors are subtracted

from the commercial (4,619,160 lb

(2,095,215 kg)) and recreational

(1,302,840 lb (590,958 kg)) TACs,

respectively, to derive the commercial

quota and the recreational harvest limit

for the year. Assuming the same

proportion of discards to catch in 2000

as 1997 (45.1 percent), the commercial

discards would be 2.085 million lb

(0.946 million kg), and the quota would

be 2.534 million lb (1.149 million kg).

Based on the proportion of recreational

discards to catch in 1997 (4.96 percent),

the recreational discards would be 0.065

million lb (0.029 million kg) and the

harvest limit would be 1.238 million lb

(0.562 million kg). The commercial

allocation is shown in Table 5. As with

summer flounder, these allocations are

preliminary and are subject to a

downward adjustment for any overages

in a period’s harvest in 1999.

Preliminary data indicate that the

Winter I and Summer period allocations

have been exceeded in 1999, which

requires a corresponding reduction in

those periods in 2000. The resulting

adjusted 2000 commercial quota for

each period is given in Table 7.

TABLE 5.—PERCENT ALLOCATIONS OF COMMERCIAL SCUP QUOTA

Period Percent TAC 1 Discards 2

Quota Allocation Landing limits

Lb Kg 3 Lb Kg

Winter I ................................................. 45.11 2,083,703 940,543 1,143,160 518,529 410,000 4,536

.................... (945,168) (426,630) .................... .................... .................... ....................

Summer ................................................ 38.95 1,799,163 812,108 987,055 447,721 *n/a ....................

.................... (816,100) (368,372) .................... .................... .................... ....................

Winter II ................................................ 15.94 736,294 332,349 403,945 183,226 4,000 1,814

33490 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 24, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 5.—PERCENT ALLOCATIONS OF COMMERCIAL SCUP QUOTA—Continued

Period Percent TAC 1 Discards 2

Quota Allocation Landing limits

Lb Kg 3 Lb Kg

.................... (333,983) (150,754) .................... .................... .................... ....................

Total5 ............................................ 100.00 4,619,160 2,085,000 2,534,160 1,149,476 .................... ....................

.................... (2,095,215) (945,740) .................... .................... .................... ....................

1Total allowable catch, in pounds (kilograms in parentheses).

2 Discard estimates, in pounds (kilograms in parentheses).

3Kilograms are as converted from pounds and may not add to converted total due to rounding.

4The Winter I landing limit will drop to 1,000 pounds (454 kg) upon attainment of 85 percent of the seasonal allocation.

5Totals subjects to rounding error.

n/a—Not applicable.

TABLE 6.—SCUP PRELIMINARY 1999 LANDINGS BY PERIOD

Period

1999 Quota 1999 Landings 1999 Overages

Lb Kg 1 Lb Kg 1 Lb Kg 1

Winter I ............................................................................. 1,143,160 518,529 1,249,234 566,643 106,174 48,114

Summer ............................................................................ 987,055 447,721 1,288,482 584,446 301,427 136,725

Winter II ............................................................................ 403,945 183,226 700,907 317,926 296,962 134,700

Total .......................................................................... 2,534,160 1,149,476 3,238,623 1,469,015 .................... ....................

1Kilograms are as converted from pounds and may not add to converted total due to rounding.

TABLE 7.—SCUP FINAL ADJUSTED QUOTAS

Period

2000 Initial quota 2000 Adjusted quota1

Lb Kg l Lb Kg 2

Winter I ............................................................................................................................ 1,143,160 518,529 1,037,986 470,369

Summer ........................................................................................................................... 987,055 447,721 685,628 310,996

Winter II ........................................................................................................................... 403,945 183,226 106,983 48,527

Total .......................................................................................................................... 2,534,160 1,149,476 1,830,597 830,345

1Trip limits specified in Table 5 are unchanged.

2Kilograms are as converted from pounds, and may not necessarily add due to rounding.

To achieve the commercial quotas, the

Council recommended a landing limit of

10,000 lb (4,536 kg), with a reduction to

1,000 lb (454 kg) when 85 percent of the

quota allocation is harvested for Winter

I (January-April). A 4,000-lb (1,814-kg)

landing limit will be in place for the

entire Winter II (November-December)

period.

Gear Restricted Areas (GRAs)

The Council noted NMFS’s

disapproval of the scup bycatch

provision and rebuilding schedule in

Amendment 12 to the FMP and heeded

the advice of the Monitoring Committee

and SAW 27 that scup discards must be

decreased. To reduce discards of small

scup, the Council voted to recommend

seasonal GRAs in which commercial

vessels would be prohibited from

fishing with midwater trawl or other

trawl gear with codend nets of mesh

size less than 4.5 inches (11.3 cm),

unless they were participating in an

exempted fishery (identified by the

Council to have less than a 10-percent

bycatch of scup). The Council proposed

GRAs that were identified by an ad hoc

advisory panel consisting of Council

and Commission members, industry

advisors, and the public. The areas

comprise a series of small restricted

areas, each approximately 2-weeks in

duration, within Northeast statistical

areas 537, 539, 613, 616, and 622.

NMFS believes that the adoption of

GRAs is a critical measure to ensure the

attainment of the target exploitation rate

and to rehabilitate the deficiencies in

the FMP with respect to bycatch

provisions as noted in the disapproval

of Amendment 12. For the reasons

noted in the proposed rule, NMFS did

not support the areas and times

identified in the Council’s alternative.

Instead, NMFS proposed an alternative

analyzed by the Council that would

have established larger GRAs that would

remain closed to small-mesh fisheries

for longer periods of time (see

Alternative 6, as described in the EA/

RIR/IRFA). This action would have

established two GRAs, a Southern and

a Northern GRA. The Southern GRA,

defined as Federal waters off New Jersey

and Delaware, would have restricted

fishing with small mesh from January 1

through April 30. The Northern Gear

Restricted Area, defined as Federal

waters off Massachusetts, Rhode Island,

and New York, would have restricted

fishing with small mesh from November

1 through December 31. In light of

public comments received on the GRAs,

the Southern area has been modified in

this final rule. The area has been

reduced by moving the Eastern

(seaward) boundary inshore to

approximate the 100-fathom line. The

modified area better incorporates areas

in which scup are generally found

(depths of 40–100 fathoms), as noted in

the FMP’s Essential Fish Habitat Source

Document (NOAA Technical

Memorandum. In press, September,

1999). Specific public comments related

to these, and other, measures, are

responded to in the ‘‘Comments and

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 24, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 33491

Responses’’ section of this final rule.

Both of these areas encompass the areas

proposed by the ad hoc advisory panel.

During the time periods implementing

both GRAs, midwater trawl and other

trawl gear fishing vessels with nets on

board that have a mesh size less than a

4.5-inch (11.3-cm) diamond mesh in the

codend would be prohibited from

fishing for, or possessing black sea bass,

Loligo squid, mackerel, and silver hake

when in the Southern GRA. The fishery

for Atlantic herring has been

determined to be exempt from both

restricted areas. Copies of a chart

depicting these areas are available in the

EA/RIR/IRFA and from the Regional

Administrator upon request (see

ADDRESSES).

The modification of the area will not

substantially alter the impact on scup

harvest or discards, because scup are

not found outside the 100-fathom (183-

m) curve to any great extent. However,

this modification will substantially

reduce the impact on other small-mesh

fisheries that are prosecuted outside the

100-fathom (183-m) curve. Analyses

indicate that this revision will reduce

economic losses in exvessel revenue by

an estimated 20–33 percent from the

original proposed alternative. This

change responds to public comments

expressing concern about the size of the

proposed GRA, and also incorporates

the points on enforceability raised by

the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG). The areas

will be in place until revised by the

Council.

Lastly, vessels with exempted

experimental fishing permits will be

allowed to conduct experiments with

small-mesh gear in the regulated areas.

The Council is working with industry

members to identify gear modifications

that would reduce the catch of scup in

small-mesh fisheries for squid. Once

this experimental work is completed

and an effective gear design is

identified, NMFS may authorize its use

in the regulated mesh areas, provided

other experimental fishery requirements

are met.

Black Sea Bass

The FMP specifies a target

exploitation rate of 48 percent for 2000.

This target is to be attained through

specification of a TAL level that is

allocated to the commercial (49 percent)

and recreational (51 percent) fisheries.

The commercial quota is specified on a

coastwide basis, by quarter. The most

recent assessment on black sea bass,

SAW 27, indicates that black sea bass

are over-exploited and at a low biomass

level. Although data limitations make

this estimate uncertain, F for 1998 may

be equal to, or even less than, the target

(48-percent exploitation). The NEFSC

Spring Survey results for 1998 and 1999

indicate that there may have been a

significant increase in black sea bass

biomass in 1999 (although the 1999

index is high mainly because of a single

tow). This assessment is summarized in

the EA/RIR/FRFA.

To achieve the goals for 2000, this

final rule implements a black sea bass

TAL equal to the 1999 level and reduces

the quarterly trip limits as

recommended by the Council. The

commercial quota and corresponding

trip limits are shown in Table 8. The

Council had recommended that trip

limits be reduced in an attempt to

prevent overages in each of the quarters

from reoccurring. Preliminary data

indicate overages occurred in Quarters

2, 3, and 4 (See, Table 9), which

requires a corresponding reduction in

those quarters in 2000. The resulting

adjusted 2000 commercial quota for

each quarter is given in Table 10. Status

quo is retained on other related

management measures, such as the

minimum fish size and possession limit.

TABLE 8.—2000 BLACK SEA BASS QUARTERLY COASTWIDE COMMERCIAL QUOTAS AND QUARTERLY TRIP LIMITS

Quarter Percent Lb Kg 1

Trip limits

Lb Kg 1

1 (Jan–Mar) ............................................................................................. 38.64 1,168,760 530,141 9,000 4,082

2 (Apr–Jun) .............................................................................................. 29.26 885,040 401,447 3,000 1,361

3 (Jul–Sep) .............................................................................................. 12.33 372,951 169,168 2,000 907

4 (Oct–Dec) ............................................................................................. 19.77 597,991 271,244 3,000 1,361

Total .................................................................................................. 100.00 3,024,742 1,372,000 .................... ....................

1Subject to rounding error.

TABLE 9.—BLACK SEA BASS PRELIMINARY 1999 LANDINGS BY QUARTER

Quarter

1999 quota 1 Preliminary 1999 landings 1999 overage

Lb Kg 2 Lb Kg 1 Lb Kg 2

1 ....................................................................................... 1,168,860 530,186 708,235 321,250 .................... ....................

2 ....................................................................................... 885,115 401,481 1,031,318 467,798 146,203 66,317

3 ....................................................................................... 372,983 169,182 472,779 214,449 99,796 45,267

4 ....................................................................................... 598,043 271,268 655,864 297,495 57,821 26,227

Total 3 ........................................................................ 3,025,000 1,372,117 2,868,196 1,300,992 .................... ....................

1 Reflects quotas as published on August 26, 1999 (64 FR 46596).

2Kilograms are as converted from pounds, and may not necessarily add due to rounding

3Total quota is the sum of all states having allocation. A state with a negative number has an allocation of zero (0). Total quota and total landings do not equal overage because they reflect positive quota balances in several states.

33492 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 24, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 10.—BLACK SEA BASS FINAL ADJUSTED QUOTAS

[Trip limits specified in Table 8 are not changed.]

Quarter

2000 Initial quota 2000 adjusted quota

Lb Kg 1 Lb Kg 1

1 ....................................................................................................................................... 1,168,760 530,141 1,168,760 530,141

2 ....................................................................................................................................... 885,040 401,447 738,837 335,131

3 ....................................................................................................................................... 372,951 169,168 273,155 123,901

4 ....................................................................................................................................... 597,991 271,244 540,170 245,017

Total 3 ........................................................................................................................ 3,024,742 1,372,000 2,720,922 1,234,189

1Kilograms are as converted from pounds, and may not necessarily add due to rounding.

Changes From the Proposed Rule

In an Opinion and Order, dated June

24, 1998, the U.S. District Court for the

District of Massachusetts voided the

portion of the scup regulations found at

§§ 648.120 and 648.121 implementing a

state-by-state allocation of the

commercial scup fishing quota during

the summer period. NMFS is prohibited

from enforcing the voided portion of the

regulations, including the calculation of

overages. While NMFS has complied

with the order and has not enforced the

regulations, the codified language has

remained intact. To make clear that

NMFS has, in fact, complied with the

order, NMFS by this final rule suspends

regulations relative to the state-by-state

management of the scup summer quota

period. As a result, language in

§§ 648.120 and 648.121 has been

removed. The summer period will

continue to be managed under a

coastwide quota until such time that

new regulations are promulgated that

are consistent with the order.

In § 648.122(a)(1), the parenthetical

phrase regarding availability of a map of

the Southern GRA is corrected to

indicate that a chart of the area is

available. In that same section, a

typographical error indicating the

latitude of point SGA2 is corrected, and

the points describing the eastern

boundary of the area are revised to

reflect the modification as previously

described in the preamble.

In § 648.122(b)(1), the parenthetical

phrase regarding availability of a map of

the Northern GRA is corrected to

indicate that a chart of the area is

available. In that same section, points

NGA2 through NGA6 are revised to

reflect that Federal permit holders are

bound by the northern GRA

surrounding Block Island, RI, up to and

including state waters. Subsequent

points are renumbered, the

northernmost latitude of the GRA is

revised to read 41°10′ so that the

northern boundary of the GRA lies

south of Nantucket Island, MA.

In § 648.122(b)(2), Atlantic herring is

removed from the list of non-exempt

species. It was incorrectly placed on the

list in the proposed rule. Historical sea

sample data from the EA indicate that

the herring fishery qualifies for

exempted status under both the GRAs.

In § 648.122, paragraph (d) is

redesignated as paragraph (e), and a new

paragraph (d) is added. The new

paragraph includes the process by

which additional fisheries could be

made exempt from the GRAs, which

was inadvertently omitted from the

proposed rule.

Comments and Responses

Twelve comments were received on

the proposed specifications from the

public during the comment period that

ended on February 28, 2000. Specific

comments related to the proposed

annual specifications and the EA/RIR/

IRFA for the 2000 summer flounder,

scup, and black sea bass fisheries are

discussed and responded to as follows.

Scup GRAs (GRAs)

Comment 1: Three commenters do not

support the scup GRAs because of the

negative impact the areas would have

on industry, the contention that the

underlying data are outdated, and the

belief that current data indicate that

there is no need to reduce incidental

catch of scup in small-mesh fisheries.

Two of these commenters feel NMFS

‘‘callously rejected’’ and ‘‘discarded’’

the advice of industry. One questions

the rationale for the areas.

Response 1: NMFS values the hard

work of industry in developing advice

for the Council’s recommendation. The

advice of the ad hoc working group that

developed those areas is clearly

reflected in the adopted GRAs,

particularly where industry members

noted the prevalence of Loligo and scup

interactions in Northeast Statistical area

537 (south of Nantucket and Martha’s

Vineyard Islands, MA). In addition,

NMFS acknowledges the impacts that

these areas may have on industry and

has taken action to mitigate these

impacts by modifying the southern GRA

to resemble more closely the working

group’s recommendations. To the extent

practicable and consistent with the

goals of the GRAs, the revisions modify

the seaward border of the Southern GRA

to better approximate the 100-fathom

(183-m) line. These modifications

should minimize impacts on industry

by affording industry more areas in

which to conduct fisheries. The

northern GRA has also been revised

slightly to increase enforceability as

discussed in the preamble. NMFS

anticipates that these revisions will

better comply with the guidance of

national standard 9, as well as

incorporate important enforcement

concerns. In light of the disapproval of

the scup rebuilding and bycatch

provisions in Amendment 12 to the

FMP, it is incumbent upon NMFS to

meet its statutory requirements to

reduce discards and to rebuild the

fishery. NMFS cannot ignore its

obligations to both the FMP and the

Magnuson-Stevens Act.

In reviewing the latest scientific

information, the Monitoring Committee

recommended that the Council

implement a scup discard rate of 90

percent in 2000, unless some other

measures, such as time and area

closures for the scup fishery, were

implemented. The discard rate would be

applied to the commercial TAC in

setting the TAL (that is, 90 percent of

the commercial TAC would be allocated

to discards, and the remaining 10

percent would be available as landings).

The Council rejected the 90-percent

estimate and passed a motion to accept

the recommendation as GRAs beginning

in the year 2000, with the inclusion of

the development of an exempted fishery

program to allow fisheries to continue

that do not exceed a 10-percent scup

bycatch. Adoption of these GRAs

allowed the Council to estimate discards

at 45 percent. In developing alternatives

to the recommendation, the Council

analyzed the best available data, 1997

and 1998 vessel trip report (VTR) data

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 24, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 33493

and January 1989-April 1999 NMFS sea

sample data. The limitations of these

data were thoroughly described in the

EA. If additional data are made available

that would revise the need for, or the

specific boundaries of, the GRAs (either

spatially or temporally) the Council may

implement such changes by way of the

annual specifications or framework

adjustment processes.

Comment 2: Two commenters,

although not specifically supporting or

opposing the GRAs, questioned the data

used, specifically the data that did not

exempt the Loligo fishery. One

commenter stated that recent data show

there is no scup discard problem in the

Loligo fishery, and another commenter

wished to have these data incorporated

into the development of the areas.

Response 2: The Loligo fishery has

long been identified as a primary source

of scup discards. However, the

magnitude of the discards is unknown.

Assuming that the areas and times in

which scup and Loligo are caught

together are probably also the areas and

times in which scup discards occur, the

Council examined 1997 VTR data to

determine possible times and locations

for scup/Loligo overlap. The Council

further analyzed NMFS sea sample data

from January 1989 through April 1999

to assess the level of scup discarding in

other small-mesh fisheries. These best

available data indicate that the scup

discards in the November through

December Loligo fishery were 48

percent, by weight, of total catch, and in

the January through April period were

78 percent. Consequently, the Loligo

fishery does not qualify for exempted

status in these areas and time periods.

An exemption for Loligo may be added

in the future if sufficient data or new

information become available to result

in an estimation that the amount of scup

bycatch is less than 10 percent, by

weight, of the total catch, and if the

Regional Administrator, after

consultation with the Council,

determines that the percentage of scup

caught as bycatch is, or can be reduced

to, less than 10 percent, by weight, of

total catch and that such exemption will

not jeopardize fishing mortality

objectives. NMFS recommends that the

commenters work with the Council to

exempt this fishery through the existing

mechanisms in the regulations.

Comment 3: Two commenters support

the GRAs, believing that the areas will

greatly reduce scup discards, thereby

reducing scup mortality. One of these

commenters did not support any

modification to the areas.

Response 3: NMFS agrees that these

areas will greatly reduce scup discards.

The need for measures in the FMP to

reduce discards in the scup fishery was

stressed in the disapproval of the

bycatch provision in Amendment 12 to

the FMP. Current measures in the FMP

do not adequately reduce bycatch

(including discards, as stated in the

Magnuson-Stevens Act) or minimize

bycatch mortality. Consequently,

measures such as these GRAs will begin

to rehabilitate the deficiencies in the

FMP and will encourage the Council to

address this issue in a more

comprehensive way, e.g., either through

closed/restricted areas or gear

modifications. The rationale for

modifications to the GRAs described in

the proposed rule is further explained in

the response to Comment 1.

Comment 4: One commenter

questioned the process and use of the

proposed rule and specifications as a

vehicle for implementation of such

measures as GRAs.

Response 4: NMFS is confident that

these specifications are an appropriate

vehicle to implement these measures.

The regulations implementing the FMP

contemplates a broad range of action for

annual specifications. The regulations at

§ 648.120(b) specifically provide that

the Council may recommend the

following measures for the commercial

fishery to assure that the specified

exploitation rate will not be exceeded:

(1) A commercial quota allocated into

three periods, (2) landing limits for the

Winter I and Winter II periods, (3) the

percent of landings attained at which

the landing limit for the Winter I period

will be reduced, (4) commercial

minimum fish size, (5) minimum mesh

size, (6) restrictions on gear, and (7)

season and area closures in the

commercial fishery. The regulations also

contemplate a range of opportunities to

receive public input on the proposed

measures.

Comment 5: Two commenters had

questions related to the 10-percent

threshold used to exempt fisheries from

the GRA regulations. Specifically, the

commenters wanted to know how the

threshold is determined (i.e., how a

fishery is to be exempted, by one trip or

many), why a 5-percent threshold was

not used as in the case in the Northeast

Multispecies FMP, and what would be

the observer coverage. An additional

commenter supported the 10 percent

exemption threshold and wanted to

know why the threshold was not

proposed by NMFS.

Response 5: The threshold to exempt

fisheries was determined by a Council

motion to include a process for

exempting fisheries within the GRAs.

The exempted fishery program will

allow fisheries to continue that do not

exceed a 10 percent, by weight, of total

catch as long as such exemptions will

not jeopardize fishing mortality

objectives. An exemption based on a 10-

percent bycatch criteria was selected

because that percentage threshold is the

one used in the summer flounder smallmesh exemption program. This

precedent, then, exists in the FMP for

the establishment of that percentage for

exempting a fishery. The exemption is

based on the all available data. No

observer coverage is required, although

it is strongly encouraged and supported

by NMFS. This exemption program was

included in the proposed rule. However,

the process by which the Council could

add or eliminate exemptions was

inadvertently omitted from the

proposed regulatory language. This

oversight is corrected in this final rule.

Comment 6: Three commenters noted

that, based on data presented in the EA/

RIR/IRFA, the Atlantic herring fishery

should be exempt from the GRAs for

both periods and in both areas.

Response 6: NMFS agrees. NMFS

proposed to exempt Atlantic herring

from the Southern GRA. An error in the

interpretation of the data presented in

the EA/RIR/IRFA resulted in the herring

fishery being added to the list of nonexempt species for the Northern GRA.

Based on public comments and a

reexamination of sea sample data,

NMFS notes that the herring fishery

does qualify for an exemption under

both GRAs. The regulations in

§ 648.122(b)(2) have been revised to

account for that correction.

Comment 7: Two commenters

supported exempting Atlantic mackerel

from the GRAs as data become available.

Response 7: NMFS agrees that, if data

become available to support such an

exemption, Atlantic mackerel could be

listed as exempt from these GRAs

following the procedures outlined in the

regulations.

Comment 8: The Council

recommended that NMFS postpone

implementation of any GRAs to work on

perfecting the modified areas that the

Council included as part of its

comment. This comment was supported

by one other commenter. However, two

other commenters did not support the

modified areas and instead indicated

that such a change should be considered

under a separate rulemaking.

Response 8: NMFS feels that

implementation of the GRAs is

consistent with the mandate of national

standard 9 to reduce discards. In

addition, since the Council’s proposal is

not perfected and does not have

widespread industry support and input,

it is better dealt with in a separate

rulemaking. NMFS encourages such

action. Note that implementation of the

33494 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 24, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

Council’s alternative differs from the

action taken by NMFS to modify the

proposed GRAs in this final rule. This

modification represents a revision to the

proposed measure based, in part, on

public comments. The modified GRAs

proposed by the Council represent

substantially different areas and times,

which require further public

examination and analysis. Further, since

the GRAs were proposed by the Council

as part of the 2000 specifications for

scup, and given the conservation

imperative to effect needed reductions

in scup discard, NMFS feels it would be

inappropriate to delay implementation.

NMFS notes that the decision to deny a

petition for rulemaking to implement

measures to reduce scup discard was

based on the inclusion of these

provisions in the 2000 specifications for

summer flounder, scup and black sea

bass (65 FR 4546, January 28, 2000).

Comment 9: One commenter

questioned why the possession of Loligo

is prohibited in GRAs, even if harvested

with 4.5-inch (11.4-cm) mesh.

Response 9: The regulations prohibit

permit holders to fish for, possess, or

land Loligo squid, silver hake, black sea

bass or Atlantic mackerel in or from the

GRAs during the appropriate time

periods when in possession of midwater

trawl or other trawl nets or netting that

do not meet the minimum mesh

restrictions. However, a vessel may fish

for, possess, or land those species in or

from the GRAs when in possession of

nets that do meet the minimum mesh

requirements. These vessels may have

nets or nettings on board that do not

meet the minimum size, if those nets or

netting are stowed in accordance with

the regulations. Harvest Levels

Comment 10: One commenter did not

support the summer flounder TAL and

instead recommended that the Summer

Flounder Monitoring Committee’s

recommendation of 16.815 million lb

(7.627 million kg) be implemented. The

commenter stated that this lower TAL

has a higher probability of achieving the

target (50 percent, versus the 25-percent

estimate of the adopted TAL) and that

NMFS should set a TAL that has ‘‘a 50/

50 chance of meeting the target.’’ The

commenter also believes that the stock

rebuilding schedule is inadequate,

because the 1999 stock assessment

indicates the stock won’t rebuild until

2017.

Response 10: NMFS approved the

Council recommendation that the 2000

TAL be 18.518 million lb (8.4 million

kg). Based on stochastic projection

results, this TAL has a 25-percent

probability of achieving the target F of

0.26 in 2000 and a 50-percent

probability of achieving F = 0.29. These

same stochastic projections indicate that

the current rebuilding plan is on target,

and this rebuilding plan was approved

by NMFS under Amendment 12 to the

FMP. NMFS also notes that the

Commission has recommended that

states implement measures to reduce

incidental catch and regulatory discards

that occur as the result of commercial

landings limits in individual states.

Specifically, the Commission has

instituted voluntary management

measures whereby 15 percent of each

state’s quota would be set aside each

year for vessels to land an incidental

catch allowance (usually implemented

as trip limits) after the directed fishery

has closed. The intent of this incidental

catch set-aside is to reduce discards by

allowing fishermen to land a certain

amount of summer flounder they catch

incidentally after their state’s fishery

has closed, while trying to ensure that

the state’s overall quota is not exceeded.

It is anticipated that these measures will

improve the probability of achieving the

target. This measure is also consistent

with a state-by-state quota system which

allows states the flexibility to manage

their individual allocations to best

reflect their industry. This allows the

states to more tightly control their

fishery and prevent overfishing.

Consequently, it may be expected that

individual states would implement

slightly different programs.

The recent assessment for summer

flounder notes that ‘‘[b]ecause the

effects of density dependence, future

environmental conditions, and

expansion of stock age structure on

growth and recruitment at higher stock

sizes are unknown, these projected

levels of stock biomass and landings

should be considered with caution.’’ If

recent low levels of recruitment persist,

the projections may be optimistic.

Conversely, if recruitment is

underestimated or improves, the

projections may be conservative. These

projections are updated with the best

scientific information available each

time the an assessment is made on the

fishery.

In addition, the BMSY target noted is

subject to revision based on changes in

the input data that change the partial

recruitment pattern for the fishery. That

is to say, the rebuilding target is BMSY,

not necessarily 106,000 mt. Such

changes to the partial recruitment

would be influenced by changes in

future management action, including

minimum sizes and seasonal landing

patterns in the fishery.

Comment 11: Two commenters did

not support the scup harvest levels. One

supported a reduction of the discard

estimate to eliminate overages and

increase the commercial quota, and the

other expressed concern that the

proposed TAC is too high in light of the

record low biomass level.

Response 11: In making its

recommendation to NMFS, the Council

considered a recommendation by the

Monitoring Committee to use a 90-

percent discard-to-landings ratio in

establishing the TAL. The Committee

noted that the discard-to-landings ratio

had doubled in recent years (1998

versus 1997), based on the limited data

available, including survey, VTR, and

sea sampling. Such a recommendation,

if adopted, would have, for all intents

and purposes, eliminated the

commercial fishery for 2000,

particularly after deduction for overages

in the 1999 quota periods. The Council,

however, assumed the same proportion

of discards to catch in 2000 as 1997

(45.1 percent), and recommended a

lower discard estimate—coupled with

the GRAs. Such a measure would

achieve the goals of the FMP while

maintaining some economic

opportunity for the industry

participants. NMFS agrees with this

approach.

Comment 12: One commenter did not

support the black sea bass trip limits,

and specifically requested an 11,000-

pound (4,990-kg) trip limit in Quarter 1

(Jan–Mar).

Response 12: The reduced trip limits

are an attempt to prevent overages in

each of the quarters from occurring or

reoccurring. These reductions are

particularly relevant in light of the fact

that deductions are made for 1999

overages in this final rule, thus reducing

the overall quota per quarter.

Comment 13: One commenter

objected to the late publication date of

the proposed rule, saying it rendered

portions of the 2000 specifications

‘‘meaningless.’’ The commenter

questioned whether NMFS provided

meaningful opportunity to comment on

the proposed regulations, as they would

already be ‘‘in effect on the water.’’

Response 13: NMFS agrees that the

late publication of this final rule is

problematic. This delay will prevent

several regulatory provisions from being

implemented. However, since this is a

joint FMP, states have already

implemented several provisions of the

recommendations under compliance

criteria specified in the Commission’s

FMP. That fact, of course, did not

preclude due consideration of public

comments on the proposed measures. In

fact, several changes have been made in

direct response to comments. In

addition, since certain provisions of the

specifications are regulatory in nature

(such as the reduction of future quotas

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 24, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 33495

due to overages), states must implement

any changes to the quotas identified in

this final rule. States routinely make

such changes in response to quota

adjustments which, because of the

publication delay, are presented in this

final rule. In previous years, this

adjustment had been published as a

separate action. EA/RIR/IRFA

Comment 14: One commenter felt that

the EA for summer flounder falls short

of National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA) requirements in that it does not

provide adequate discussion of impacts,

there are no long-term or cumulative

impacts (of continued summer flounder

overfishing) examined, and no

explanation of why any of the

alternatives were accepted or rejected.

Response 14: NMFS determined that

the EA fully and adequately analyzes

impacts of the alternatives considered.

Still, NMFS realizes that there may be

cumulative impacts as a result of annual

specifications. Although overall impacts

of the management programs were

examined in detail as part of the

environmental impact statements (EISs)

prepared for each of the three fisheries

(Amendment 2 for summer flounder

(1992), Amendment 8 for scup (1996),

and Amendment 9 for black sea bass

(1997)), NMFS revised the EA for the

2000 specifications to more fully

discuss potential cumulative impacts of

the annual specifications.

Comment 15: One commenter felt that

the EA/RIR/IRFA is ‘‘flawed’’ due to the

failure to consider the full range of

economic benefits and costs associated

with the summer flounder quota

specifications. The commenter stated

that the ‘‘errors in the analysis * * *

incorrectly bias the analysis in favor of

higher quotas at the expense of

rebuilding * * *’’

Response 15: NMFS disagrees. The

economic analysis conducted for this

action responded to the requirements of

the National Environmental Policy Act,

E.O. 12866, and the Regulatory

Flexibility Act. The economic analysis

performed used the best scientific

information available in describing the

expected economic impacts for each

quota specification option as required

by law.

Comment 16: One commenter felt that

the IRFA fails to consider economic

benefits to scup fishermen from reduced

discards in small-mesh fisheries, and

resultant stock recovery; and does not

analyze costs saved for trips not taken

in the GRAs.

Response 16: NMFS feels that the

IRFA addresses adequately the

economic impacts of the scup

specifications. The economic benefits of

reduced discards and resultant stock

recovery are addressed in the EIS for

Amendment 8 to the FMP, which

implemented management measures for

scup. As these specifications are not

expected to result in the immediate

recovery of the stock, it would be

inappropriate for this final rule to

analyze such impacts. Ultimately, a

recovered stock would have obvious

benefits to industry in a more balanced

age structure of the scup stock,

increased spawning stock, and

increased yield as fish are allowed to

grow larger before harvest.

Comment 17: One commenter felt that

the use of a relative performance index

(RPI) misleads one to believe that the

proposed GRA alternative is least

efficient. The commenter felt that the

analysis should instead take the

difference between the benefits and

costs (rather than divide, as the RPI did)

to determine net benefits. Under that

calculation, the proposed alternative

would have the greatest net benefits.

Response 17: The RPI provides a

relative comparison among the various

proposed alternatives and is used as a

mechanism to rank them. The

commenter appears to have incorrectly

characterized the RPI as a benefit/cost

ratio. The index was never intended to

be, nor was it purported to be, a

measure of benefits and costs. The RPI

simply provides a ranking mechanism

to show how the various proposed

alternatives compare in terms of percent

reduction in scup discards to reduction

in gross revenues.

Comment 18: One commenter stated

that the revenue reductions in the scup

GRA analysis failed to account for the

proposed significant reductions in the

2000 Loligo quota. The commenter felt

that reductions in revenues in the Loligo

fishery, therefore, were not solely

associated with the GRAs.

Response 18: NMFS notes that

impacts associated with the Loligo

reductions were fully and adequately

considered in the specifications for that

fishery. An analysis of that action (See

proposed initial specifications for the

Atlantic mackerel, squid and butterfish

fisheries, 65 FR 431, January 5, 2000)

indicated that the Loligo quota

represents an 18-percent reduction in

landings compared to the average last 3

(1996–98) years, and may result in a 5-

to 10-percent revenue reduction (all

species combined) for 121 of 443 vessels

that reported landing Loligo in 1997.

The remaining vessels (322) are

expected to experience a reduction of

less than 5 percent. Since trimester

management of the Loligo specifications

is newly implemented in 2000, the EA/

RIR/IRFA for scup, then, examines to

the extent practicable, estimated

impacts of the GRAs based on historical

performance of the Loligo fleet, and

assumes that the Loligo quota would not

have been fully harvested and would

continue unrestrained by other actions.

Such assumptions in the document are

credible. If the Loligo quota were

harvested, of course, then actual

impacts may vary significantly from the

estimated—either towards greater

impacts, or lesser. A closure may result

in those vessels ceasing fishing,

eliminating impacts of the GRAs on

their activity.

Comment 19: Three commenters

noted that, based on data presented in

the EA/RIR/IRFA, the Atlantic herring

fishery should be exempt from the GRAs

for both periods, and in both areas.

Response 19: This comment was

addressed in the response to Comment

6.

Enforceability

Comment 20: The USCG submitted a

comment expressing its preference for

closed areas with no exemptions, as

opposed to GRAs, which require

boardings for compliance checks. The

USCG feels GRAs are ‘‘an enforcement

compromise.’’ The USCG agreed with

NMFS’s contention that the Council’s

preferred areas were too small and too

short in duration, but notes that the

NMFS proposed areas were large and

equally burdensome to enforce, since

they allow entry by exempted vessels.

The USCG recommended that, for law

enforcement purposes only, areas be

restricted for a minimum of 60 days,

and be plainly shaped squares or

rectangles whose sides conform to a

minimum 30 minutes of latitude or

longitude on a side. The USCG also

supports the national vessel monitoring

systems for all vessels within the GRAs

to help the USCG locate them to see if

they are complying with the regulations.

Response 20: NMFS understands the

USCG comments. Partially in response

to this comment, these areas have been

modified in shape. The areas conform to

the USCG request in that they are

restricted for a minimum of 60 days and

have plainly shaped sides. At its

narrowest points, the Southern area is

approximately 20 nautical miles wide

and the Northern area 15 nautical miles

wide. Both of these sections of area are

narrower than ideal for enforcement

purposes. However, given the expected

interaction of scup with small-mesh

species (including Loligo, Atlantic

mackerel, whiting, and black sea bass)

in the vicinity of those areas at those

times, and given industry testimony to

that effect, these areas are, to the extent

practicable, the most workable

compromise.

33496 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 24, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

Classification

This action is authorized by 50 CFR

part 648.

These specifications have been

determined to be not significant for

purposes of E.O. 12866.

Because §§ 648.120 and 648.121

pertaining to the scup summer period

state-by-state quota allocation are

contravened by judicial order, providing

prior notice and opportunity for public

comment on their removal from the

regulations would serve no useful

purpose and is therefore unnecessary.

Accordingly, the Assistant

Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA)

finds good cause under 5 U.S.C.

553(b)(B) to waive the requirement to

provide prior notice and opportunity for

public comment. Likewise, providing a

30-day delay in effective date would be

inconsistent with the intent of the

judicial order and is unnecessary. The

AA finds good cause under 5 U.S.C.

553(d)(3) to waive the 30-day delayed

effectiveness period.

This action establishes annual quotas

and related management measures for

the summer flounder, scup, and black

sea bass fisheries which are used to

control harvest of these fisheries and to

restrict landings when their quotas are

harvested. Action to restrict landings

must be taken immediately upon

attainment of the quota to conserve

fishery resources. The State of

Delaware’s summer flounder allocation

has been harvested. It would be contrary

to the public interest to provide prior

notice to implement these restrictions,

since the allocations have already been

harvested and the regulations require

the publication of this action. Failure to

implement this provision would result

in overfishing. Therefore, the AA finds

good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to

waive the requirement to provide prior

notice and opportunity for public

comment. Likewise, because the

remaining quota provisions reduce

overfishing of the summer flounder,

scup, and black sea bass resources in the

remaining states and periods, it would

be impracticable and contrary to the

public interest to delay implementation

of the remaining quota provisions.

Therefore, the AA finds good cause

under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to waive the

30-day delayed effectiveness period for

both the quotas and related management

measures, including the landings

restrictions.

This final rule contains a collectionof-information requirement subject to

the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA).

The request for an experimental fishing

exemption has been approved by the

Office of Management and Budget under

Control Number 0648–0309. Public

reporting burden for this collection of

information is estimated to average 1

hour per response, including the time

for reviewing instructions, searching

existing data sources, gathering and

maintaining the data needed, and

completing and reviewing the collection

of information. Comments regarding this

burden estimate, or any other aspect of

this data collection, including

suggestions for reducing the burden,

must be sent to NMFS and OMB (see

ADDRESSES).

Notwithstanding any other provision

of the law, no person is required to

respond to, nor shall any 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.

NMFS completed a final regulatory

flexibility analysis (FRFA) that contains

the items specified in 5 U.S.C. 604(a) as

follows:

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

for Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black

Sea Bass 2000 Specifications

Need for and Objectives of the Rule

This final rule is necessary to

establish annual specifications for the

summer flounder, scup, and black sea

bass fisheries. The intent of this final

rule is to comply with the regulations

for summer flounder, scup, and black

sea bass that require NMFS to publish

specifications for each fishing year to

conserve and manage the resources in

compliance with the regulations, the

fishery management plan (FMP), and

the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery

Conservation and Management Act.

Public Comments

There were three (3) public comments

submitted in response to the initial

regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA).

NMFS responded to these comments in

the Comments and Responses section to

this final rule. No comments were

submitted specifically on the Item of

Particular Concern noted in the

proposed rule. As a result of these

comments, changes were made to the

rule regarding the exemption for the

herring fishery from requirements of the

gear restricted areas (GRAs), the size

and location of the GRAs, and methods

for exempting species from the GRA

restrictions. These changes are noted in

the responses to comments as well as in

the preamble to this final rule.

Number of Small Entities

In 1998, a total of 1056 permitted

vessels landed summer flounder, scup,

and/or black sea bass and would be

impacted by the quota specifications.

Those most likely to be impacted by the

GRAs would be those vessels permitted

under several different FMPs, including

the Northeast Multispecies FMP

(whiting), the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid

and Butterfish FMP (Loligo squid,

Atlantic mackerel), and the Summer

Flounder, Scup and Black Sea Bass FMP

(black sea bass), and fishing with trawl

gear with codend mesh less than 4.5

inches (11.3 cm) in the GRAs. An

analysis of these areas indicates that 59

vessels used small mesh gear that would

be restricted in the northern GRA. The

total prohibited trips were valued at

$0.8 million. In the southern GRA, 116

vessel would be impacted by the GRAs.

The total value of these restricted trips

were valued at $9.7 million. All of these

vessels readily fall within the definition

of a small business.

Cost of Compliance

No additional costs of compliance

including those associated with

recordkeeping and reporting would

result from the implementation of this

final rule.

Minimizing Significant Economic

Impact on Small Entities

An analysis of the harvest level

alternatives indicated that the levels

adopted in this final rule minimized

significant economic impacts while

achieving the stated objectives of the

FMP. No other alternative considered

met the objectives while minimizing

significant economic impacts on small

entities. Although one alternative

resulted in less impact on small entities,

the harvest level proposed under it was

found inconsistent with the

requirements to end overfishing and

rebuild the stocks. Other alternatives

had higher probabilities of achieving the

rebuilding goals of the FMP.

A review of the impacts of the

proposed GRA alternative, as well as the

comments received, indicated that

impacts could be minimized while still

accomplishing the stated objectives of

the measures. Consequently, NMFS

modified the proposed GRAs by

reducing the size of the Southern GRA.

This modification will (1) Provide for

increase fishing opportunities for

vessels otherwise restricted under the

proposed alternative, (2) better

accommodate seasonal variations in the

migrations of scup, (3) reflect

information on areas of noted scup/

Loligo interaction, and (4) maintain or

increase enforceability. The other

significant alternatives to the GRAs

were rejected as each did not provide

for enforceable conservation benefits.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 24, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 33497

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648

Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: May 18, 2000.

Bruce C. Morehead,

Acting Assistant Administrator for Fisheries,

National Marine Fisheries Service.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is amended

as follows:

PART 648—FISHERIES OF THE

NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES

1. The authority citation for part 648

continues to read as follows:

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

2. In § 648.14, paragraphs (a)(122) and

(a)(123) are added to read as follows:

§ 648.14 Prohibitions.

(a) * * *

(122) Fish for, possess or land Loligo

squid, silver hake, black sea bass or

Atlantic mackerel in or from the area,

and during the time period, described in

§ 648.122(a) while in possession of

midwater trawl or other trawl nets or

netting that do not meet the minimum

mesh restrictions or that are modified,

obstructed or constricted, if subject to

the minimum mesh requirements

specified in § 648.122 and § 648.123(a),

unless the nets or netting are stowed in

accordance with § 648.23(b).

(123) Fish for, possess or land Loligo

squid, silver hake, black sea bass, or

Atlantic mackerel in or from the area,

and during the time period, described in

§ 648.122(b), while in possession of

midwater trawl or other trawl nets or

netting that do not meet the minimum

mesh restrictions or that are modified,

obstructed or constricted, if subject to

the minimum mesh requirements

specified in § 648.122 and § 648.123(a),

unless the nets or netting are stowed in

accordance with § 648.23(b).

* * * * *

3. In § 648.120, paragraphs (d)(2),

(d)(4) and (d)(6) are revised to read as

follows, paragraph (d)(3) is removed and

reserved, and paragraphs (d)(7) and (e)

are removed.

§ 648.120 Catch quotas and other

restrictions.

* * * * *

(d) * * *

(2) The commercial quotas for each

period will each be distributed to the

coastal states from Maine through North

Carolina on a coastwide basis.

(3) [Reserved]

(4) All scup landed for sale in any

state during a quota period shall be

applied against the coastwide

commercial quota for that period,

regardless of where the scup were

harvested.

* * * * *

(6) Any overages of the commercial

quota landed during the Summer period

will be deducted from that period’s

allocation for the following year. Any

overages of the commercial quota

landed in any Winter period will be

subtracted from the period’s allocation

for the following year.

4. In § 648.121, paragraph (a) is

revised to read as follows, and

paragraph (b) is removed and reserved.

§ 648.121 Closures.

(a) Period closures. The Regional

Administrator will monitor the harvest

of commercial quota for each quota

period based on dealer reports, state

data, and other available information

and shall determine the date when the

commercial quota for a period will be

harvested. NMFS shall close the EEZ to

fishing for scup by commercial vessels

for the remainder of the indicated

period by publishing notification in the

Federal Register advising that, effective

upon a specific date, the commercial

quota for that period has been

harvested, and notifying vessel and

dealer permit holders that no

commercial quota is available for

landing scup for the remainder of the

period.

(b) [Reserved]

5. Section 648.122 is revised to read

as follows:

§ 648.122 Season and area restrictions.

(a) Southern Gear Restricted Area. (1)

From January 1 through April 30, all

trawl vessels in the Southern Gear

Restricted Area that fish for or possess

non-exempt species as specified in

paragraph (a)(2) of this section, must

fish with nets that have a minimum

mesh size of 4.5 inches (11.43 cm)

diamond mesh, applied throughout the

codend for at least 75 continuous

meshes forward of the terminus of the

net, or for codends with fewer than 75

meshes, the minimum-mesh-size

codend must be a minimum of one-third

of the net, measured from the terminus

of the codend to the head rope,

excluding any turtle excluder device

extension, unless otherwise specified in

this section. The Southern Gear

Restricted Area is an area bounded by

straight lines connecting the following

points in the order stated (copies of a

chart depicting the area are available

from the Regional Administrator upon

request):

SOUTHERN GEAR RESTRICTED AREA

Point N. Lat. W. Long.

SGA1 ........................ 38°00′ 74°20′

SGA2 ........................ 38°40′ 74°00′

SGA3 ........................ 40°00′ 72°30′

SGA4 ........................ 40°00′ 71°20′

SGA5 ........................ 39°10′ 72°47′

SGA6 ........................ 38°00′ 73°55′

SGA7 ........................ 38°00′ 74°20′

(2) Non-exempt species. Unless

otherwise specified in paragraph (c) of

this section, the restrictions specified in

paragraph (a)(1) of this section apply to

vessels in the Southern Gear Restricted

Area that are fishing for or in possession

of the following non-exempt species:

Black sea bass, Loligo squid, Atlantic

mackerel, and silver hake (whiting).

Vessels fishing for or in possession of all

other species of fish and shellfish are

exempt from these restrictions.

(b) Northern Gear Restricted Area. (1)

From November 1 through December 31,

all trawl vessels in the Northern Gear

Restricted Area that fish for or possess

non-exempt species as specified in

paragraph (b)(2) of this section must fish

with nets that have a minimum mesh

size of 4.5 inches (11.43 cm) diamond

mesh, applied throughout the codend

for at least 75 continuous meshes

forward of the terminus of the net, or for

codends with fewer than 75 meshes, the

minimum-mesh-size codend must be a

minimum of one-third of the net,

measured from the terminus of the

codend to the head rope, excluding any

turtle excluder device extension, unless

otherwise specified in this section. The

Northern Gear Restricted Area is an area

bounded by straight lines connecting

the following points in the order stated

(copies of a chart depicting the area are

available from the Regional

Administrator upon request):

NORTHERN GEAR RESTRICTED AREA

Point N. Lat. W. Long.

NGA1 ........................ 40°00′ 72°50′

NGA2 ........................ 41°10′ 71°40′

NGA3 ........................ 41°10′ 70°00′

NGA4 ........................ 41°00′ 70°00′

NGA5 ........................ 41°00′ 70°40′

NGA6 ........................ 40°00′ 71°30′

NGA7 ........................ 40°00′ 72°50′

(2) Non-exempt species. Unless

otherwise specified in paragraphs (c) of

this section, the restrictions specified in

paragraph (b)(1) of this section apply to

vessels in the Northern Gear Restricted

Area that are fishing for, or in

possession of, the following non-exempt

species: Black sea bass, Loligo squid,

Atlantic mackerel, and silver hake

(whiting). Vessels fishing for or in

33498 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 24, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

possession of all other species of fish

and shellfish are exempt from these

restrictions.

(c) Transiting. Vessels that are subject

to the provisions of the Southern and

Northern GRAs, as specified in

paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section,

respectively, may transit these areas

provided that trawl net codends on

board of mesh size less than that

specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of

this section are not available for

immediate use and are stowed in

accordance with the provisions of

§ 648.23(b).

(d) Addition or deletion of

exemptions. (1) An exemption may be

added in an existing fishery for which

there is sufficient information to

ascertain the amount of scup bycatch, if

the Regional Administrator, after

consultation with the MAFMC,

determines that the percentage of scup

caught as bycatch is, or can be reduced

to, less than 10 percent, by weight, of

total catch and that such exemption will

not jeopardize fishing mortality

objectives. In determining whether

exempting a fishery may jeopardize

meeting fishing mortality objectives for

scup, the Regional Administrator may

take into consideration factors such as,

but not limited to, juvenile mortality. A

fishery may be restricted or exempted

by area, gear, season, or other means

determined to be appropriate to reduce

bycatch of scup. An existing exemption

may be deleted or modified if the

Regional Administrator determines that

the catch of scup is equal to or greater

than 10 percent, by weight, of total

catch, or that continuing the exemption

may jeopardize meeting fishing

mortality objectives. Notification of

additions, deletions or modifications

will be made through issuance of a rule

in the Federal Register.

(2) The MAFMC may recommend to

the Regional Administrator, through the

framework procedure specified in

§ 648.108(a), additions or deletions to

exemptions for fisheries other than

scup.

(e) Exempted experimental fishing.

The Regional Administrator may issue

an exempted experimental fishing

permit (EFP) under the provisions of

§ 600.745(b), consistent with paragraph

(d)(2) of this section, to allow any vessel

participating in a scup discard

mitigation research project to engage in

any of the following activities: Fish in

the applicable gear restriction area, use

fishing gear that does not conform to the

regulations, possess non-exempt species

specified in paragraphs (a)(2) and (b)(2)

of this section, or engage in any other

activity necessary to project operations

for which an exemption from regulatory

provision is required. Vessels issued an

EFP must comply with all conditions

and restrictions specified in the EFP.

(1) A vessel participating in an

exempted experimental fishery in the

Scup Gear Restriction Area(s) must

carry an EFP authorizing the activity

and any required Federal fishery permit

on board.

(2) The Regional Administrator may

not issue an EFP unless s/he determines

that issuance is consistent with the

objectives of the FMP, the provisions of

the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other

applicable law and will not:

(i) Have a detrimental effect on the

scup resource and fishery;

(ii) Cause the quotas for any species

of fish for any quota period to be

exceeded;

(iii) Create significant enforcement

problems; or

(iv) Have a detrimental effect on the

scup discard mitigation research project.

6. In § 648.123, the first sentence of

paragraph (a)(3), paragraph (a)(4), and

the first sentence of paragraph (a)(5) are

revised to read as follows:

§ 648.123 Gear restrictions.

(a) * * *

(3) Net modification. The owner or

operator of a fishing vessel subject to the

minimum mesh requirements in

§ 648.122 and paragraph (a)(1) of this

section shall not use any device, gear, or

material, including, but not limited to,

nets, net strengtheners, ropes, lines, or

chafing gear, on the top of the regulated

portion of a trawl net.* * *

(4) Mesh obstruction or constriction.

(i) The owner or operator of a fishing

vessel subject to the minimum mesh

restrictions in § 648.122 and in

paragraph (a)(1) of this section shall not

use any mesh construction, mesh

configuration, or other means on, in, or

attached to the top of the regulated

portion of the net, as defined in

paragraph (a)(3) of this section, if it

obstructs or constricts the meshes of the

net in any manner.

(ii) The owner or operator of a fishing

vessel subject to the minimum mesh

requirements in § 648.122 and in

paragraph (a)(1) of this section may not

use a net capable of catching scup if the

bars entering or exiting the knots twist

around each other.

(5) Stowage of nets. The owner or

operator of an otter trawl vessel

retaining 4,000 lb or more (1,814 kg or

more) of scup and subject to the

minimum mesh requirement in

paragraph (a)(1) of this section, and the

owner or operator of a midwater trawl

or other trawl vessel subject to the

minimum mesh requirement in

§ 648.122, may not have available for

immediate use any net, or any piece of

net, not meeting the minimum mesh

size requirement, or mesh that is rigged

in a manner that is inconsistent with the

minimum mesh size. * * *

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 00–12993 Filed 5–23–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P