Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 200 / Monday, October 16, 2000 / Proposed Rules 61135

The EPA also issued a recent

memorandum on this topic, ‘‘Guidance

on the Reasonably Available Control

Measures (RACM) Requirement and

Attainment Demonstration Submissions

for Ozone Nonattainment Areas.’’ John

S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality

Planning and Standards, dated

November 30, 1999. A copy can be

obtained from www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/

t1pgm.html.

In response to public comments

received on the proposed rulemakings

in December, EPA has reviewed the SIP

submittals for the four serious areas and

determined that they did not include

sufficient documentation concerning

available RACM measures. Therefore,

EPA has itself reviewed numerous

potential RACM measures, as

documented in the available analysis.

Based on this analysis, EPA concluded

that these measures would either (a)

likely require an intensive and costly

effort for numerous small area sources,

or (b) not advance the attainment date

in any of the four areas and, therefore,

would not be considered RACM.

Although EPA encourages areas to

implement available RACM measures as

potentially cost effective methods to

achieve emissions reductions in the

short term, EPA does not believe that

section 172(c)(1) requires

implementation of potential RACM

measures that either require costly

implementation efforts or produce

relatively small emissions reductions

that will not be sufficient to allow any

of the four areas to achieve attainment

in advance of full implementation of all

other required measures.

Electronic Availability—An electronic

version of EPA’s RACM analysis can be

downloaded at www.epa.gov/ttn/rto

under ‘‘What’s New.’’

For those persons without electronic

capability, a copy of this analysis may

be obtained from Ms. Linda Lassiter at

(919) 541–5526.

The official record for these proposed

actions have been established under

individual dockets which are located at

the Regional office address in the

ADDRESSES section at the beginning of

this document. Electronic comments

must be submitted as an ASCII file

avoiding the use of special characters

and any form of encryption. Comments

and data will also be accepted on disks

in WordPerfect file format or ASCII file

format. All comments and data in

electronic form must be identified by

the docket number associated with the

individual state proposal.

Dated: October 10, 2000.

Henry C. Thomas,

Acting Director, Office of Air Quality Planning

and Standards.

[FR Doc. 00–26612 Filed 10–13–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 271

[FRL–6885–4]

Utah: Final Authorization of State

Hazardous Waste Management

Program Revision

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The EPA proposes to grant

Final authorization to the hazardous

waste program changes submitted by

Utah. In the ‘‘Rules’’ section of this

Federal Register, we are authorizing the

State’s program changes as an

immediate final rule without a prior

proposed rule because we believe this

action is not controversial. Unless we

get written comments opposing this

authorization during the comment

period, the immediate final rule will

become effective and the Agency will

not take further action on this proposal.

If we receive comments that oppose this

action, we will publish a document in

the Federal Register withdrawing this

rule before it takes effect. EPA will

address public comments in a later final

rule based on this proposal. EPA may

not provide further opportunity for

comment. Any parties interested in

commenting on this action must do so

at this time.

DATES: We must receive your comments

by November 30, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to

Kris Shurr, 8P–HW, U.S. EPA, Region

VIII, 999 18th St, Ste 500, Denver,

Colorado 80202–2466, phone number:

(303) 312–6139. You can view and copy

Utah’s application at the following

addresses: Utah Department of

Environmental Quality (UDEQ), from

8:00 AM to 5:00 PM, 288 North 1460

West, Salt Lake City, Utah 84114–4880,

contact: Susan Toronto, phone number:

(801) 538–6776. and EPA Region VIII,

from 8:00 AM to 3:00 PM, 999 18th

Street, Suite 500, Denver, Colorado

80202–2466, contact: Kris Shurr, phone

number: (303) 312–6139.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kris

Shurr, EPA Region VIII, 999 18th Street,

Suite 500, Denver, Colorado 80202–

2466, phone number: (303) 312–6139.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For

additional information, please see the

immediate final rule published in the

‘‘Rules’’ section of this Federal Register.

Dated: October 5, 2000.

William P. Yellowtail,

Regional Administrator, Region VIII.

[FR Doc. 00–26504 Filed 10–13–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 697

[Docket No. 000412106-0262-02; I.D.

032200A]

RIN 0648-AO02

Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative

Management Act Provisions;

Horseshoe Crab Fishery; Closed Area

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for

comments.

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes to prohibit

fishing for horseshoe crabs and limit

possession of them in an area in the

exclusive economic zone (EEZ)

encompassing a 30-nautical mile (nm)

radius (in a shape roughly equivalent to

a rectangle) seaward from the midpoint

of the territorial sea line at the mouth of

Delaware Bay. The intent of this

proposed rule is to provide protection

for the Atlantic coast stock of horseshoe

crab, and to promote the effectiveness of

the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries

Commission’s (Commission) Interstate

Fishery Management Plan (ISFMP) for

horseshoe crab.

DATES: Written comments must be

received on or before October 31, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Comments on the proposed

rule should be sent to, and copies of an

Environmental Assessment/Regulatory

Impact Review/Initial Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/IRFA), are

available from, Richard H. Schaefer,

Chief, Staff Office for Intergovernmental

and Recreational Fisheries, National

Marine Fisheries Service, 8484 Georgia

Avenue, Suite 425, Silver Spring, MD

20910. Comments regarding the

collection-of-information requirement

contained in this proposed rule should

be sent to Richard H. Schaefer and to

the Office of Information and Regulatory

Affairs attention: NOAA Desk Officer,

Office of Management and Budget,

Washington D.C. 20503.

61136 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 200 / Monday, October 16, 2000 / Proposed Rules

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul

Perra, 301-427-2014.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Proposed Action

NMFS is proposing Federal horseshoe

crab conservation measures in the EEZ

under the authority of section 803(b) of

the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries

Cooperative Management Act

(ACFCMA), 16 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.,

which states that, in the absence of an

approved and implemented Fishery

Management Plan under the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and

Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens

Act) (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and after

consultation with the appropriate

Fishery Management Council(s), the

Secretary of Commerce may implement

regulations to govern fishing in the EEZ,

i.e., from 3 to 200 nm offshore. These

regulations must be (1) compatible with

the effective implementation of an

ISFMP developed by the Commission,

and (2) consistent with the national

standards set forth in section 301 of the

Magnuson-Stevens Act.

The proposed rule would prohibit

fishing for and limit the possession of

horseshoe crabs in an area in the EEZ

encompassing a 30-nm radius (in a

shape roughly equivalent to a rectangle)

seaward from the midpoint of the

territorial sea line at the mouth of

Delaware Bay. The proposed rule would

also allow whelk fishing vessels to

possess horseshoe crabs as bait on board

in the closed area as long as the vessels

do not have commercial fishing gear on

board aside from whelk fishing traps.

Other commercial gears (e.g., trawls,

dredges, gill nets) would be prohibited

on vessels in the closed area with

horseshoe crabs on board. As a

consequence of not allowing other

commercial gears on the whelk vessels

in the closed area, whelk vessels would

not be able to fish for species other than

whelks in the closed area. NMFS does

not know the number of whelk vessels

that may fish in the closed area or if

they conduct other fishing activities in

conjunction with their whelk fishing

trips, but assumes from discussions

with the ASMFC Horseshoe Crab Plan

Monitoring Team that combined whelk

and other species trips do not take place

or are minimal. The proposed rule

would also require fishermen to return

to the water all horseshoe crabs caught

in the closed area incidental to any

fishing operations, including whelk

fishing.

The proposed closed area in the EEZ

off Delaware Bay would be bounded as

follows: (1) On the north by a straight

line connecting points 39°14.6’N. lat.,

74°30.9’W. long. (3 nm off of Peck

Beach, New Jersey) and 39°14.6’N lat.,

74°22.5’W. long.; (2) On the east by a

straight line connecting points

39°14.6’N. lat., 74°22.5’W. long. and

38°22.0’N. lat., 74°22.5’W. long.; (3) On

the south side by a straight line

connecting points 38°22.0’N. lat.,

74°22.5’W. long. and 38°22.0’N. lat.,

75°00.4’W. long. (3 nm off of Ocean

City, MD); and (4) On the west by state

waters.

The Horseshoe Crab Fishery

Horseshoe crabs are used as bait in

American eel, whelk, and catfish

fisheries, and are utilized by the

biomedical industry. Also, horseshoe

crabs play an important ecological role

because they are a food source for

loggerhead sea turtles, and their eggs are

an important food source for migratory

shorebirds. They have been directly

harvested by hand and by various gears

including gill nets, traps, pound nets,

otter trawls, and seines. There is no

evidence that a recreational fishery ever

developed for horseshoe crab. While no

complete coastwide assessment exists

for horseshoe crabs, some mid-Atlantic

surveys show several cases of localized

horseshoe crab population declines that

are of concern.

Estimated total landings of horseshoe

crabs for bait from 1993 to 1997

increased from 1,906,059 lb (864.6

metric tons) to 6,146,487 lb (2788 metric

tons). These numbers are probably an

underestimation of landings for these

years because all horseshoe crab

landings have not been reported due to

a lack of reporting requirements in some

states. Improvements in the collection of

landings data in recent years could

account for some of the increase in

landings. However, estimates of

landings in Delaware, Maryland, New

Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island

indicate a rapid growth in the fishery

due primarily to the increased use of

horseshoe crab as bait in the American

eel, whelk, and catfish fisheries, and a

shift in fishing pressure from declining

traditional fisheries to the horseshoe

crab fishery. The current estimate for

total Atlantic coast horseshoe crab bait

landings for 1998, based on a 1998/99

NMFS/Commission Horseshoe Crab

Technical Committee harvest survey, is

8,995,700 lb (4080.4 metric tons).

Addendum 1 to the ISFMP for

Horseshoe Crabs

Historically, horseshoe crabs were

managed by individual states until 1998

when the Commission adopted an

ISFMP for horseshoe crab in response to

concerns of possible localized declines

in the Atlantic Coast horseshoe crab

stock. The Commission approved and

implemented Addendum 1 to the

Commission’s ISFMP for horseshoe crab

in February 2000. Addendum 1’s intent

is to protect and maintain horseshoe

crab spawning stock at levels that can

sustain fisheries and that will provide

an abundance of horseshoe crab eggs as

a food source for migratory shorebirds.

Addendum 1 mandates that all Atlantic

coastal states implement their portion of

a Commission quota system for the bait

harvest of horseshoe crabs and

implement a stock and fishery

monitoring program as established by

the Commission. In addition,

Addendum 1 requests that NMFS

prohibit the transfer of horseshoe crabs

in Federal waters, and establish an

offshore horseshoe crab sanctuary in

Federal waters within a 30-nautical mile

radius off the mouth of the Delaware

Bay.

To support the Commission’s

horseshoe crab management efforts

under Addendum 1, NMFS published

an Advance Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking (ANPR)(65 FR 25698, May

3, 2000), to ask the public to consider

the establishment of an offshore

horseshoe crab closed area in the EEZ

encompassing a 30-nm radius off the

mouth of the Delaware Bay. Because of

the difficulty in enforcing a semicircular closed area, NMFS proposes

establishing a closed area in Federal

waters that would be roughly equivalent

in area to a semi-circle with a 30-nm

radius, but roughly in the shape of a

rectangle. The comment period closed

on June 2, 2000. Public response was

overwhelming for proceeding with a

proposed rule to implement the closed

area. Two-hundred-eighty-one

comments were received in favor of

continuing the rulemaking process, and

one was against. Thirteen conservation

organizations, whose combined

membership is estimated at over one

million people, wrote in support of the

closure. The States of Delaware,

Maryland, and New Jersey also sent in

letters supporting the closure. The one

letter opposing the closure was written

on behalf of two Virginia conch

processing companies. It stated that a

closed area in addition to the other

measures in the Commission’s ISFMP

for horseshoe crabs is not scientifically

justified. The commenter felt that the

closed area will force the harvest of

horseshoe crabs from more offshore

areas to more nearshore areas where

female horseshoe crabs tend to be more

prominent, which would be detrimental

to the protection of the stock.

NMFS feels the closed area is a riskaverse (i.e., minimizes the risk to the

horseshoe crab resource) measure that is

based on the best available scientific

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 200 / Monday, October 16, 2000 / Proposed Rules 61137

information and designed to protect the

horseshoe crabs in the Delaware Bay

area. Furthermore, the closed area, in

conjunction with current state laws

including the Atlantic coast states’

implementation of their quotas in

Addendum 1, is part of a

comprehensive management program

that will control fishing effort on

horseshoe crabs in nearshore areas and

the EEZ off Delaware Bay. Addendum 1

is adequate to protect horseshoe crabs

because it will reduce fishing effort on

both male and female horseshoe crabs

by protecting them when they are

concentrated in the closed area and by

reducing state quotas.

The Need for a Closed Area Off

Delaware Bay

Under Addendum 1, Atlantic coast

states have recently implemented

measures to control the harvest of

horseshoe crabs as bait. As a result,

more fishing for horseshoe crabs is

taking place in the EEZ, particularly in

the mid-Atlantic area. Therefore, efforts

to support the Commission’s

management plan and provide adequate

conservation measures for horseshoe

crabs by implementing compatible

management measures in the EEZ are a

very important part of the coastwide

management program for horseshoe

crab.

Addendum 1 manages horseshoe

crabs as a coastwide stock from Maine

through Florida, but pays particular

attention to protecting the localized

Delaware Bay population of horseshoe

crabs by recommending a closed area to

horseshoe crab fishing in the EEZ

encompassing a 30-nm radius off the

mouth of Delaware Bay. Since there are

no Federal laws restricting harvest for

horseshoe crab in EEZ waters adjoining

Delaware Bay, horseshoe crabs in the

Delaware Bay area can be legally caught

in the EEZ, and landed in other states

that have less strict conservation

measures for horseshoe crabs than the

Delaware Bay states. Under current state

laws, all Atlantic coast states monitor

and manage fishing for horseshoe crabs

in state waters. The states of New Jersey,

Delaware, and Maryland have

implemented especially strong

conservation measures to protect

horseshoe crabs in the Delaware Bay

area, such as restricting the types of gear

used, number of vessels that can harvest

horseshoe crabs, and the amounts of

horseshoe crabs that can be harvested

from their waters. While some fishing

may be allowed in state waters near the

mouth of Delaware Bay, it is very

closely controlled by state regulations.

However, adjoining EEZ waters have no

Federal restrictions on horseshoe crab

harvest.

This special concern for horseshoe

crabs in the Delaware Bay area arises

because the Delaware Bay area is the

epicenter of abundance for the Atlantic

coast horseshoe crab stock and

concentrated fishing effort in the EEZ

near the mouth of Delaware Bay could

deplete the horseshoe crab population

in the Delaware Bay area. Maintaining

the abundance of horseshoe crabs in the

Delaware Bay is important because

migratory shorebirds stop in the

Delaware Bay area where they depend

on horseshoe crab eggs as an important

food source at a critical time during

their migrations. Also, the Delaware Bay

area supports horseshoe crab fisheries

that harvest horseshoe crabs for whelk

and eel bait, and for medical use. The

increased landings of horseshoe crabs

from the EEZ has caused concern for the

ability of the mid-Atlantic horseshoe

crab population to continue to provide

enough eggs for migratory shorebird

needs as well as maintaining a

sustainable fisheries over the long term.

The proposed closed area will give

added protection to the localized

population of horseshoe crabs that tend

to concentrate near the mouth of the

Delaware Bay. Horseshoe crabs have

been found as far as 35 nm from shore.

They tend to concentrate nearshore in

the spring and move further offshore

into deeper water in the fall and winter.

The proposed closed area is known to

have high concentrations of horseshoe

crabs and is large enough to protect

horseshoe crabs in the shallow and

deeper waters adjacent to Delaware Bay

as they move inshore and offshore

throughout the year. The proposed

closed area will serve as an integral part

of the comprehensive State/Federal

management program detailed in

Addendum 1.

In addition to this proposed rule,

NMFS intends to propose, under a

separate rulemaking, a rule to establish

reporting and permitting requirements,

and prohibit transfers at sea of

horseshoe crabs by federally permitted

vessels, as recommended to NMFS by

the Commission.

Additional background for the

proposed rule for the closed area is

available and contained in a EA/RIR/

IRFA prepared by NMFS (see

ADDRESSES).

Changes from ANPR

The following are minor adjustments

to the closed area’s latitude and

longitude readings identified in the

ANPR:

39°15.0’N. lat., has been changed to

39°14.6’N. lat.; 74°32.66’W. long., has

been changed to 74°30.9’W. long.;

74°22.0’W. long., has been changed to

74°22.5’W. long.; and 75°35.46’W. long.,

has been changed to 75°00.4’W. long.

Classification

NMFS prepared an initial regulatory

flexibility analysis (IRFA) that describes

the impact this proposed rule, if

adopted, would have on small entities.

A summary of the IRFA is as follows:

This proposed rule is published under

the authority of section 803 of the

ACFCMA. The purpose of the proposed

rule is to improve cooperative

management for the Atlantic coast

horseshoe crab (Limulus polyphemus)

and to provide protection to the

Delaware Bay population of horseshoe

crabs to support conservation of the

resource and help assure an adequate

supply of horseshoe crab eggs for

migrating shorebirds as well as an

adequate supply of horseshoe crabs for

bait and medical purposes over time.

The need for the closed area is

explained in the preamble to this

proposed rule and is not repeated here.

The proposed rule is estimated to affect

18 fishing vessels, all of which are small

businesses; effects on them are expected

to be minor. Of these 18 vessels, 8 target

horseshoe crabs directly and 10 land

horseshoe crabs caught incidentally

while targeting other species. This

proposed rule may also affect vessels

that fish for whelks and other species on

the same trip in the closed area.

However, it is unknown whether any

vessels make such trips in the closed

area and, if so, how many. NMFS

requests comments on this issue.

There is an application requirement

for persons or vessels seeking to obtain

an exempted fishing permit under 50

CFR sections 697.22 and 600.745. No

special skills are required to complete

the application for an exempted fishing

permit. The response time to complete

the application is estimated to be 1 hour

per vessel. No other Federal rules

duplicate or conflict with the proposed

action. Six alternatives were examined

counting the proposed action. They

were: Alternative 1: no action;

Alternative 2: a closed area using a

radius of 30 nm, prohibition on

possession of horseshoe crabs;

Alternative 3: a closed area using a

radius of 30 nm, limited possession of

horseshoe crabs by whelk fishermen

allowed; Alternative 4: a closed area

using a radius of 15 nm, prohibition on

possession of horseshoe crabs;

Alternative 5: a closed area using a

radius of 15 nm, limited possession of

horseshoe crabs by whelk fishermen;

and Alternative 6: a closed area using a

61138 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 200 / Monday, October 16, 2000 / Proposed Rules

radius of 60 nm, limited possession of

horseshoe crabs by whelk fishermen.

The preferred alternative would close

an area encompassing a 30-nm radius

off the mouth of Delaware Bay to

horseshoe crab fishing, and allow

limited possession of horseshoe crabs in

the closed area by whelk vessels. Of the

18 vessels affected, 8 direct effort on

horseshoe crabs, and 10 harvest and sell

horseshoe crabs that were caught

incidently while directing effort on

other species. The reduction in annual

total revenue for the 8 vessels that

conduct directed fishing trips is likely

to be much lower than the $694,650,

which is the total 1998 EEZ horseshoe

crab combined dockside landings for

Maryland, Delaware, and Virginia).

Since these vessels would be able to

continue to fish for horseshoe crabs in

adjoining areas, NMFS assumes they

would do so with a reduction in

efficiency because the density of

horseshoe crabs decreases as you move

further away from the mouth of

Delaware Bay. For the purpose of our

analysis, we assumed that efficiency is

reduced by 10 percent, which is likely

since NMFS trawl surveys show

horseshoe crabs to be less dense in areas

outside the closed areas. A

corresponding 10-percent reduction in

landings value would be about $69,465.

The reduction in annual revenue for the

10 vessels that incidently harvest

horseshoe crabs is expected to be less

than $3,000 per vessel or about $30,000.

Analysis for the non-preferred

alternatives as compared to the

preferred alterative is as follows:

The no action alternative would not

reduce revenue to any vessels in the

short term, but may reduce future exvessel revenues if taking no action

results in a decline in the horseshoe

crab resource off Delaware Bay.

Alternative 2 to close an area

encompassing a 30-nm radius off of

mouth of Delaware Bay to horseshoe

crab fishing and to prohibit possession

of horseshoe crabs would affect the

same number of vessels that harvest

horseshoe crabs by either directed effort

or incidental catch and have the same

associated revenue reduction for those

vessels as the preferred Alternative 3

($30,000 for the 10 vessels that have

incidental harvest, and less than

$69,465 for the 8 vessels that make

directed horseshoe crab trips). Also,

under Alternative 2 all whelk vessels

that fish in the proposed area and use

horseshoe crabs for bait would be

affected. Under Alternative 3, they

could continue to fish for whelks with

horseshoe crabs. It is not known how

many whelk vessels fish in the proposed

area but it is assumed that some whelk

vessels would have to use alternate baits

or search for other fishing areas under

Alternative 2. Therefore, revenue would

be reduced for some of the whelk

fishing fleet. Alternative 4 to close an

area encompassing a radius of 15 nm

and prohibit possession of horseshoe

crabs would have lower economic

impacts on vessels that harvest

horseshoe crabs than the preferred

Alternative 3 because the area is

smaller. However, impacts on whelk

fishermen under Alternative 4 may be

greater than those on whelk fishermen

under Alternative 3 because whelk

fishermen would have to travel around

the Alternative 4 closed area if they

have horseshoe crabs on board. Under

Alternative 4, as in Alternative 2, whelk

vessels would be prevented from using

horseshoe crabs as bait in the closed

area. For Alternative 5 to close an area

using a radius of 15 nm with limited

possession of horseshoe crabs, economic

impacts are expected to be similar to or

slightly lower than those for the

preferred Alternative 3 because the

closed area is smaller than under the

preferred alternative. For Alternative 6

to close an area using a radius of 60 nm

while allowing limited possession of

horseshoe crabs, economic impacts are

expected to be similar but more than

those for the preferred alternative,

because the closed area is larger than

the preferred alternative. A copy of the

IRFA is available from NMFS (see

ADDRESSES).

Notwithstanding any other provision

of the law, no person is required to

respond to, and no person shall be

subject to penalty for failure to comply

with, a collection of information subject

to the requirements of the Paperwork

Reduction Act (PRA), unless that

collection of information displays a

currently valid Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) control number.

This rule contains a collection-ofinformation requirement subject to the

PRA. That collection of information

requirement is for persons or vessels

requesting an exempted fishing permit

subject to § 697.22 and § 600.745 to

complete and submit an application.

The response time to complete the

application is estimated to be 1 hour per

vessel. The collection of this

information has been approved by the

OMB under OMB Control Number 0648-

0309. This includes the time for

reviewing instructions, searching

existing data sources, gathering and

maintaining the data needed, and

completing and reviewing the collection

of information. Send comments

regarding this burden estimate, or any

other aspect of this data collection,

including suggestions for reducing the

burden, to NMFS and OMB (see

ADDRESSES).

This proposed rule has been

determined to be significant for

purposes of Executive Order 12866.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 697

Fisheries, Fishing.

Dated: October 10, 2000.

William T. Hogarth,

Deputy Assistant Administrator for Fisheries,

National Marine Fisheries Service.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, 50 CFR chapter VI, part 697,

is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 697—ATLANTIC COASTAL

FISHERIES COOPERATIVE

MANAGEMENT

1. The authority citation for part 697

is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.

2. In § 697.2, the definitions for

‘‘Whelk’’ and ‘‘Whelk trap’’ are added

alphabetically to read as follows:

§ 697.2 Definitions.

* * * * *

Whelk means Busycon sp.

Whelk trap means any structure or

device, other than a net or a dredge, that

is placed or designed to be placed on

the ocean bottom, is designed for or is

capable of catching whelks, and has an

unobstructed opening on its top of not

less than eight inches (20.3 cm) square

or nine inches (22.9 cm) in diameter

through which whelks may pass.

* * * * *

3. Section 697.7, paragraphs (e) (3)

through (5) are added to read as follows:

§ 697.7 Prohibitions.

* * * * *

(e) * * *

(3) Fish for horseshoe crabs in the

Carl N. Shuster Jr., Horseshoe Crab

Reserve described in § 697.23(f)(1).

(4) Possess any horseshoe crabs in the

area described in § 697.23(f)(1), except

as allowed by § 697.23(f)(2).

(5) Fail to return immediately to the

water horseshoe crabs caught in the area

described in § 697.23(f)(1).

4. Section 697.22 is revised to read as

follows:

§ 697.22 Exempted fishing.

The Regional Administrator may

exempt any person or vessel from the

requirements of this part for the conduct

of exempted fishing beneficial to the

management of the American lobster,

weakfish, Atlantic striped bass, Atlantic

sturgeon, or horseshoe crab, resource or

fishery pursuant to the provisions of §

600.745 of this chapter.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 200 / Monday, October 16, 2000 / Proposed Rules 61139

(a) The Regional Administrator may

not grant such exemption unless it is

determined that the purpose, design,

and administration of the exemption is

consistent with the objectives of any

applicable stock rebuilding program, the

provisions of the ACFCMA, the

Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other

applicable law, and that granting the

exemption will not:

(1) Have a detrimental effect on the

American lobster, Atlantic striped bass,

weakfish, Atlantic sturgeon, or

horseshoe crab resource or fishery; or

(2) Create significant enforcement

problems.

(b) Each vessel participating in any

exempted fishing activity is subject to

all provisions of this part, except those

explicitly relating to the purpose and

nature of the exemption. The exemption

will be specified in a letter issued by the

Regional Administrator to each vessel

participating in the exempted activity.

This letter must be carried aboard the

vessel seeking the benefit of such

exemption. Exempted fishing activity

shall be authorized pursuant to and

consistent with § 600.745 of this

chapter.

5. Section 697.23, paragraph (f) is

added to read as follows:

§ 697.23 Restricted gear areas.

* * * * *

(f) Carl N. Schuster Jr., Horseshoe

Crab Reserve— (1) No fishing vessel or

person on a fishing vessel may fish for

or possess horseshoe crabs in the area

known as the Carl N. Shuster Jr.,

Horseshoe Crab Reserve bounded as

follows:

(i) On the north by a straight line

connecting points 39°14.6’N. lat.,

74°30.9’W. long. (3 nm off of Peck

Beach, NJ) and 39°14.6’N lat.,

74°22.5’W. long.

(ii) On the east by a straight line

connecting points 39°14.6’N. lat.,

74°22.5’W. long. and 38°22.0’N. lat.,

74°22.5’W. long.

(iii) On the south side by a straight

line connecting points 38°22.0’N. lat.,

74°22.5’W. long. and 38°22.0’N. lat.,

75°00.4’W. long. (3 nm off of Ocean

City, MD).

(iv) On the west by state waters.

(2) Paragraph (f)(1) of this section

does not apply to fishing vessels or

persons on fishing vessels fishing with

whelk traps or with whelk traps on

board, provided that no other

commercial fishing gear aside from

whelk traps is on board or is being used.

(3) Horseshoe crabs caught in the area

described in paragraph (f)(1) of this

section must be returned immediately to

the water.

[FR Doc. 00–26498 Filed 10–11–00; 4:11 pm]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S