37292 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 14, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

under which the Contractor voluntarily

excludes itself from or restricts its

participation in Government

contracting/subcontracting for a

specified period; and of Contractors

who have received a Notice of Proposal

to Debar.

(b) [Reserved]

1509.407 Suspension.

1509.407–3 Procedures.

The procedures prescribed in

1509.406–3(a) shall be followed under

conditions which appear to warrant

suspension of a Contractor.

5. Section 1532.006 is added

preceding subpart 1532.1 is added to

read as follows:

1532.006 Reduction or suspension of

contract payments upon finding of fraud.

1532.006–1 General.

(a)–(b) [Reserved]

(c) Agency responsibilities and

determinations under FAR 32.006 are,

consistent with FAR 32.006–1(c),

delegated to the Head of the Contracting

Activity, if that individual is not below

Level IV of the Executive Schedule. If

the Head of the Contracting Activity is

below Level IV of the Executive

Schedule, then Agency responsibilities

and determinations under FAR 32.006

are delegated to the Assistant

Administrator for Administration and

Resources Management.

1532.006–2 Definitions.

The Remedy Coordination Official for

EPA is the Assistant Inspector General

for Investigations.

1532.006–3 Responsibilities.

(a) EPA shall use the procedures in

FAR 32.006–4 when determining

whether to reduce or suspend further

payments to a contractor when there is

a report from the Remedy Coordination

Official finding substantial evidence

that the contractor’s request for advance,

partial or progress payments is based on

fraud and recommending that the

Agency reduce or suspend such

payments to the contractor.

(b) [Reserved]

6. Section 1552.209–74 is amended as

follows:

a. In paragraph (h) of the clause,

remove ‘‘(g)’’ and add in its place ‘‘(h)’’;

b. In Alternate I paragraph (h), remove

‘‘(g)’’ and add in its place ‘‘(h)’’;

c. In Alternate II paragraph (h),

remove ‘‘(g)’’ and add in its place ‘‘(h)’’;

d. In Alternate III paragraph (e),

remove ‘‘(d)’’ and add in its place ‘‘(e)’’.

e. In Alternate IV paragraph (h),

remove ‘‘(g)’’ and add in its place ‘‘(h)’’.

f. In Alternate VI paragraph (i) remove

‘‘(h)’’ and add in its place ‘‘(i)’’.

Dated: May 12, 2000.

Betty L. Bailey,

Director, Office of Acquisition Management.

[FR Doc. 00–14635 Filed 6–13–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 622 and 640

[Docket No. 990621165–0151–02; I.D.

022599A]

RIN 0648–AL43

Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of

Mexico, and South Atlantic; Essential

Fish Habitat for Species in the South

Atlantic; Amendment 4 to the Fishery

Management Plan for Coral, Coral

Reefs, and Live/Hard Bottom Habitats

of the South Atlantic Region (Coral

FMP)

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: NMFS issues this final rule to

implement Amendment 4 to the Coral

FMP. This final rule increases the size

of the Oculina Bank Habitat Area of

Particular Concern (HAPC) and

incorporates two adjacent areas within

the Oculina Bank HAPC. Within these

areas, fishing with bottom longline,

bottom trawl, dredge, pot, or trap is

prohibited. Furthermore, fishing vessels

may not anchor, use an anchor and

chain, or use a grapple and chain in

these areas. This final rule also

implements regulatory changes to reflect

the South Atlantic Fishery Management

Council’s (Council’s) proposed

framework procedure for all its fishery

management plans (FMPs) that allows

for timely modification of definitions of

essential fish habitat (EFH) and

establishment or modification of EFH–

HAPCs and Coral HAPCs. The intended

effect is to protect, conserve, and

enhance EFH.

DATES: This final rule is effective July

14, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the final

regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA)

prepared by NMFS may be obtained

from the Southeast Regional Office,

NMFS, 9721 Executive Center Drive N.,

St. Petersburg, FL 33702.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael Barnette, 727–570–5305, fax

727–570–5583, e-mail

Michael.Barnette@noaa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

fisheries for shrimp, red drum, snappergrouper, coastal migratory pelagics,

golden crab, spiny lobster, and coral,

coral reefs, and live/hard bottom habitat

of the South Atlantic are managed under

the Council’s FMPs, as approved and

implemented by NMFS. These FMPs

were prepared solely by the Council,

except for the FMPs for coastal

migratory pelagics and spiny lobster

that were prepared jointly by the

Council and the Gulf of Mexico Fishery

Management Council. These FMPs are

implemented under the authority of the

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery

Conservation and Management Act

(Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations

at 50 CFR part 622, except for the FMP

for spiny lobster that is implemented by

regulations at 50 CFR part 640.

On March 5, 1999, NMFS announced

the availability of the Comprehensive

Amendment Addressing Essential Fish

Habitat in Fishery Management Plans of

the South Atlantic Region (EFH

Amendment) and requested comments

on the EFH Amendment (64 FR 10612).

Amendment 4 to the Coral FMP was

included within the EFH Amendment.

On June 3, 1999, NMFS approved the

EFH Amendment. On July 9, 1999,

NMFS published a proposed rule to

implement the measures in Amendment

4 and requested comments on the rule

(64 FR 37082). On November 2, 1999,

NMFS published a supplement to the

proposed rule due to the inadvertent

omission of information from the initial

regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA)

summary in the proposed rule

classification section, and requested

comments on this supplemental

information (64 FR 59152). The

background and rationale for the

measures in the EFH Amendment and

proposed rule are contained in the

preamble to the proposed rule and are

not repeated here.

Comments and Responses

Thirteen comments and one group

comment were received on the EFH

Amendment, the proposed rule, and the

supplement to the proposed rule. A

summary of public comments and

NMFS’ responses follows.

Comment 1: One commenter and a

group comment asserted that the

Council’s economic assessment in the

EFH Amendment failed to evaluate the

impacts on the bottom longline fishery

for shark, golden tilefish, and grouper,

a necessary exercise when

implementing the EFH Amendment’s

management measures (Actions 3A

(expanded Oculina HAPC) and 3B (two

satellite Oculina HAPCs)). Therefore,

they believe these actions are in

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 14, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 37293

violation of national standard 8

(conservation and management

measures shall take into account the

importance of fishery resources to

fishing communities by providing for

sustained community participation and

minimizing adverse economic impacts).

Response: NMFS agrees that the

Council’s economic assessment in the

EFH Amendment does not address

potential economic impacts to the

bottom longline fishery. However,

NMFS disagrees that these actions are in

violation of national standard 8. Prior to

initiating Secretarial review of the EFH

Amendment, NMFS reviewed the

available data (summarized in the IRFA

and FRFA) and it reveals substantial

catches of shark, golden tilefish, and

grouper by bottom longline gear from

statistical grids that encompass the

Oculina Bank HAPC. The statistical

grids are larger than the Oculina Bank

HAPC and, therefore, precise catches of

shark, golden tilefish, and grouper

originating from within the HAPC are

unknown. However, the bottom longline

fishery could potentially be adversely

affected by the expanded and satellite

Oculina HAPCs.

Comment 2: One commenter and a

group comment commented that large

portions of the proposed expansion of

the Oculina Bank HAPC do not include

areas identified as Oculina EFH and,

thus, are in violation of national

standard 2 (conservation and

management measures shall be based on

the best scientific information

available). The commenters maintain

that the proposed expansion consists of

large areas of flat mud bottom devoid of

Oculina coral, and that the proposed

actions will not provide any Oculina

coral protection.

Response: NMFS recognizes that the

proposed expansion of the Oculina

Bank HAPC includes habitat areas aside

from Oculina coral communities, but

disagrees that it is in violation of

national standard 2. When delineating

the boundaries for the expanded

Oculina Bank HAPC, the Council used

the best available information to

identify vulnerable Oculina coral

communities. However, the Council

included habitat areas other than

Oculina coral to address enforcement

concerns and regulatory consistency

issues to achieve the desired

conservation goals. The expansion

includes areas adjacent to the Oculina

coral communities, such as flat mud

bottom, to provide a buffer from

accidental incursions. Furthermore, it

was necessary for the expanded area to

be large enough to allow for effective

enforcement; the expanded HAPC

allows enforcement to more easily

identify an incursion and prevent

potential damage to coral habitat. The

expansion also provides regulatory

consistency between the rock shrimp

and calico scallop industries by

establishing identical prohibited areas

for the two fleets; presently, the calico

scallop fleet is permitted to fish in areas

closed to the rock shrimp fleet.

Therefore, the Council used the best

available information in expanding the

Oculina Bank HAPC. However, relevant

enforcement and regulatory issues that

may have jeopardized the effectiveness

of the expanded Oculina Bank HAPC

also influenced the proposed

boundaries.

Comment 3: Two commenters

requested an extension of the Notice of

Availability comment period past May

4, 1999, based on their belief that the

necessary documents were not available

for distribution or review. Furthermore,

they claim that the internet web sites

that provide access to online versions of

the documents were constantly

malfunctioning.

Response: NMFS disagrees with this

comment. Copies of the EFH

Amendment and the associated Habitat

Plan were available during the subject

comment period as reflected by

numerous other comments received

from other groups. Although the

Council’s supply of documents was

temporarily depleted, there was

sufficient time for the public to receive

the documents and review and

comment within the statutory 60-day

comment period. Furthermore, the EFH

Amendment was available on the

Council internet web site throughout the

comment period. Claims that the

internet web site was malfunctioning

are unsubstantiated.

Comment 4: Four commenters

supported the conservation and

management efforts of the Habitat Plan

and the EFH Amendment, including the

proposed measures to expand the

Oculina Bank HAPC to protect EFH.

However, all groups noted that EFH and

EFH–HAPC identification should be

improved to be species specific in

subsequent amendments to FMPs.

Response: NMFS agrees with these

comments and believes the Council

provided an exceptional source

document on EFH in its Habitat Plan

and is well on its way to improve EFH

information.

Comment 5: Two commenters stated

that the Council has not identified and

minimized all fishing gear impacts.

Additionally, one commenter claimed

that few if any management measures

have been implemented to protect EFH

from the effects of a number of gears,

providing the example of bottom trawls.

The commenter contended that while

bottom trawls are prohibited in and

around the Oculina Bank HAPC, they

are allowed elsewhere in the South

Atlantic exclusive economic zone (EEZ)

where there is a potential to damage

other hard bottom habitat areas.

Response: NMFS disagrees with this

comment. NMFS believes that the

Council has done an adequate job

minimizing fishing gear impacts to the

extent practicable, as is required by the

Magnuson-Stevens Act. Furthermore,

NMFS disagrees with the comment that

the Council allows bottom trawls in

areas of hard bottom habitat elsewhere

in the South Atlantic EEZ. Amendment

1 to the Fishery Management Plan for

the Snapper Grouper Fishery in the

South Atlantic Region (September 1988)

prohibited the use of bottom tending

(roller-rig) trawls in the snapper grouper

fishery to prevent damage to sensitive

hard and live bottom habitat.

Comment 6: One commenter stated

that the EFH Amendment exceeds

Congressional intent and is overly

broad. They claimed that the Council’s

broad EFH description implies that EFH

is not unique and that it detracts from

the benefits of the EFH designation

process. Furthermore, the commenter

stated that an overly broad range of nonfishing activities are identified as

potential threats to EFH without

adequate justification. The commenter

also stated that the proposed rule, in

particular the amended framework

procedures, reflects the same problems.

Response: NMFS disagrees with this

comment. The Magnuson-Stevens Act

defines EFH as those waters and

substrate necessary to fish for spawning,

breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity.

Therefore, the geographic scope of EFH

must be sufficiently broad to encompass

the biological requirements of the

species. As for the comment regarding

non-fishing activities, one of the stated

purposes of the Sustainable Fisheries

Act of 1996, which amended the

Magnuson-Stevens Act, is to promote

the protection of EFH through the

review of projects, including nonfishing activities, conducted under

Federal permits, licenses, or other

authorities that have the potential to

affect EFH adversely. NMFS’ EFHrelated recommendations to Federal

agencies on non-fishing activities are

advisory in nature. Federal agencies will

be required to consult only on those

activities that may adversely affect EFH,

based on an assessment of the particular

activity at issue.

The amended framework procedures

under the EFH Amendment are

procedural in nature and do not have

immediate substantive impacts. These

37294 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 14, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

amended framework procedures of the

Councils’ FMP simply allow the Council

and NMFS to undertake a more timely

modification of EFH definitions and

establishment or modification of

existing EFH–HAPCs and coral HAPCs

without requiring an amendment to the

appropriate FMP. This framework

procedure will involve assessment of all

expected biological and socioeconomic

impacts of the proposed action and an

opportunity for public comment prior to

final agency action.

Comment 7: One commenter

commented that the EFH Amendment

and Habitat Plan do not comply with

the National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA), the Regulatory Flexibility Act

(RFA), and the Paperwork Reduction

Act (PRA).

Response: NMFS disagrees with this

comment and believes that all

requirements of these statutes were fully

met. The Council prepared draft and

final supplemental environmental

impact statements (DSEIS and FSEIS)

for the EFH Amendment; both the

DSEIS and FSEIS contained all elements

required by NEPA, the Council on

Environmental Quality’s regulations

implementing NEPA (40 CFR Parts

1500–1508), and NOAA’s

Administrative Order 216–6

(Environmental Review Procedures for

Implementing the National

Environmental Policy Act). All proper

NEPA procedures were followed and

the DSEIS and FSEIS were filed with the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

for publication of notices of availability

for public comment. EPA published a

notice of the availability of the DSEIS on

July 17, 1998 (63 FR 38643). EPA

published a notice of availability of the

FSEIS on April 9, 1999 (68 FR 17362).

EPA cited no inadequacies of the DSEIS

or FSEIS. Specific NEPA-related

discussions of alternatives and expected

environmental impacts and other NEPA

analysis elements are contained in the

EFH Amendment’s Sections 1.0, 2.0,

3.0, 4.0, 8.0, and 9.0 and in the cover

sheet (viii), table of contents (pages i–v),

and summary of NEPA elements (page

x).

Section 4.8 of the EFH Amendment

contains the Council’s discussion

intended to meet RFA requirements;

additional discussion and information

regarding impacts on small entities, as

required by RFA, is provided in

Sections 4.2.7.5 and 4.2.7.6. Also,

NMFS determined, in conjunction with

publication of the proposed rule for the

EFH Amendment, that this action would

have significant impacts on a substantial

number of small entities and prepared

an initial regulatory flexibility analysis

(IRFA) as required by the RFA. NMFS

announced the availability of the IRFA

for public comment in the proposed rule

(64 FR 37082; July 9, 1999) and in a

supplement to the proposed rule (64 FR

59152). This final rule announces the

availability of the FRFA as prepared by

NMFS.

The Council did not propose any

measures under the EFH Amendment

that will involve increased paperwork

or consideration under the PRA. The

EFH Amendment provides for a

voluntary vessel monitoring system

(VMS) to be established as soon as

possible for the rock shrimp fishery that

would involve a collection-ofinformation requirement. NMFS

approved this provision in approving

the EFH Amendment. Since the

voluntary VMS would involve only 2–

3 vessels, this collection is not subject

to the PRA.

Comment 8: One commenter

commented that the Habitat Plan fails to

show any connection between

silviculture activities and EFH, and it

overemphasizes the importance of

silviculture as a nonpoint source of

water quality problems.

Response: While the Habitat Plan

does not illustrate any specific examples

of direct EFH degradation or adverse

impact, studies cited within the Habitat

Plan indicate that there is a potential for

adverse impacts on EFH from

silviculture or from activities related to

silviculture. The Council intended the

Habitat Plan to provide a wide spectrum

of background information to aid in

management, conservation, and

enhancement of EFH. Therefore, NMFS

supports the Council’s inclusion of this

pertinent material.

Comment 9: One commenter

requested an extension of the comment

period for the supplement to the

proposed rule due to its inability to

respond during the allotted time.

Response: NMFS is unable to extend

the comment period due to MagnusonStevens Act time requirements for

issuing final rules to implement

approved fishery management plan

amendments.

Comment 10: One commenter

supported the proposed rule to expand

the Oculina Bank HAPC and the

establishment of the framework

procedures in all fishery management

plans.

Response: NMFS agrees with this

comment.

Comment 11: One commenter

commented that the expansion of the

Oculina Bank HAPC would include

areas of flat, mud bottom. The

commenter states that this inclusion

would not protect Oculina coral but

would negatively impact bottom

longline fisheries for tilefish, grouper,

and shark. The commenter proposed a

revised expanded area that was believed

to offer better protection for Oculina

coral while minimizing adverse

economic impacts on longline

fishermen.

Response: NMFS acknowledges that

areas of flat, mud bottom are included

in the Oculina Bank HAPC expansion.

The rationale for including these areas

is to facilitate enforcement and to

implement regulations consistent with

the South Atlantic Shrimp FMP. While

the revised boundaries proposed by the

commenter would isolate Oculina coral,

it would create enforcement problems.

Therefore, NMFS disagrees with this

comment.

Comment 12: One commenter

requested that further details of the

socioeconomic impacts on affected

fisheries be documented, especially the

cumulative impacts of a number of

federal regulatory actions for highly

migratory species, snapper/grouper

species, and tilefish.

Response: To the extent practicable,

NMFS recognizes and considers

cumulative impacts resulting from the

implementation of a series of

management measures that affect the

fishery in question. The analysis of the

potential impacts of this particular

action was conducted based on the

status quo. Since the status quo takes all

previous management actions into

account, any analysis of the impacts of

additional regulations implicitly

incorporates impacts of previous

management actions. Further details of

this analysis are found in the Regulatory

Impact Review, the IRFA, and the FRFA

written to accompany this rulemaking

process. Thus, NMFS made a good faith

effort to assess the impacts, including

cumulative impacts, of the proposed

actions on all affected entities.

Classification

The Administrator, Southeast Region,

NMFS, determined that the EFH

Amendment is necessary for the

conservation and management of the

Council’s FMPs and it is consistent with

the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other

applicable law.

This final rule has been determined to

be not significant for purposes of E.O.

12866.

NMFS prepared a FRFA for this final

rule implementing Amendment 4 to the

Coral FMP. The FRFA was based on the

IRFA and public comments that were

received on the IRFA. A summary of the

FRFA follows:

Except for EFH Amendment Actions

3A (expanded Oculina HAPC) and 3B

(two satellite Oculina HAPCs), the

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 14, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 37295

amendment does not contain measures

that would result in immediate

economic effects. Actions 3A and 3B

would enlarge the existing Oculina

Bank HAPC and prohibit fishing with

bottom tending gear. The Council

originally determined that these

regulations would affect trawling for

calico scallops to some degree, but

concluded that there would not be a

significant impact and did not prepare

an IRFA. NMFS subsequently gathered

additional information on the potential

impacts and prepared an IRFA. During

the public comment period on the

proposed rule, fishermen commented

that their catches of shark, grouper, and

tilefish would also be affected. In

response to these comments, NMFS

looked at its catch data for shark,

grouper, and tilefish. The data indicated

the possibility that these fishermen may

also be affected by the rule.

The rule responds to the MagnusonStevens Act requirements to identify

EFH and to minimize any fishing related

damage to EFH. The overall objective of

the rule is to protect, conserve, and

enhance EFH.

NMFS received a number of

comments on the possible economic

effects of the rule. One commenter

stated that the economic assessment

failed to include any evaluation of the

bottom longline fisheries for shark,

golden tilefish, and grouper. NMFS

agrees that the Council’s EFH

Amendment did not address those

potential economic impacts. However,

prior to initiation of Secretarial review

of the EFH Amendment, NMFS

determined that substantial catches of

shark, golden tilefish, and grouper may

be affected, resulting in adverse

economic impacts.

Another commenter stated that the

EFH Amendment did not comply with

NEPA, RFA, and the PRA. NMFS

disagrees with this comment. The

combined Council and NMFS efforts

addressed all relevant requirements of

NEPA (including preparation of a DSEIS

and FSEIS) and RFA (including

preparation of an IRFA and FRFA). The

Council did not propose any measures

under the EFH Amendment that will

involve increased paperwork or

consideration under the PRA.

Another commenter indicated that the

expansion of the Oculina Bank HAPC

includes areas of flat, mud bottom and

would negatively impact bottom

longline fisheries for tilefish, grouper,

and shark. NMFS acknowledges that

areas of flat, mud bottom are included,

but incorporating these areas into the

closed area would facilitate enforcement

and result in regulations consistent with

the South Atlantic Shrimp FMP.

One commenter suggested that further

details of the socioeconomic impact to

affected fisheries should have been

documented, especially the collective

impacts of Federal actions taken over a

period of time. To the extent

practicable, NMFS recognizes and

considers cumulative impacts resulting

from the implementation of a series of

management measures that affect the

fishery in question. The analysis of the

potential impacts of this particular

action was conducted based on the

status quo. Since the status quo takes all

previous management actions into

account, any analysis of the impacts of

additional regulations implicitly

incorporates impacts of previous

management actions. Further details of

this analysis are found in the Regulatory

Impact Review, the IRFA, and the FRFA

written to accompany this rulemaking

process. Thus, NMFS made a good faith

effort to assess the impacts, including

cumulative impacts, of the proposed

actions on all affected entities.

Consideration of the public comments

did not result in changes to the rule.

The rule would apply to a total of 45–

60 small business entities that engage in

the harvest of calico scallops, sharks,

tilefish, and grouper. The scallop

fishermen utilize shrimp trawling

vessels with modified gear and generate

annual gross revenues of approximately

$52,000 per vessel. Fishermen targeting

sharks, tilefish, and grouper utilize

fishing craft in the 30- to 49-ft (9.1- to

14.9-m) category, take trips that average

7 to 10 days, incur variable annual

expenses of $3,683, generate annual

gross revenues ranging from $5,954 to

$7,145 per trip, and realize annual

returns to the owner, captain and crew

that range from $34,000 to $51,000.

No additional reporting,

recordkeeping, or other compliance

requirements by small entities are

contained in the rule.

The Council considered two

alternatives in addition to the proposed

alterative (Actions 3A and 3B). The

status quo obviously would have no

impact on small business entities, and

was rejected because it would not meet

the objective of providing additional

protection for EFH. The other

alternative considered and rejected by

the Council would expand the Oculina

Bank HAPC by an area larger than in the

preferred alternative. This option was

rejected because it would result in the

closure of a major portion of the known

historic fishing grounds for calico

scallops; the resulting negative

economic impacts were deemed to be

greater than the benefits that would

accrue from the additional protection

for EFH. Accordingly, the Council chose

the alternative that would meet the

objective of providing additional

protection for EFH while attempting to

minimize the economic impact on small

entities.

Copies of the FRFA are available (see

ADDRESSES).

List of Subjects

50 CFR Part 622

Fisheries, Fishing, Puerto Rico,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Virgin Islands.

50 CFR Part 640

Fisheries, Fishing, Incorporation by

reference, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Dated: June 2, 2000.

Bruce C. Morehead,

Acting Assistant Administrator for Fisheries,

National Marine Fisheries Service.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, 50 CFR parts 622 and 640 are

amended as follows:

PART 622—FISHERIES OF THE

CARIBBEAN, GULF, AND SOUTH

ATLANTIC

1. The authority citation for part 622

continues to read as follows:

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

2. In § 622.35, paragraph (g) is

removed and paragraph (c) is revised to

read as follows:

§ 622.35 South Atlantic EEZ seasonal and/

or area closures.

* * * * *

(c) Oculina Bank—(1) HAPC. The

Oculina Bank HAPC encompasses an

area bounded on the north by 28°30’ N.

lat., on the south by 27°30’ N. lat., on

the east by the 100-fathom (183-m)

contour, as shown on the latest edition

of NOAA chart 11460, and on the west

by 80°00’ W. long.; and two adjacent

areas: the first bounded on the north by

28°30’ N. lat., on the south by 28°29’ N.

lat., on the east by 80°00’ W. long., and

on the west by 80°03’ W. long.; and the

second bounded on the north by 28°17’

N. lat., on the south by 28°16’ N. lat.,

on the east by 80°00 W. long., and on

the west by 80°03’ W. long. In the

Oculina Bank HAPC, no person may:

(i) Use a bottom longline, bottom

trawl, dredge, pot, or trap.

(ii) If aboard a fishing vessel, anchor,

use an anchor and chain, or use a

grapple and chain.

(iii) Fish for rock shrimp or possess

rock shrimp in or from the area on board

a fishing vessel.

(2) Experimental closed area. Within

the Oculina Bank HAPC, the

experimental closed area is bounded on

37296 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 14, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

the north by 27°53’ N. lat., on the south

by 27°30’ N. lat., on the east by 79°56’

W. long., and on the west by 80°00’ W.

long. No person may fish for South

Atlantic snapper-grouper in the

experimental closed area, and no person

may retain South Atlantic snappergrouper in or from the area. In the

experimental closed area, any South

Atlantic snapper-grouper taken

incidentally by hook-and-line gear must

be released immediately by cutting the

line without removing the fish from the

water.

* * * * *

3. In § 622.48, the introductory text

and paragraphs (c), (f), (g), and (h) are

revised; and paragraphs (k) and (l) are

added to read as follows:

* * * * *

§ 622.48 Adjustment of management

measures.

In accordance with the framework

procedures of the applicable FMPs, the

RA may establish or modify the

following items:

* * * * *

(c) Coastal migratory pelagic fish. For

a species or species group: Agestructured analyses, target date for

rebuilding an overfished species, MSY

(or proxy), stock biomass achieved by

fishing at MSY (BMSY) (or proxy),

maximum fishing mortality threshold

(MFMT), minimum stock size threshold

(MSST), OY, TAC, quota (including a

quota of zero), bag limit (including a bag

limit of zero), size limits, vessel trip

limits, closed seasons or areas and

reopenings, gear restrictions (ranging

from regulation to complete

prohibition), reallocation of the

commercial/recreational allocation of

Atlantic group Spanish mackerel,

permit requirements, definitions of

essential fish habitat, and essential fish

habitat HAPCs or Coral HAPCs.

* * * * *

(f) South Atlantic snapper-grouper

and wreckfish. For species or species

groups: Biomass levels, age-structured

analyses, target dates for rebuilding

overfished species, MSY, ABC, TAC,

quotas, trip limits, bag limits, minimum

sizes, gear restrictions (ranging from

regulation to complete prohibition),

seasonal or area closures, definitions of

essential fish habitat, and essential fish

habitat HAPCs or Coral HAPCs.

(g) South Atlantic golden crab.

Biomass levels, age-structured analyses,

MSY, ABC, TAC, quotas (including

quotas equal to zero), trip limits,

minimum sizes, gear regulations and

restrictions, permit requirements,

seasonal or area closures, time frame for

recovery of golden crab if overfished,

fishing year (adjustment not to exceed 2

months), observer requirements,

authority for the RA to close the fishery

when a quota is reached or is projected

to be reached, definitions of essential

fish habitat, and essential fish habitat

HAPCs or Coral HAPCs.

(h) South Atlantic shrimp. Biomass

levels, age-structured analyses, BRD

certification criteria, BRD specifications,

BRD testing protocol, certified BRDs,

nets required to use BRDs, times and

locations when the use of BRDs is

required, definitions of essential fish

habitat, and essential fish habitat

HAPCs or Coral HAPCs.

* * * * *

(k) Atlantic coast red drum.

Definitions of essential fish habitat and

essential fish habitat HAPCs or Coral

HAPCs.

(l) South Atlantic coral, coral reefs,

and live/hard bottom habitats.

Definitions of essential fish habitat and

essential fish habitat HAPCs or Coral

HAPCs.

PART 640—SPINY LOBSTER FISHERY

OF THE GULF OF MEXICO AND

SOUTH ATLANTIC

4. The authority citation for part 640

continues to read as follows:

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

5. Section 640.25 is revised to read as

follows:

§ 640.25 Adjustment of management

measures.

In accordance with the framework

procedure of the Fishery Management

Plan for the Spiny Lobster Fishery of the

Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic, the

RA may establish or modify the

following items: definitions of essential

fish habitat, Essential Fish HabitatHabitat Areas of Particular Concern,

Coral-Habitat Areas of Particular

Concern, biomass levels, age-structured

analyses, limits on the number of traps

fished by each vessel, construction

characteristics of traps, specification of

gear and vessel identification

requirements, specification of allowable

or prohibited gear in a directed fishery,

specification of bycatch levels in nondirected fisheries, changes to soak or

removal periods and requirements for

traps, recreational bag and possession

limits, changes in fishing seasons,

limitations on use, possession, and

handling of undersized lobsters, and

changes in minimum size.

[FR Doc. 00–14528 Filed 6–13–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–F

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 660

[Docket No. 99122347–9347–01; I.D.

060500A]

Fisheries Off West Coast States and in

the Western Pacific; Pacific Coast

Groundfish Fishery; Whiting Closure

for the Mothership Sector

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Fishing restrictions; request for

comments.

SUMMARY: NMFS announces closure of

the 2000 mothership fishery for Pacific

whiting (whiting) at 4:00 p.m. local time

(l.t.) June 9, 2000, because the allocation

for the mothership sector is projected to

be reached by that time. This action is

intended to keep the harvest of whiting

at the 2000 allocation levels.

DATES: Effective from 4:00 p.m. l.t. June

9, 2000, until the start of the 2001

primary season for the mothership

sector, unless modified, superseded or

rescinded; such action will be published

in the Federal Register. Comments will

be accepted through June 29, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments to

William Stelle, Jr., Administrator,

Northwest Region (Regional

Administrator), NMFS, 7600 Sand Point

Way NE., Seattle, WA 98115–0070; or

Rodney R. McInnis, Acting Regional

Administrator, Southwest Region,

NMFS, 501 West Ocean Blvd., Suite

4200, Long Beach, CA 90802–4213.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Katherine King at 206-526-6145 or

Becky Renko at 206–526–6110.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

action is authorized by regulations

implementing the Pacific Coast

Groundfish Fishery Management Plan

(FMP), which governs the groundfish

fishery off Washington, Oregon, and

California. On January 4, 2000 (65 FR

221), the levels of allowable biological

catch (ABC), the optimum yield (OY)

and the commercial OY (the OY minus

the tribal allocation)for U.S. harvests of

whiting were announced in the Federal

Register. For 2000 the whiting ABC and

OY are 232,000 mt (mt) and the

commercial OY is 199,500 mt.

Regulations at 50 CFR 660.323(a)(4)

divide the commercial OY into separate

allocations for the catcher/processor,

mothership, and shore-based sectors of

the whiting fishery. The 2000