63872 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

assets with its affiliated incumbent LEC;

and

(3) The affiliate shall acquire any

services from its affiliated incumbent

LEC for which the affiliated incumbent

LEC is required to file a tariff at tariffed

rates, terms, and conditions. Other

transactions between the affiliate and

the incumbent LEC for services that are

not acquired pursuant to tariff must be

reduced to writing and must be made on

a compensatory, arm’s length basis. All

transactions between the incumbent

LEC and the affiliate are subject to part

32 of this chapter, including the affiliate

transaction rules. Nothing in this

section shall prohibit the affiliate from

acquiring any unbundled network

elements or exchange services for the

provision of a telecommunications

service from its affiliated incumbent

LEC, subject to the same terms and

conditions as provided in an agreement

approved under section 252 of the

Communications Act of 1934, as

amended.

(b) Independence. The affiliate

required in paragraph (a) of this section

shall be a separate legal entity from its

affiliated incumbent LEC. The affiliate

may be staffed by personnel of its

affiliated incumbent LEC, housed in

existing offices of its affiliated

incumbent LEC, and use its affiliated

incumbent LEC’s marketing and other

services, subject to paragraphs (a)(3) and

(c) of this section.

(c) Joint marketing. Joint marketing of

local exchange and exchange access

service and CMRS services by an

incumbent LEC shall be subject to part

32 of this chapter. In addition, such

agreements between the affiliate and the

incumbent LEC must be reduced to

writing and made available for public

inspection upon request at the principle

place of business of the affiliate and the

incumbent LEC. The documentation

must include a certification statement

identical to the certification statement

currently required to be included with

all Automated Reporting and

Management Information Systems

(ARMIS) reports. The affiliate must also

provide a detailed written description of

the terms and conditions of the

transaction on the Internet within 10

days of the transaction through the

affiliate’s home page.

(d) Exceptions. (1) Rural telephone

companies. Rural telephone companies

are exempted from the requirements set

forth in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of this

section. A competing

telecommunications carrier,

interconnected with the rural telephone

company, however, may petition the

FCC to remove the exemption, or the

FCC may do so on its own motion,

where the rural telephone company has

engaged in anticompetitive conduct.

(2) Incumbent LECs with fewer than 2

percent of subscriber lines. Incumbent

LECs with fewer than 2 percent of the

nation’s subscriber lines installed in the

aggregate nationwide may petition the

FCC for suspension or modification of

the requirements set forth in paragraphs

(a), (b) and (c) of this section. The FCC

will grant such a petition where the

incumbent LEC demonstrates that

suspension or modification of the

separate affiliate requirement is

(i) Necessary to avoid a significant

adverse economic impact on users of

telecommunications services generally

or to avoid a requirement that would be

unduly economically burdensome, and

(ii) Consistent with the public

interest, convenience, and necessity.

(e) Definitions. Terms used in this

section have the following meanings:

Affiliate. ‘‘Affiliate’’ means a person

that (directly or indirectly) owns or

controls, is owned or controlled by, or

is under common ownership with,

another person. For purposes of this

section, the term ‘‘own’’ means to own

and equity interest (or the equivalent

thereof) of more than 10 percent.

Broadband Commercial Mobile Radio

Service (Broadband CMRS). For the

purposes of this section, ‘‘broadband

CMRS’’ means Domestic Public Cellular

Radio Telecommunications Service

(part 22, subpart H of this chapter),

Specialized Mobile Radio (part 90,

subpart S of this chapter), and

broadband Personal Communications

Services (part 24, subpart E of this

chapter).

Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier

(Incumbent LEC). ‘‘Incumbent LEC’’ has

the same meaning as that term is

defined in § 51.5 of this chapter.

In-region. For the purposes of this

section, an incumbent LEC’s broadband

CMRS service is considered ‘‘in-region’’

when 10 percent or more of the

population covered by the CMRS

affiliate’s authorized service area, as

determined by the 1990 census figures,

is within the affiliated incumbent LEC’s

wireline service area.

Rural Telephone Company. ‘‘Rural

Telephone Company’’ has the same

meaning as that term is defined in § 51.5

of this chapter.

(f) Sunset. This section will no longer

be effective after January 1, 2002.

Title 47 of the Code of Federal

Regulations part 22, subpart H is

amended as follows:

Subpart H—Cellular Radiotelephone

Service

3. The authority citation for part 22

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, unless

otherwise noted.

4. Section 22.903 is revised to read as

follows:

§ 22.903 Conditions applicable to former

Bell Operating Companies.

Ameritech Corporation, Bell Atlantic

Corporation, BellSouth Corporation,

NYNEX Corporation, Pacific Telesis

Group, Southwestern Bell Corporation,

U.S. West Inc., their successors in

interest and affiliated entities (BOCs)

may engage in the provision of cellular

service only in accordance with the

conditions in this section and § 20.20 of

this chapter, unless otherwise

authorized by the FCC. BOCs may,

subject to other provisions of law, have

a controlling or lessor interest in or be

under common control with separate

corporations that provide cellular

service only under the following

conditions:

(a) Through (e) [Reserved].

(f) Proprietary information. BOCs

must not provide to any such separate

corporation any customer proprietary

information, unless such information is

publicly available on the same terms

and conditions.

(g) Reserved.

[FR Doc. 97–31713 Filed 12–2–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 648

[Docket No. 970908229–7277–02; I.D.

082797A]

RIN 0648–AJ55

Fisheries of the Northeastern United

States; Amendment 10 to the Summer

Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass

Fishery Management Plan

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: NMFS issues this final rule to

implement the approved measures

contained in Amendment 10 to the

Fishery Management Plan for the

Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea

Bass Fisheries (FMP). Approved

measures of Amendment 10 include a

continuation of the moratorium for

commercial vessels; minimum meshsize requirements throughout the body,

extension, and codend of trawl nets for
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 63873

the directed summer flounder fishery;

removal of the requirement that a vessel

land summer flounder during a 52-week

period in order to retain a moratorium

permit; and a prohibition of the transfer

of summer flounder at sea. This action

is intended to enhance the rebuilding of

the summer flounder resource in

accordance with the objectives of the

FMP.

DATES: All measures are effective on

January 1, 1998, except that the baseline

date for measuring vessel upgrades in

§ 648.4(a)(3)(i)(C)(1) and (2) is effective

January 2, 1998 and the gear restrictions

in § 648.104(a)(1) are effective June 3,

1998.

ADDRESSES: Copies of Amendment 10,

the environmental assessment, and the

regulatory impact review are available

from David R. Keifer, Executive

Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery

Management Council, Room 2115

Federal Building, 300 S. New Street,

Dover, DE 19904-6790.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Richard A. Pearson, Fishery Policy

Analyst, 978–281–9279.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Amendment 10 was prepared by the

Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management

Council (Council) and the Atlantic

States Marine Fisheries Commission

(Commission), in consultation with the

New England and South Atlantic

Fishery Management Councils. A notice

of availability for the amendment was

published in the Federal Register on

September 3, 1997 (62 FR 46470), and

the proposed rule to implement

Amendment 10 was published in the

Federal Register on September 19, 1997

(62 FR 49195). The notice of availability

and the proposed rule solicited public

comments through November 3, 1997.

All comments received by the end of the

comment period, whether specifically

directed to Amendment 10 or to the

proposed rule, were considered in the

approval decision on Amendment 10.

Amendment 10 proposed a number of

changes to the summer flounder

regulations. Details concerning the

development of Amendment 10 were

provided in the notice of proposed

rulemaking and are not repeated here.

NMFS, on behalf of the Secretary of

Commerce, has approved the measures

that (1) modify the commercial

minimum mesh size, (2) continue the

moratorium on entry of additional

commercial vessels, (3) remove the

landing requirements applicable to

permit retention, (4) modify the vessel

replacement criteria, (5) allow federally

permitted charter and/or party vessels to

possess fillets less than the minimum

size if in possession of a permit to do

so issued by their state, and (6) prohibit

transfer of summer flounder at sea.

Amendment 10 also contains measures

adopted by the Commission as part of

its interstate management process.

Defined as a compliance criterion, this

measure would require states to

document all summer flounder

commercial landings in their state that

are not otherwise included in the

Federal monitoring of permit holders.

This management measure is not part of

the Federal regulatory process and is,

therefore, not detailed in this rule.

Details of this measure are described in

Amendment 10, which is available from

the Council (see ADDRESSES).

In addition, the Council re-evaluated

in Amendment 10 the commercial quota

system implemented by Amendment 2.

During the public hearings for

Amendment 10, the Council and

Commission proposed several

alternative quota allocation systems,

with the status quo being the preferred

alternative. After receiving and

considering public comments, the

Council and Commission voted to

maintain the existing state-by-state

commercial quota allocation system.

The Council and Commission felt that

the current system allows states the

most flexibility in managing their quotas

by implementing state subquotas and

trip limits.

Disapproved Measure

After a review of Amendment 10,

NMFS found that the de minimus status

provision was not consistent with

national standard 7, raised questions of

consistency with national standard 1,

and appeared inconsistent with other

applicable law. This measure would

require an annual examination of state

landings to determine whether landings

in that state during the preceding year

for which data are available were less

than 0.1 percent of the overall annual

quota. This determination was to be

based on landings for the last preceding

year for which data are available. If a

state met the 0.1 percent criterion, it

would be granted de minimus status.

This provision is intended to provide a

small bycatch fishery in a state where

summer flounder would otherwise be

discarded. A state’s failure to close its

fishery when its quota is harvested

would prevent the attainment of the

fishing mortality rate goals in the FMP,

since vessels without Federal permits

fishing exclusively in that state’s waters

could continue to land summer

flounder. This would result in

overfishing and would render the

measure inconsistent with national

standard 1.

If de minimus status does not, at the

very least, require a state to impose

landing constraints, the provision

would encourage owners of vessels that

have not traditionally landed in that

state to land amounts of summer

flounder much greater than they could

land in their home port states. This

could result in the state’s de minimus

quota being rapidly exceeded and

compound the overfishing situation if a

de minimus state is not required to close

its fishery when its de minimus quota is

harvested.

Further, the standard established to

determine de minimus status

(examination of landings data for the

last year for which data are available)

would not allow for an accurate

calculation of qualification. Landings in

the intervening time period in the state

under consideration for de minimus

status could well exceed the threshold

for such status. Thus, such a

determination would not reflect

accurately the true status of the state.

The de minimus measure would impose

an administrative burden or cost to

make this annual determination,

without conferring any demonstrable

administrative or conservation benefit.

This contravenes the requirements of

national standard 7. It is unclear

whether a de minimus state must close

its state fishery when its quota is

harvested.

For the reasons stated above, this

measure would impose an

administrative burden or cost to make

this determination, without conferring

any demonstrable administrative

benefit. This contravenes the

requirements of national standard 7.

Further, the failure of a state to close its

fishery when its quota is harvested

would result in overfishing and would

render the measure inconsistent with

national standard 1. As a result of this

review, NMFS has disapproved the de

minimus measure.

Comments and Responses

Two comments on Amendment 10

were received. One comment was

received from the North Carolina

Division of Marine Fisheries (NCDMF)

and another from a member of the

fishing industry.

Comment 1: The NCDMF wrote to

support all of the provisions in

Amendment 10, including the state-bystate commercial quota allocation

system, which, according to the

comment, allows states to manage their

fisheries in accordance with historical

management practices such as trip

limits, bycatch limits, and seasonal
63874 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

closures. Although supportive of

Amendment 10, NCDMF suggested that

the revised minimum mesh-size

requirement in the amendment should

be implemented immediately upon

approval because mesh of that size is

available. NCDMF notes that a large

portion of the annual summer flounder

quota is taken during the first 6 months

of the season, and delayed

implementation of the measure will

negate the desired conservation effect

for the 1998 fishery. Response: Amendment 10 specified

that the Council would determine the

date of effectiveness of the revised

minimum mesh requirement based

upon an assessment of the availability of

net construction materials, which would

help to alleviate any localized shortages

of twine that might otherwise occur.

The Council found that mesh is not

available on a coastwide basis and

recommended the 6-month delay.

NMFS concurs.

Comment 2: A member of the fishing

industry indicated dissatisfaction with

the minimum mesh-size requirements of

Amendment 10. The commenter wrote

that the mesh-size requirements will

inflict financial hardship on day boat

trawlers of western Long Island, New

York, and northern New Jersey because

they will have to purchase new nets to

fish for scup and black sea bass, rather

than just changing codends to fish for

these species as they currently do. The

commenter disputed the justification

given in Amendment 10 for requiring

5.5–inch (14.0–cm) mesh in the body,

extension, and codend of summer

flounder trawl nets by stating that the

practice of constricting the codend of

summer flounder nets to circumvent the

minimum mesh-size regulations is not a

problem. Also, the commenter

expressed concern that if Amendment

10 is adopted, summer flounder will be

the only species that requires regulated

mesh in areas of the net other than the

codend. Finally, the commenter was

opposed to the fact that the minimum

mesh-size regulations are not applicable

to vessels in the summer flounder smallmesh exemption program. Response: Current scup and black sea

bass minimum mesh-size regulations

apply only throughout the codend of the

net. However, the black sea bass

regulations allow the Council, in future

years, to require minimum mesh size to

be applied throughout the entire net.

Also, it is not clear that the requirement

will necessarily result in a need to

purchase new nets to fish for scup and

black sea bass. A fisher may still use the

same net, albeit with a 5.5–inch (14.0–

cm) mesh extension and body, to fish

for these two species by changing only

the codend to conform with the

appropriate regulations. The reason for

the change in the mesh regulations is

that the Council is concerned about the

‘‘choking off’’ or the constriction of

codends in trawl nets in the summer

flounder fishery. The Council was

concerned that continued poor

compliance with mesh-size regulations

would result in higher fishing mortality

rates and in a decreased rate of stock

recovery for summer flounder. Applying

the minimum mesh-size throughout the

codend, extension, and body of the net

will eliminate this problem. Summer flounder is not the only

species where minimum mesh- size

regulations apply to portions of the net

other than the codend. There is ample

precedence for this requirement. Most

notably, the Northeast multispecies

regulations require that vessels fishing

under a multispecies day-at-sea use 6–

inch (15.2– cm) square or diamond

mesh throughout the entire net. The minimum mesh-size

requirements do not apply to vessels

issued a summer flounder exemption

permit, and fishing from November 1 to

April 30 in the ‘‘exemption area’’

because the exemption is designed to

allow vessels to retain a bycatch of

summer flounder while operating in

other small-mesh fisheries. The

exemption allows for the prosecution of

a traditional small- mesh fishery while

minimizing discards of summer

flounder. The existence of the

exemption program is re-evaluated

annually after a review of sea sampling

data, and re-authorized if appropriate.

Changes From the Proposed Rule

NMFS notes that the Council

recommended that May 13, 1997, be the

baseline date for measuring vessel

upgrades at the time of replacement.

However, the baseline date was not

specified when the Council held public

hearings on Amendment 10, although it

is a necessary adjunct required for

administration of the replacement

upgrade provision. Therefore, in order

for all potentially affected fishery

participants to have an equal notice of

the baseline date, NMFS noted in the

proposed rule its intent to link the

baseline date to the rulemaking.

However, the proposed rule was

inconsistent in its description of the

date proposed. In one section it

proposed to use September 19, 1997—

the date the proposed rule was

published. In another, it proposed to use

the date 30 days following publication

of the final rule. NMFS received no

comments on this matter. Therefore, this

final rule establishes January 2, 1998 as

the baseline, because, as a general

matter, rules are to have prospective

effect and some members of industry

may have relied on that date rather than

September 19, 1997.

In § 648.4, paragraph (a)(3)(i)(C)(3) is

added, which indicates that a vessel’s

horsepower, length, gross registered

tonnage (GRT), and net tonnage (NT)

may be increased through replacement

only once. If length, GRT, or NT is

increased, an increase in the other two

specifications must be performed at the

same time, and this type of increase may

be done separately from a horsepower

increase. This provision is contained in

Amendment 10, but was inadvertently

omitted from the proposed rule. As

such, a prior notice and opportunity for

comment was provided through the

notice of availability for Amendment 10.

It has been added to this final rule to

reflect the Council’s intent.

Classification

This final rule has been determined to

be not significant for purposes of E.O.

12866.

The Assistant General Counsel for

Legislation and Regulation of the

Department of Commerce certified to

the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the

Small Business Administration that this

final rule, if adopted, would not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities as

follows:

The final rule implements Amendment 10

by revising a number of the regulations

implementing the FMP and its amendments

and by adding a number of new regulations.

No public comments were received about the

Council’s economic analysis for Amendment

10 as it pertains to Regulatory Flexibility Act

nor the certification made by the Assistant

General Counsel for Legislation and

Regulation of the Department of Commerce,

that this rule would not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial number of

small entities, as mentioned in the proposed

rule.

The final rule modifies the commercial

minimum mesh size requirement, continues

the moratorium on entry of additional

commercial vessels, modifies the vessel

replacement criteria, removes provisions that

pertain to the expiration of the moratorium

permit, and prohibits transfer of summer

flounder at sea. Amendment 10 examined

alternate state commercial quota allocation

mechanisms. However, no change was made

to the existing state-by-state system.

The requirement that minimum mesh size

be applied throughout the net impacts an

estimated 42 percent of the participants in

the summer flounder fishery (443 of the

1,063 permit holders); the other 620 are

already subject to requirements for minimum

mesh throughout the net because they hold

northeast multispecies vessel permits.

Therefore, a substantial number of small

entities (42 percent) are impacted by this

rule. However, the compliance costs

associated with the measure are not
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 63875

significant under the Regulatory Flexibility

Act. Costs were broken down into trip or

variable costs (e.g., fuel, ice, food) and yearly

or fixed costs (e.g., gear, insurance, engine

and gear repair, electronic equipment

expenses). Labor costs were not included in

the analysis because labor is generally paid

as a percentage of the total revenues after

certain expenses are subtracted. Compliance

costs are less than 1 percent of the total

annual costs for offshore vessels and 1.45

percent for the smaller inshore vessels.

Compliance costs reflect the cost of the gear

conversion ranging from $775 for inshore

vessels to $1,354 for offshore vessels versus

annualized vessel costs ranging from $39,695

for vessels 5–50 in gross registered tonnage

to $171,692 for vessels greater than 150 gross

registered tons.

According to the Council, specific data are

not available for quantitative analysis of

other new measures (e.g., modification of

vessel replacement criteria and prohibition of

transfer of summer flounder at sea) in

Amendment 10. A qualitative analysis

conducted by the Council indicates that

those measures would have no significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities because of their implementation. The

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)

reviewed this analysis, and since most

measures proposed in Amendment 10 are

administrative in nature, NMFS concurs that

the new measures would result in no

significant economic impacts on small

entities. Additionally, the prohibition of

transferring summer flounder at sea and the

vessel replacement criteria, would make the

FMP consistent with the Multispecies

Fishery Management Plan, and therefore

would create no additional impacts for

industry participants who also participate in

that fishery. Meanwhile, a qualitative

examination of the effects of the extension,

indefinitely, of the moratorium on new

vessels and maintaining the state-by-state

allocation system for the coastwide quota for

the commercial fishery, indicates that these

measures will not result in a significant

economic impact on a substantial number of

small entities. These measures should not

cause more than 2 percent of the vessels or

dealers to cease business operations, result in

a loss of 5 percent or more of ex-vessel

revenues for 20 percent or more of the

participating vessels, nor change compliance

costs. If the moratorium was allowed to

expire then it’s conceivable that enough new

vessels would enter the fishery, so that a

significant number of vessels already in the

fishery would incur a loss of 5 percent or

more in ex-vessel revenues. Similarly, if the

state-by-state allocation of the commercial

quota was not continued, then the states

might lose enough flexibility so that some

vessels would gain in ex-vessel revenues, but

a substantial number of small entities might

experience a significant loss in ex-vessel

revenues.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648

Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: November 26, 1997.

Rolland Schmitten,

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 § 648.4, paragraph (a)(3)(i)(B)(2)

is removed and reserved, and

paragraphs (a)(3)(i)(C), (a)(5)(i)(A)(2),

(a)(5)(i)(C), (a)(5)(ii)(A)(2), (a)(5)(ii)(C),

(a)(6)(i)(A)(2), (a)(6)(i)(C) are revised to

read as follows:

§ 648.4 Vessel and individual commercial

permits.

(a) * * *

(3) * * *

(i) * * *

(C) Replacement vessels. To be

eligible for a moratorium permit, the

replacement vessel must meet the

following criteria:

(1) The replacement vessel’s

horsepower may not exceed by more

than 20 percent the horsepower of the

vessel that was initially issued a

moratorium permit as of January 2,

1998.

(2) The replacement vessel’s length,

GRT, and NT may not exceed by more

than 10 percent the length, GRT, and NT

of the vessel that was initially issued a

moratorium permit as of January 2,

1998.

(3) A vessel’s horsepower may be

increased through replacement only

once. A vessel’s length, GRT, and NT

may be increased through replacement

only once. If any of these specifications

is increased, any increase in the other

two must be performed at the same

time. This type of increase may be done

separately from a horsepower increase.

* * * * *

(5) * * *

(i) * * *

(A) * * *

(2) The vessel is replacing such a

vessel and the replacement vessel meets

the requirements of paragraph

(a)(5)(i)(C) of this section.

* * * * *

(C) Replacement vessels. To be

eligible for a moratorium permit, the

replacement vessel must be replacing a

vessel of substantially similar harvesting

capacity that is judged unseaworthy by

the USCG, for reasons other than lack of

maintenance, or that involuntarily left

the fishery during the moratorium. Both

the entering and replaced vessels must

be owned by the same person. Vessel

permits issued to vessels that

involuntarily leave the fishery may not

be combined to create larger

replacement vessels.

* * * * *

(ii) * * *

(A) * * *

(2) The vessel is replacing such a

vessel and meets the requirements of

paragraph (a)(5)(i)(C) of this section.

* * * * *

(C) Replacement vessels. See

paragraph (a)(5)(i)(C) of this section.

* * * * *

(6) * * *

(i) * * *

(A) * * *

(2) The vessel is replacing such a

vessel and meets the requirements of

paragraph (a)(5)(i)(C) of this section.

* * * * *

(C) Replacement vessels. See

paragraph (a)(5)(i)(C) of this section.

* * * * *

3. In § 648.13, paragraph (d) is added

to read as follows:

§ 648.13 Transfers at sea.

* * * * *

(d) All persons are prohibited from

transferring or attempting to transfer at

sea summer flounder from one vessel to

another vessel.

4. In § 648.14, paragraph (j)(9) is

added to read as follows:

§ 648.14 Prohibitions.

* * * * *

(j) * * *

(9) Offload, remove, or otherwise

transfer, or attempt to offload, remove or

otherwise transfer summer flounder

from one vessel to another, unless that

vessel has not been issued a summer

flounder permit and fishes exclusively

in state waters.

* * * * *

5. In § 648.103, paragraph (c) is

revised to read as follows:

§ 648.103 Minimum fish sizes.

* * * * *

(c) The minimum sizes in this section

apply to whole fish or to any part of a

fish found in possession, e.g., fillets,

except that party and charter vessels

possessing valid state permits

authorizing filleting at sea may possess

fillets smaller that the size specified if

all state requirements are met.

6. In § 648.104, paragraph (a)(1) is

revised, and paragraph (f) is added to

read as follows:
63876 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

§ 648.104 Gear restrictions.

(a) * * * (1) Otter trawlers whose

owners are issued a summer flounder

permit and that land or possess 100 or

more lb (45.4 or more kg) of summer

flounder from May 1 through October

31, or 200 lb or more (90.8 kg or more)

of summer flounder from November 1

through April 30, per trip, must fish

with nets that have a minimum mesh

size of 5.5–inch (14.0–cm) diamond or

6.0–inch (15.2–cm) square mesh applied

throughout the body, extension(s), and

codend portion of the net.

* * * * *

(f) The minimum net mesh

requirement may apply to any portion of

the net. The minimum mesh size and

the portion of the net regulated by the

minimum mesh size may be adjusted

pursuant to the procedures in § 648.100.

[FR Doc. 97–31708 Filed 11–28–97; 2:01 pm]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–F

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 660

[Docket No. 970429101–7101–01; I.D.

111097A]

Fisheries Off West Coast States and in

the Western Pacific; West Coast

Salmon Fisheries; Inseason

Adjustments and Closures from the

U.S.-Canadian Border to the U.S.-

Mexican Border

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Inseason adjustments and

closures; request for comments.

SUMMARY: NMFS announces the

following inseason adjustments and

closures in the recreational salmon

fisheries. The regulation regarding

compliance with minimum size or other

special restrictions for the recreational

salmon fishery off Washington, Oregon,

and California, was modified from the

annual management measures,

beginning July 1, 1997. This action was

necessary to allow recreational anglers

to fish in accordance with management

intent. For the recreational salmon

fishery in the area from the Queets River

to Leadbetter Point, WA, the bag limit

was modified to two fish per day, and

the area closure was rescinded so that

the fishery was open 0 to 200 miles off

shore, effective August 13, 1997,

through September 4, 1997. This action

was intended to liberalize measures for

dampening chinook harvest associated

with the small coho subarea quota due

to sufficient numbers of fish remaining

in the overall chinook quota north of

Cape Falcon, OR. The recreational

salmon fisheries were closed in the

following areas: From the U.S.-Canadian

border to Cape Alava, WA, at 2400

hours local time (l.t.), July 23, 1997;

from Cape Alava to the Queets River,

WA, at 2400 hours l.t., August 3, 1997;

from the Queets River to Leadbetter

Point, WA, at 2400 hours l.t., September

4, 1997; and from Leadbetter Point, WA,

to Cape Falcon, OR, at 2400 hours l.t.,

August 7, 1997. These actions were

necessary to conform to the 1997

management measures and was

intended to ensure conservation of

chinook and coho salmon.

DATES: Inseason adjustment from the

U.S.-Canadian border to the U.S.-

Mexican border effective 0001 hours l.t.

July 1, 1997, through 2400 hours l.t.,

November 16, 1997. Inseason

adjustment from the Queets River to

Leadbetter Point, WA, effective 0001

hours l.t., August 13, 1997, through

2400 hours l.t., September 4, 1997.

Closure from the U.S.-Canadian border

to Cape Alava, WA, was effective at

2400 hours l.t., July 23, 1997, through

2400 hours l.t., September 25, 1997, at

which time the season remains closed

under the terms of the preseason

announcement of the 1997 management

measures. Closure from Cape Alava to

the Queets River, WA, 2400 hours l.t.,

August 3, 1997, through 2400 hours l.t.,

September 25, 1997, at which time the

season remains closed under the terms

of the preseason announcement of the

1997 management measures. Closure

from the Queets River to Leadbetter

Point, WA, 2400 hours l.t., September 4,

1997, through 2400 hours l.t.,

September 25, 1997, at which time the

season remains closed under the terms

of the preseason announcement of the

1997 management measures. Closure

from Leadbetter Point, WA, to Cape

Falcon, OR, 2400 hours l.t., August 7,

1997, through 2400 hours l.t.,

September 25, 1997, at which time the

season remains closed under the terms

of the preseason announcement of the

1997 management measures. Comments

will be accepted through December 17,

1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to

William Stelle, Jr., Regional

Administrator (Regional Administrator),

Northwest Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand

Point Way NE., Seattle, WA 98115–

0070. Information relevant to this action

is available for public review during

business hours at the office of the

Regional Administrator, Northwest

Region, NMFS.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

William Robinson, 206–526–6140.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Inseason Adjustment From the U.S.-

Canadian Border to the U.S.-Mexican

Border

In the annual management measures

for ocean salmon recreational fisheries

(62 FR 24355, May 5, 1997), NMFS

announced in Table 2 note C.4. that ‘‘All

salmon on board a vessel must meet the

minimum size or other special

requirements for the area being fished

and the area in which they are landed

if that area is open. Salmon may be

landed in an area that is closed only if

they meet the minimum size or other

special requirements for the area in

which they were caught.’’

This regulation was problematic for

recreational anglers. The area between

Point Reyes and Pigeon Point, CA, from

July 1 through September 1, was subject

to a daily bag limit of the first two fish,

and no size limits applied. Adjacent

areas to the north (Point Arena to Point

Reyes, CA) and to the south (Pigeon

Point to the U.S.-Mexican border) were

open during this period and were

subject to a daily bag limit of two fish

and a minimum size limit for chinook

salmon. Given the proximity of fishing

ports to the management boundaries

separating these areas with different

minimum size restrictions, recreational

anglers leaving port in one management

area who chose to fish in the adjacent

area could have been in violation when

landing their catch in their home port.

It was not the intent to prohibit such

activities by recreational anglers. The

modification maintains the requirement

that fish must meet the minimum size

or other special requirements for the

area being fished, but rescinds the

requirement that they must also meet

the minimum size or other special

requirements for the area in which they

are landed. Therefore, Table 2 note C.4.

was modified to read ‘‘All salmon on

board a vessel must meet the minimum

size or other special requirements for

the area being fished. Salmon may be

landed in an area that is closed only if

they meet the minimum size or other

special requirements for the area in

which they were caught.’’

Modification of limited retention

regulations is authorized by 50 CFR

660.409(b)(1)(ii). The Regional

Administrator consulted with

representatives of the Pacific Fishery

Management Council (Council), the

Washington Department of Fish and

Wildlife (WDFW), the Oregon