Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2000 / Proposed Rules 431

who requires screening. The required forms

may be obtained from Center Chief of

Security. In the event that the NAC is not

satisfactory, access shall not be granted. At

the option of the Government, background

screenings may not be required for

employees with recent or current Federal

Government investigative clearances.

(2) The Contractor shall have an employee

checkout process that ensures—

(i) Return of badges, keys, electronic access

devices and NASA equipment;

(ii) Notification to NASA within three

working days for normal terminations and by

the close of business for terminations for

cause to disable any user accounts or

network accesses that may have been granted

to the employee; and

(iii) That the terminated employee has no

continuing access to systems under the

operation of the Contractor for NASA. Any

access must be disabled the day the

employee separates from the Contractor.

(3) Granting a non-permanent resident

alien (foreign national) access to NASA IT

resources requires special authorization. The

Contractor shall obtain authorization from

the Center Chief of Security prior to granting

a non-permanent resident alien access to

NASA IT systems and networks.

(d) The Contractor shall ensure that its

employees with access to NASA information

resources receive annual IT security

awareness and training in NASA IT Security

policies, procedures, computer ethics, and

best practices.

(1) The Contractor shall employ an

effective method for communicating to all its

employees and assessing that they

understand any ITS policies and guidance

provided by the Center Information

Technology Security Manager (CITSM) and/

or Center CIO (CCIO) as part of the new

employee briefing process. The Contractor

shall ensure that all employees represent that

they have read and understand any new ITS

policy and guidance provided by the CITSM

and CCIO over the duration of the contract.

(2) The Contractor shall ensure that its

employees performing duties as system and

network administrators in addition to

performing routine maintenance possess

specific IT security skills. These skills

include the following:

(i) Utilizing software security tools.

(ii) Analyzing logging and audit data.

(iii) Responding and reporting to computer

or network incidents.

(iv) Preserving electronic evidence.

(v) Recovering to a safe state of operation.

(3) The Contractor shall provide training to

employees to whom they plan to assign

system administrator roles. That training

shall provide the employees with a full level

of proficiency to meet all NASA system

administrators’ functional requirements. The

contractor shall have methods or processes to

document that employees have mastered the

training material, or have the required

knowledge and skills. This applies to all

system administrator requirements.

(e) The Contractor shall promptly report to

the Center IT Security Manager any

suspected computer or network security

incidents occurring on any system operated

by the Contractor for NASA or connected to

a NASA network. If it is validated that there

is an incident, the Contractor shall provide

access to the affected system(s) and system

records to NASA and any NASA designated

third party so that a detailed investigation

can be conducted.

(f) The Contractor shall develop procedures

and implementation plans that ensure that IT

resources leaving the control of an assigned

user (such as being reassigned, repaired,

replaced, or excessed) has all NASA data and

sensitive application software removed by a

NASA-approved technique. NASA-owned

applications acquired via a ‘‘site license’’ or

‘‘server license’’ shall be removed prior to the

resources leaving NASA’s use. Damaged IT

storage media for which data recovery is not

possible shall be degaussed or destroyed. If

the assigned task is to be assumed by another

duly authorized person, at the Government’s

option, the IT resources may remain intact

for assignment and use of the new user.

(g) The Contractor shall afford NASA

access to the Contractor’s and subcontractor’s

facilities, installations, operations,

documentation, databases and personnel to

the extent required to carry out a program of

IT inspection and audit to safeguard against

threats and hazards to the integrity,

availability and confidentiality of NASA

data.

(h) The Contractor shall document all

vulnerability testing and risk assessments

conducted in accordance with NPG 2810.1

and any other current IT security

requirements.

(1) The results of these tests shall be

provided to the Center IT Security Manager.

Any contractor system(s) connected to a

NASA network or operated by the contractor

for NASA may be subject to vulnerability

assessment or penetration testing as part of

the Center’s IT security compliance

assessment and the Contractor shall be

required to assist in the completion of these

activities.

(2) A decision to accept any residual risk

shall be the responsibility of NASA. The

Contractor shall notify the NASA system

owner and the NASA data owner within 5

working days if new or unanticipated threats

or hazards are discovered by the Contractor,

made known to the Contractor, or if existing

safeguards fail to function effectively. The

Contractor shall make appropriate risk

reduction recommendations to the NASA

system owner and/or the NASA data owner

and document the risk or modifications in

the IT Security Plan.

(i) The Contractor shall develop a

procedure to accomplish the recording and

tracking of IT System Security Plans, IT

system penetration and vulnerability tests for

all NASA systems under its control or for

systems outsourced to them to be managed

on behalf of NASA. The Contractor must

report the results of these actions directly to

the Center IT Security Manager.

(j) When directed by the contracting

officer, the contractor shall submit for NASA

approval a post-award security

implementation plan outlining how the

contractor intends to meet the requirements

of NPG 2810. The plan shall subsequently be

incorporated into the contract as a

compliance document after Government

approval. The plan shall demonstrate

thorough understanding of NPG 2810 and

shall include as a minimum, the security

measures and program safeguards to ensure

that IT resources acquired and used by

contractor and subcontractor personnel—

(1) Are protected from unauthorized

access, alteration, disclosure, or misuse of

information processed, stored, or transmitted;

(2) Can maintain the continuity of

automated information support for NASA

missions, programs, and functions;

(3) Incorporate management, general, and

application controls sufficient to provide

cost-effective assurance of the systems’

integrity and accuracy;

(4) Have appropriate technical, personnel,

administrative, environmental, and access

safeguards; and

(5) Document and follow a virus protection

program for all IT resources under its control.

(k) The Contractor shall incorporate this

clause in all subcontracts where the

requirements identified in this clause are

applicable to the performance of the

subcontract.

(End of clause)

[FR Doc. 00–181 Filed 1–4–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7510–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 648

[Docket No. 991228354–9354–01; I.D. No.

111299C]

RIN 0648–AM49

Fisheries of the Northeastern United

States; Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and

Butterfish Fisheries; 2000

Specifications

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Proposed 2000 initial

specifications; request for comments.

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes initial

specifications for the 2000 fishing year

for the Atlantic mackerel, squid, and

butterfish (MSB) fisheries. This action

also announces a proposed inseason

adjustment to the 2000 mackerel joint

venture processing (JVP) annual

specifications, a proposal to allocate the

domestic annual harvest (DAH) for

Loligo squid into three 4-month periods,

and a proposal to prohibit the use of any

combination of mesh or liners that

effectively decreases the mesh size

below the minimum mesh size of 17⁄8 in

(48 mm). Regulations governing these

fisheries require NMFS to publish

specifications for the 2000 fishing year

and management measures to assure

432 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2000 / Proposed Rules

that the specifications are not exceeded

and to provide an opportunity for public

comment. The intent of this action is to

fulfill these requirements and to

promote the development and

conservation of the MSB resources.

DATES: Comments must be received at

the appropriate address or fax number

(See ADDRESSES), no later than 5:00

p.m., eastern standard time, on February

4, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Comments on the proposed

specifications should be sent to: Patricia

A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator,

Northeast Region Office, NMFS, One

Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA

01930–2298. Please mark the envelope,

‘‘Comments-2000 MSB Specifications.’’

Comments also may be sent via

facsimile (fax) to 978–281–9135.

Comments will not be accepted if

submitted via e-mail or Internet. Copies

of supporting documents used by the

Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management

Council, including the Environmental

Assessment and Regulatory Impact

Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility

Analysis (IRFA), are available from:

Daniel Furlong, Executive Director,

Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management

Council, Room 2115, Federal Building,

300 South New Street, Dover, DE

19904–6790.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul

H. Jones, Fishery Policy Analyst (978)

281–9273, fax 978–281–9135, e-mail

paul.h.jones@noaa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulations implementing the Fishery

Management Plan for Atlantic Mackerel,

Squid, and Butterfish Fisheries (FMP)

prepared by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery

Management Council (Council) appear

at 50 CFR part 648. These regulations

require that NMFS, based on the

maximum optimum yield (Max OY) of

each fishery as established by the

regulations, publish a proposed rule

specifying the initial annual amounts of

the initial optimum yield (IOY) as well

as the amounts for allowable biological

catch (ABC), domestic annual harvest

(DAH), domestic annual processing

(DAP), joint venture processing (JVP),

and total allowable levels of foreign

fishing (TALFF) for the affected species

managed under the FMP. The

regulations also specify that there will

be no JVP or TALFF specified for Loligo,

Illex, or butterfish, except that a

butterfish bycatch TALFF will be

specified if TALFF is specified for

Atlantic mackerel. Procedures for

determining the initial annual amounts

are found in § 648.21.

Table 1 contains the proposed initial

specifications for the 2000 Atlantic

mackerel, Loligo and IlleX squids, and

butterfish fisheries.

TABLE 1. PROPOSED INITIAL ANNUAL SPECIFICATIONS, IN METRIC TONS (MT), FOR ATLANTIC MACKEREL, SQUID, AND

BUTTERFISH FOR THE FISHING YEAR JANUARY 1, THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2000

Specifications

Squid Atlantic

Mackerel Butterfish

Loligo Illex

Max OY ............................................................................................................ 26,000 24,000 1 N/A 16,000

ABC .................................................................................................................. 13,000 24,000 347,000 7,200

IOY ................................................................................................................... 13,000 24,000 2 75,000 5,900

DAH ................................................................................................................. 13,000 24,000 3 75,000 5,900

DAP .................................................................................................................. 13,000 24,000 50,000 0

JVP .................................................................................................................. 0 0 4 10,000 0

TALFF .............................................................................................................. 0 0 ........................ 0

1 Not applicable.

2OY may be increased during the year, but the total ABC will not exceed 347,000 mt

3 Includes 15,000 mt of Atlantic mackerel recreational allocation.

4 JVP may be increased up to 15,000 mt at discretion of RA.

2000 Proposed Specifications

Atlantic Mackerel

Overfishing for Atlantic mackerel is

defined by the FMP to occur when the

catch associated with a threshold

fishing mortality rate (F) of FMSY (where

MSY is maximum sustainable yield) is

exceeded. When spawning stock

biomass (SSB) is greater than 890,000

metric tons (mt), the overfishing limit is

FMSY, F=0.45, and the target F is

(F=0.25). To avoid low levels of

recruitment, the FMP adopted a control

rule whereby the threshold F decreases

linearly from 0.45 at 890,000 mt SSB to

zero at 225,000 mt SSB (1⁄4 BMSY), and

the target F decreases linearly from 0.25

at 890,000 mt SSB to zero at 450,000 mt

SSB (1⁄2 BMSY). Annual quotas are

specified that correspond to a target F

according to this control law.

Since SSB is currently above 890,000

mt, the target F is F0.25. The yield

associated with that target F is 369,000

mt. The ABC recommendation of

347,000 mt represents the F=0.25 yield

estimate of 369,000 mt, minus the

estimated Canadian catch of 22,000 mt.

The proposed IOY for the 2000 Atlantic

mackerel fishery is set equal to 75,000

mt, which is also equal to the proposed

DAH plus TALFF. The specification for

DAH is computed by adding the

estimated recreational catch, the

proposed DAP and JVP. The recreational

component of DAH is estimated to be

15,000 mt. DAP and JVP components of

DAH have historically been estimated

using the Council’s annual processor

survey. However, for the years 1994

through 2000, response to this voluntary

survey was low and did not contain

projections from some large, known

processors. In addition, inquiries

regarding the utilization of displaced

New England groundfish trawlers for

possible entry into the Atlantic

mackerel fishery have led the Council to

recommend no change to the DAP for

the 2000 fishery. While it is generally

agreed that joint ventures (JV) have had

a positive impact on the development of

the U.S. Atlantic mackerel fishery,

testimony from the processing sector of

the fishery indicate that market

opportunities for U.S. Atlantic mackerel

are increasing. This assertion led to the

Council recommendation that JVP be set

at 10,000 mt in 2000 (the same JVP as

1999, but reduced from 15,000 mt in

1998 and 25,000 in 1997). The Council

position is that even though JV-caught

mackerel could negatively effect U.S.

processing and exports, some

specification of JVP is necessary to

support U.S. harvesters who are

currently constrained by the limited

capacity of the U.S. processing sector.

The Council concluded that even

though JVs are necessary in the short

term, the long-term policy should be to

eliminate JVP to promote the

development of the U.S. processing and

export industry for Atlantic mackerel,

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2000 / Proposed Rules 433

which is one of the primary objectives

of the current FMP.

The Council has recommended, and

NMFS proposes, a specification of

10,000 mt of JVP for the 2000 fishery

with a possible increase to 15,000 mt

later in the year. If additional

applications for JVP are received, NMFS

could increase this allocation to 15,000

mt by publishing a notification in the

Federal Register. The Council also

recommended and NMFS proposes a

DAP of 50,000 mt yielding a DAH of

75,000 mt, which includes the 15,000

mt recreational component.

Zero TALFF is recommended by the

Council for the 2000 Atlantic mackerel

fishery, and that recommendation is

proposed by NMFS. The Fisheries Act

of 1995, Pub. L. 104–43, prohibits a

specification of TALFF unless

recommended by the Council and

proposed by NMFS. In 1992, the

Council based on testimony from both

the domestic fishing and processing

industries and analysis of nine

economic factors found at

§ 655.21(b)(2)(ii) determined that

mackerel produced from directed

foreign fishing would directly compete

with U.S. processed products, thus

limiting markets available to U.S.

processors. The industry was nearly

unanimous in its assessment that a

specification of TALFF would impede

the growth of the U.S. fishery. The

Council sees no evidence that would

change this determination. Further, the

Council believes that an expanding

mackerel market and uncertainty

regarding world supply, due to the

economic and political restructuring in

Eastern Europe and recent declines in

the North Sea mackerel stock, has

resulted in increased opportunities for

U.S. producers to increase sales to new

markets abroad. The U.S. industry has

been successful in capturing an

increased market share for mackerel in

the Caribbean, North Africa, and Japan

over the past decade, and a number of

factors indicate that market expansion

for U.S. Atlantic mackerel is likely to

continue. U.S. Atlantic mackerel stock

abundance remains high. Also, the low

abundance of several important

groundfish stocks in the Gulf of Maine,

southern New England, and on Georges

Bank are causing continued restrictions

in fishing effort for those species. These

factors increase the need for many

fishermen to redirect their efforts to

underutilized species. Atlantic mackerel

is considered a prime candidate for

innovation in harvesting, processing,

and marketing.

As a supplement to the quota paper

for the 1993 and 1994 fisheries, benefitcost and sensitivity analyses were

prepared by the Council and NMFS.

Results of the analyses indicated that in

the long term a specification of zero

TALFF will yield positive benefits to

the fishery and to the Nation. In its

1998, 1999 and 2000 quota papers, the

Council provided additional analyses of

the costs and benefits of directed foreign

fishing that indicated the conclusions

reached in prior analyses of zero TALFF

have not changed.

The Council also recommended, and

NMFS proposes, that four special

conditions imposed in previous years

shall continue to be imposed on the

2000 Atlantic mackerel fishery as

follows: (1) JVs are allowed south of

37°30′ N. latitude, but river herring

bycatch may not exceed 0.25 percent of

the over-the-side transfers of Atlantic

mackerel; (2) the Regional

Administrator should ensure that

impacts on marine mammals are

reduced in the prosecution of the

Atlantic mackerel fishery; (3) the

mackerel OY may be increased during

the year, but the total should not exceed

347,000 mt; and (4) applications from a

particular nation for a JV for 2000 will

not be decided on until the Regional

Administrator determines, based on an

evaluation of performances, that the

Nation’s purchase obligations for

previous years have been fulfilled.

Atlantic Squids

Loligo

The FMP defines overfishing for

Loligo as occurring when the catch

associated with a threshold of FMAX is

exceeded (FMAX is a proxy for FMSY).

When an estimate of FMSY becomes

available, it will replace the current

overfishing proxy of FMAX. Max OY is

specified as the catch associated with a

FMAX. In addition, the biomass target is

specified to equal BMSY.

The most recent stock assessment for

Loligo (the 29th Northeast Regional

Stock Assessment Workshop, August

1999 (SAW–29)) concluded that the

stock is approaching an overfished

condition and that overfishing is

occurring. More recently, NMFS’ Report

to Congress: Status of Fisheries of the

United States (October 1999)

determined that the Loligo stock is

overfished. A production model

indicated that current biomass is less

than BMSY, and near the biomass

threshold of 50 percent BMSY. There is

a high probability that F exceeded FMSY

in 1998. The average F from the winter

fishery (October to March) over the last

5 years averaged 180 percent of FMSY,

and F from the summer fishery equaled

FMSY. In addition, recent indices of

recruitment are well below average.

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery

Conservation and Management Act

requires the Council to take remedial

action to rebuild the stock to a level that

will produce MSY (BMSY) given the

status determination that Loligo is

overfished. The control rule in the FMP

specifies that the target F must be

reduced to zero if biomass falls below

50 percent of BMSY. The target F

increases linearly to 75 percent of FMSY

as biomass increases to BMSY. However,

projections made in SAW–29 indicate

that the Loligo control rule appears to be

overly conservative. The projections

presented demonstrate that the stock

could be rebuilt in a relatively short

period of time, even at F values

approaching FMSY. Projections indicate

that the Loligo biomass can be rebuilt to

levels approximating BMSY in 3 to 5

years if F is reduced to 90 percent of

FMSY. The yield associated with this F

(90 percent of FMSY) in 2000, assuming

status quo F in 1999, was estimated to

be 13,000 mt based on projections from

SAW–29. The establishment of 4-month

periods spreads F out over the year and

is expected to protect spawners. The

current regulations still specify Max OY

as the yield associated with FMAX, or

26,000 mt.

In determining the specification of

ABC for the year 2000, the Council

considered the SAW–29 projections.

Based on these analyses, the Council

chose to specify ABC as the yield

associated with 90 percent of FMSY, or

13,000 mt.

Thus, the proposed Max OY for Loligo

is 26,000 mt and the recommended ABC

for the 2000 fishery is 13,000 mt,

representing a decrease of 8,000 mt from

the 1999 ABC of 21,000 mt. This new

level of ABC is based on the

recommendation of SAW–29 and is

determined to be a level that would

allow the Loligo stock to rebuild to

levels at or near BMSY within 3 to 5

years.

Distribution of Annual Loligo Quota by

Three 4-Month Periods

The Council recommended and

NMFS proposes an IOY of 13,000 mt,

which is equal to ABC. Management

advice from SAW–29 also made special

note of the fact that yield from this

fishery should be distributed throughout

the fishing year. Given that the current

permitted fleet historically has

demonstrated the ability to land Loligo

in excess of the quota specified for 2000,

the Council recommends, and NMFS

proposes, that the annual quota be subdivided into three different 4-month

quota periods. The quota would be

allocated to each period based on the

proportion of landings occurring in each

434 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2000 / Proposed Rules

4-month period from 1994–1998. The

directed fishery during the first two 4-

month periods would be closed when

90 percent of the amount allocated to

the period was landed, and a trip limit

of 2,500 lb (1,134 kg) would remain in

effect until that quota period ends. Any

underages from 4-month period I or II

will be applied to the subsequent 4-

month period and overages will be

deducted from 4-month period III.

Similarly, the directed fishery would be

closed in 4-month period III when 95

percent of the annual quota has been

taken. The intent of the Council is for

the fishery to operate at the 2,500 lb

(1,134 kg) trip limit level for the

remainder of the quota period III. The

quota, allocated by 4-month periods, is

shown in Table 2.

TABLE 2.—LOLIGO 4-MONTH PERIOD

ALLOCATIONS

4-Month Period Percent Metric tons

I (Jan–Apr) ........ 42 5,460

II (May–Aug) ..... 18 2,340

III (Sep–Dec) .... 40 5,200

Total .............. 100 13,000

In Amendment 5 to the FMP, the

Council concluded that U.S. vessels

have the capacity to, and will harvest

the OY on an annual basis, so DAH

equals OY. The Council also concluded

that U.S. fish processors, on an annual

basis, can process that portion of the OY

that will be harvested by U.S.

commercial fishing vessels, so DAP

equals DAH and JVP equals zero. Since

U.S. fishing vessels have the capacity to

harvest and will attempt to harvest the

entire OY, there is no portion of the OY

that can be made available for foreign

fishing, so TALFF equals zero. These

determinations were made in

Amendment 5 to the FMP. The

proposed values of IOY, DAH, and DAP

equal 13,000 mt for the 2000 Loligo

fishery, and represent a reduction of

8,000 mt from the final 1999 Loligo IOY/

DAH/DAP specifications.

Loligo Gear Requirements

In addition to the quota specifications

summarized here, the Council also

recommended, and NMFS proposes,

that additional language be added to the

regulations pertaining to gear

requirements in the Loligo fishery.

Industry members testified before the

Council that some fishermen may be

rigging the inner portion of the codends

used in the Loligo fishery in a manner

that alters the intended selective

properties of the regulated mesh size

(17⁄8 in (48 mm)) by using an inner

codend of substantially greater

circumference than the outer portion of

the codend (i.e., the strengthener). The

Council recommended, and NMFS

proposes, to remedy this situation by

adding the following language to the

mesh restriction section of the

regulations governing the Loligo fishery:

‘‘The inside webbing of the codend shall

be the same circumference or less than

the outside webbing (strengthener). In

addition, the inside webbing shall not

be more than 2 ft (61 cm) longer than

the outside webbing.’’ The addition of

this language should greatly improve

enforcement of the mesh requirements

in the Loligo fishery.

Illex

The Max OY for Illex squid is 24,000

mt. The Council recommended, and

NMFS proposes, an ABC of 24,000 mt,

which is equal to the quota associated

with FMSY. Amendment 8 also changed

the definitions of overfishing for Illex

squid. The approved overfishing

definition for Illex is, ‘‘Overfishing for

Illex will be defined to occur when the

catch associated with a threshold

fishing mortality rate of FMSY is

exceeded * * *. Maximum OY will be

specified as the catch associated with a

fishing mortality rate of FMSY. In

addition, the biomass target is specified

to equal BMSY. The minimum biomass

threshold is specified as 1⁄2 BMSY.’’

The most recent assessment of the

Illex stock (SAW–29) concluded that the

stock is not in an overfished condition

and that overfishing is not occurring.

The previous assessment, the 21st

Northeast Regional Stock Assessment

(1996), had concluded that the U.S. Illex

stock is fully-exploited. Due to a lack of

adequate data, the estimate of yield at

FMSY was not updated in SAW–29.

However, an upper bound on annual F

was computed for the U.S. exclusive

economic zone (EEZ) portion of the

stock based on a model that

incorporated weekly landings and

relative fishing effort and mean squid

weights during 1994–1998. These

estimates of F were well below the

biological reference points. Current

absolute stock size is unknown and no

stock projections were done in SAW–29.

Since data limitations did not allow

an update of yield estimates at the

threshold and target F values, the

Council recommended, and NMFS

proposes, that the specification of MAX

OY and ABC be specified at 24,000 mt

(yield associated with FMSY). Under this

option, the directed fishery for Illex

would remain open until 95 percent of

ABC is taken (22,800 mt). When 95

percent of ABC is taken, the directed

fishery would be closed and a 5,000-lb

(2,268-kg) trip limit would remain in

effect for the remainder of the fishing

year. As in the case of Loligo,

Amendment 5 eliminated the possibility

of JVP and TALFF for the Illex fishery.

Butterfish

The FMP sets OY for butterfish at

16,000 mt. Based on the most current

stock assessment, the Council

recommends, and NMFS proposes, an

ABC of 7,200 mt for the 2000 fishery,

representing no change in the

specifications since 1996. Commercial

landings of butterfish have been low at

3,489 mt, 2,798 mt, and 1,964 mt for the

1996 through 1998 fisheries,

respectively. Lack of market demand

and the difficulty in locating schools of

market size fish have caused severe

reductions in the supply of butterfish.

Discard data from the offshore fishery

are lacking and high discard rates could

be reducing potential yield.

The Council recommended and

NMFS proposes an IOY and DAH for

butterfish of 5,900 mt. Amendment 5

eliminated the possibility of JVP or

TALFF specifications for butterfish

except for a bycatch TALFF

specification if TALFF is specified for

Atlantic mackerel. However, since the

Council recommended, and NMFS

proposes, no TALFF for Atlantic

mackerel, no bycatch TALFF is

necessary for butterfish.

Classification

This action is authorized by 50 CFR

part 648 and complies with the National

Environmental Policy Act.

This proposed rule has been

determined to be not significant for

purposes of E.O. 12866.

The Council prepared an IRFA in

section 5.0 of the RIR that describes the

economic impacts this proposed rule, if

adopted, would have on small entities.

A description of the action, why it is

being considered, and the legal basis for

this action are contained at the

beginning of this section of the

preamble and in the SUMMARY section of

the preamble. A summary of the

analysis follows:

The IRFA examines the proposed

specifications and several alternatives.

The Council has identified the number

of potential fishing vessels in the 2000

fisheries as 443 vessels fishing for

Loligo, 77 vessels fishing for Illex, 443

vessels fishing for butterfish, and 1980

vessels fishing for Atlantic mackerel.

Many vessels participate in more than

one of these fisheries; therefore, the

numbers are not additive. For Atlantic

mackerel, the proposed ABC

specifications of 347,000 mt and DAH of

75,000 mt, and the proposed Illex squid

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2000 / Proposed Rules 435

DAH specifications of 24,000 mt, and

the proposed butterfish DAH

specifications of 5,900 mt, represent no

constraint on vessels in these fisheries.

There exists a surplus between the

proposed specifications and the actual

landings for these species in recent

years. Absent a constraint on the

fisheries, no impacts on revenues are

expected. The proposed reduction in the

Loligo quota in 2000 from 21,000 mt to

13,000 mt would represent an 18-

percent reduction in landings compared

to the average last three (1996–1998)

landings. This reduction may result in

a 5–10 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.

The alternative action for Atlantic

mackerel would be to set the 2000

specifications at the same level as 1999

(ABC=382,000 mt). Although it was

rejected as inconsistent with the FMP,

this alternative would also place no

constraints, and consequently no

revenue impacts, on the fishery. The

second alternative for mackerel was to

set ABC at the long-term potential catch,

or 134,000 mt. This alternative was

found inconsistent with the FMP and

would not impact the IOY

specifications. The last alternative

considered for mackerel included the

elimination of JVP, which would lower

the specification of IOY to 65,000 mt,

also far in excess of recent landings.

Both of these alternatives would not

constrain the fishery and were

determined to have no impact on

revenues of participants in this fishery.

For Loligo, an alternative ABC, DAH,

DAP, and IOY of 11,700 mt would

represent a 26 percent reduction in

1996–1998 average landings. Under this

scenario 161 of the 443 impacted vessels

would experience revenue reductions of

greater than 5 percent. The remaining

282 vessels would experience less than

5 percent reduction in revenue.

For IlleX, an alternative Max OY,

ABC, IOY, DAH, and DAP of 30,000 mt

far exceed recent landings in this

fishery. Therefore, there would be no

constraints, and thus no revenue

reductions, associated with these

specifications. For butterfish, the

Council considered a DAH, OY, and

Max OY of 16,000 mt and a DAH and

OY of 10,000 mt. Since both such

specifications would be hazardous to

the health of the stock, the Council

rejected these alternatives that would

also not constrain or impact the

industry.

This rule also proposes to prohibit the

use of any combination of mesh or

liners in the Loligo fishery that

effectively decreases the mesh size

below the minimum mesh size of 17⁄8 in

(48 mm). The addition of language to

the mesh restriction section of the

regulations governing the Loligo fishery

will remedy the present situation of

rigging the inner portion of the codends

in a manner that alters the intended

selective properties of the regulated

mesh size by using an inner codend of

substantially greater circumference than

the outer portion of the codend. This

prohibition should greatly improve

enforcement of the mesh requirements

in the Loligo fishery compared with the

status quo alternative and will not

adversely impact any small entity that is

not circumventing the mesh size

regulations by using a larger codend.

This proposed rule does not

duplicate, overlap, or conflict with other

Federal rules. There are no

recordkeeping or reporting requirements

associated with this rule.

The RIR/IRFA is available from the

Council (see ADDRESSES).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648

Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: December 29, 1999.

Andrew A. Rosenberg,

Deputy Assistant Administrator for Fisheries,

National Marine Fisheries Service.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is proposed

to be 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 § 648.21, paragraph (e) is added

to read as follows:

§ 648.21 Procedures for determining initial

annual amounts.

* * * * *

(e) Distribution of Annual

Commercial Quota. (1) Beginning

January 1, 2000, a commercial quota

will be allocated annually into three

periods, based on the following

percentages:

Period Percent

I—January-April ........................ 42

II—May-August ......................... 18

III—September-December ........ 40

(2) Beginning January 1, 2000, any

underages of commercial period quota

landed from Periods I and II will be

applied to Period III and any overages

of commercial quota landed from

Periods I and II will be subtracted from

Period III.

3. In § 648.22, paragraph (a) is revised

as follows:

§ 648.22 Closure of the fishery.

(a) General. The Assistant

Administrator shall close the directed

mackerel fishery in the EEZ when U.S.

fishermen have harvested 80 percent of

the DAH of that fishery if such closure

is necessary to prevent the DAH from

being exceeded. The closure shall

remain in effect for the remainder of the

fishing year, with incidental catches

allowed as specified in paragraph (c) of

this section, until the entire DAH is

attained. When the Regional

Administrator projects that DAH will be

attained for mackerel, the Assistant

Administrator shall close the mackerel

fishery in the EEZ, and the incidental

catches specified for mackerel in

paragraph (c) of this section will be

prohibited. The Assistant Administrator

shall close the directed fishery in the

EEZ for Loligo when 90 percent is

harvested in Periods I and II, and when

95 percent of DAH has been harvested

in Period III. The Assistant

Administrator shall close the directed

fishery in the EEZ for IlleX or butterfish

when 95 percent of DAH has been

harvested. The closure of the directed

fishery shall be in effect for the

remainder of the fishing year with

incidental catches allowed as specified

in paragraph (c) of this section.

* * * * *

4. In § 648.23, paragraph (c) is revised

to read as follows:

§ 648.23 Gear restrictions.

* * * * *

(c) Mesh obstruction or constriction.

The owner or operator of a fishing

vessel shall not use any combination of

mesh or liners that effectively decreases

the mesh size below the minimum mesh

size, except that a liner may be used to

close the opening created by the rings in

the rearmost portion of the net,

provided the liner extends no more than

10 meshes forward of the rearmost

portion of the net. The inside webbing

of the codend shall be the same

circumference or less than the outside

webbing (strengthener). In addition, the

inside webbing shall not be more than

2 ft (61 cm) longer than the outside

webbing.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 00–119 Filed 1–4–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P