Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 211 / Tuesday, October 31, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 64895

in turn would help to rebuild the female

portion of the stock and to provide

greater rebuilding capacity to the stock

as a whole. In addition, spiny dogfish

gear selectivity research would

contribute to improving current

information on the species, including

bycatch and discard mortality. This

measure will remain in place for quota

period 2 to allow for this research.

Comments and Responses

Comment 1: Two commenters felt that

measures other than those in the interim

rule would be more fair. One stated that

the interim final rule measures are

unfair to gillnet vessels and that

management measures such as weekly

trip limits, individual quotas based on

vessel history, and a minimum mesh

size of 7 inches (17.8 cm) would reduce

discarding. Another commentor stated

that the shutdown of the directed spiny

dogfish fishery would eliminate a

portion of his vessel’s income for a part

of the year.

Response: Management alternatives

were considered during the

development of the annual

specifications for the spiny dogfish

fishery and in the interim final rule.

Individual quotas were not considered

by the Councils when the Spiny Dogfish

FMP was under development because of

a moratorium enacted by Congress in

section 303(d) of the Magnuson–Stevens

Fishery Conservation and Management

Act that prohibited the development of

management options involving

individual quotas through October 1,

2000, pending a study of individual

transferable quotas by the National

Research Council. Other management

alternatives were determined to be

either unlikely to achieve the necessary

conservation targets or infeasible. For

example, mesh-size restrictions may not

provide the necessary conservation

benefits because, while the larger mesh

size may exclude juvenile spiny dogfish,

it would still capture the larger female

spiny dogfish, which are of special

concern to the reproductive capacity of

the stock. The interim final rule

implemented measures to end

overfishing while providing the greatest

future benefits to the fishing

communities, based on the available

information. In the future, the Councils

are expected to consider additional

alternatives designed to reduce bycatch

of spiny dogfish in other fisheries and

to mitigate short–-erm economic

hardships, as requested by the

Secretary.

Comment 2: One commentor

reiterated its concerns expressed during

the comment period of the proposed

rule for the FMP. The commentor

believes that a lack of information on

the fishery and the stock status

continues to be a problem with the

interim final rule. The commentor

believes that some NMFS analyses

indicate that the level of discards of

spiny dogfish in non–directed fisheries

would be so great that it would cause

the FMP measures to fail. The

commentor stated that the experimental

fishery quota set-aside was an attempt to

shield the lack of substantive

information that is usually required to

establish an FMP and an attempt to

indicate to the industry that serious

work will be done to support changes in

the plan that would forestall the closure

of directed harvesting and the

consequent loss of markets.

Response: The need for restrictive

management measures for spiny dogfish

was established in the FMP. The

Secretary delayed implementation of the

FMP in order for the Councils to

consider additional information and to

reach an agreement on management

measures for the 2000 fishing year.

When the Councils failed to come to an

agreement, the Secretary implemented

the interim final rule to be consistent

with the FMP and to end overfishing. As

required by the Magnuson-Stevens Act,

the FMP and the interim final rule are

based on the best available scientific

information and on established

measures to end overfishing on spiny

dogfish. While an analysis prepared by

NMFS does indicate that a high amount

of spiny dogfish discards is possible

with low trip limits, it does not indicate

that such discards compromise the

rebuilding plan established in the FMP.

The trip limit analysis was unable to

quantify the expected changes in fishing

practices by fishermen to avoid spiny

dogfish due to low trip limits. Also, low

trip limits essentially eliminate the

directed spiny dogfish fishery, thereby

preventing the high amount of discards

of small spiny dogfish known to be

associated with the directed spiny

dogfish fishery. The research set-aside

encourages industry and researchers to

improve selectivity of spiny dogfish gear

and methods.

Comment 3: The Massachusetts

Division of Marine Fisheries (MADMF)

commented on the rationale behind the

management measures implemented in

Massachusetts shortly before the interim

final rule was implemented. In late

April, the MADMF implemented a 7-

million lb (3,175-mt) quota, a 7,000-lb

(3,175-kg) trip limit, a 31-inch (78.7-cm)

minimum fish size, and gillnet

restrictions. The MADMF believes that

these measures allow a small-scale

directed fishery while remaining

consistent with the FMP and the

Magnuson-Stevens Act. Further, the

MADMF believes that the small-scale

directed fishery would reduce discards

while allowing the processing sector to

maintain its infrastructure.

Response: The MADMF management

strategy does not eliminate overfishing

as required by the FMP because it does

not result in a fishing mortality rate of

F = 0.03 or less. The Spiny Dogfish

Technical Committee is continuing to

evaluate alternative management

approaches and will consider updated

stock status information. The Spiny

Dogfish Joint Committee and the

Councils may consider the new

information and new alternatives in

2001 in an amendment to the FMP. An

FMP amendment would be necessary to

modify the rebuilding program in the

FMP.

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

Dated: October 25, 2000.

William T. Hogarth,

Deputy Assistant Administrator for Fisheries,

National Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 00–27867 Filed 10–26–00; 1:08 pm]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 679

[Docket No. 991210329–0273–02; I.D.

102699B]

RIN 0648–AM36

Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic

Zone Off Alaska; Bering Sea and

Aleutian Islands Area; Amendment 58

to Revise the Chinook Salmon Savings

Area; Correction

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

SUMMARY: This document corrects

regulatory text in the final rule that

implements Amendment 58 to the

Fishery Management Plan for the

Groundfish Fishery of the Bering Sea

and Aleutian Islands Area (FMP), which

was published in the Federal Registeron

October 12, 2000.

DATES: Effective November 13, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Patsy A. Bearden, 907–586–7008.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

A final rule was published in the

Federal Register on October 12, 2000

64896 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 211 / Tuesday, October 31, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

(65 FR 60587), to implement

Amendment 58 to the FMP. In the

regulatory text portion of the final rule,

a reference to Figure 8a and Figure 8b

were inadvertently omitted from the

revised definition for ‘‘Chinook Salmon

Savings Area of the BSAI.’’ Also, the

paragraph designations were incorrectly

labeled for § 679.21(e)7)(viii).

Correction

In the final rule to implement

Amendment 58 to the FMP, which

revises the Chinook Salmon Savings

Area, published at 65 FR 60587, October

12, 2000, FR Doc. 00–26086, the

following corrections are made:

§ 679.2 [Corrected]

1. On page 60588, column 2, § 679.2,

the definition for ‘‘Chinook Salmon

Savings Area of the BSAI’’ is corrected

to read: ‘‘Chinook Salmon Savings Area

of the BSAI (see § 679.21(e)(7)(viii) and

Figure 8a and Figure 8b to this part).’’

2. On page 60588, column three, §

679.21 (e)(7)(viii) is correctly revised to

read as follows:

§ 679.21 Prohibited species bycatch

management.

* * * * *

(e) * * *

(7) * * *

(viii) Chinook salmon. If, during the

fishing year, the Regional Administrator

determines that catch of chinook

salmon, by vessels using trawl gear

while directed fishing for pollock in the

BSAI, will reach the annual limit as

identified in paragraph (e)(1)(vii) of this

section, NMFS, by notification in the

Federal Register will close the Chinook

Salmon Savings Area, as defined in

Figure 8 to this part, to directed fishing

for pollock with trawl gear consistent

with the following dates:

(A) From the effective date of the

closure until April 15, and from

September 1 through December 31, if

the Regional Administrator determines

that the annual limit of chinook salmon

will be attained before April 15.

(B) From September 1 through

December 31, if the Regional

Administrator determines that the

annual limit of chinook salmon will be

attained after April 15.

* * * * *

Dated: October 25, 2000.

William T. Hogarth,

Deputy Assistant Administrator for Fisheries,

National Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 00–27874 Filed 10–30–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 697

[Docket No. 00824246—0294—03; I.D.

062700F]

RIN 0648–AO33

Horseshoe Crab; Interstate Fishery

Management Plans; Cancellation of

Moratorium

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Cancellation of Federal

moratorium; final rule.

SUMMARY: The Secretary of Commerce

(Secretary) announces the cancellation

of the Federal moratorium on fishing for

horseshoe crabs in the Commonwealth

of Virginia (Virginia) waters and the

removal of regulations prohibiting the

possession of horseshoe crabs in

Virginia waters and the landing of

horseshoe crabs in Virginia, regardless

of where they were caught. The

Secretary cancelled the moratorium, as

required by the Atlantic Coastal

Fisheries Cooperative Management Act

(Act), based on his determination that

Virginia is now in compliance with the

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries

Commission’s (Commission) Interstate

Fishery Management Plan (ISFMP) for

horseshoe crabs.

DATES: Effective October 26, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Richard H. Schaefer, Chief, Staff Office

for Intergovernmental and Recreational

Fisheries, NMFS, 301–427–2014.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On July 7, 2000, National Marine

Fisheries Service (NMFS) determined

that Virginia was not in compliance

with Addendum 1 to the Commission’s

ISFMP for horseshoe crabs and that the

measure Virginia failed to implement is

necessary for the conservation of the

fishery in question. Virginia was

notified by letter on July 11, 2000, of

this determination, and that NMFS

required additional time to analyze the

timing and nature of the moratorium’s

implementation before issuing a

declaration of a moratorium and a rule

necessary to implement Section 806 of

the Act.

On October 16, 2000 (65 FR 61116),

the Secretary declared a Federal

moratorium effective October 23, 2000,

on fishing for horseshoe crabs in

Virginia waters and issued regulations

prohibiting the possession of horseshoe

crabs in Virginia waters and the landing

of horseshoe crabs in Virginia,

regardless of where they were caught.

Details were provided in the October 16,

2000, Federal Register document and

are not repeated here. On October 20,

2000, the Secretary stayed the effective

date of the moratorium and associated

regulations until October 27, 2000,

because Virginia was in the process of

implementing regulations to reduce its

horseshoe crab quota. This stay was

filed on October 20, 2000, at the Office

of the Federal Register, effective

October 23, 2000, and published in the

Federal Register on October 24, 2000

(65 FR 63550).

The Act specifies that, if, after a

moratorium is declared with respect to

a State, the Secretary is notified by the

Commission that it is withdrawing the

determination of noncompliance, the

Secretary shall immediately determine

whether the State is in compliance with

the applicable plan. If the State is

determined to be in compliance, the

moratorium shall be terminated.

Activities Pursuant to the Act

On October 20, 2000, the Secretary

received a letter from the Commission

prepared pursuant to the Act. The

Commission’s letter stated that Virginia

had taken corrective action to comply

with Addendum 1 to the Commission’s

ISFMP for horseshoe crabs, and,

therefore, the Commission was

withdrawing its determination of

noncompliance.

Cancellation of the Moratorium

Based on the Commission’s October

20, 2000, letter, information received

from the Virginia, and the Secretary’s

review of Virginia’s revised regulations,

which reduced its quota of horseshoe

crabs from 355,000 horseshoe crabs to

152,495 horseshoe crabs as required by

Addendum 1, the Secretary concurs

with the Commission’s determination

that Virginia is now in compliance with

Addendum 1 to the Commission’s

ISFMP for horseshoe crabs. Therefore,

the moratorium on fishing for horseshoe

crabs in Virginia waters is cancelled,

and the associated regulations removed.

Changes from Interim Final Rule

These changes were due to the

cancellation of the moratorium and

associated regulations. The definition of

horseshoe crab in § 697.2 is removed,

and in § 697.7, paragraph (e) is

removed. This paragraph includes the

provision that it is unlawful for any

person to possess horseshoe crabs in

Virginia waters or land horseshoe crabs