64894 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 211 / Tuesday, October 31, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

Ordering Clauses

Pursuant to the authority contained in

sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201–205, and 303

of the Communications Act of 1934, as

amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j),

201–205, and 303, that this Order Is

Hereby Adopted as described.

The provisions of this Order Shall Be

Effective November 30, 2000.

The Commission’s Consumer

Information Bureau, Reference

Information Center, Shall Send a copy

of this Order, including the Final

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small

Business Administration.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 69

Communications common carriers,

Tariffs.

Federal Communications Commission.

Magalie Roman Salas,

Secretary.

Regulatory Text

For the reasons stated in the

preamble, the Federal Communications

Commission amends 47 CFR part 69 as

follows:

PART 69—ACCESS CHARGES

1. The authority citation for part 69

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 201, 202, 203,

205, 218, 220, 254, 403.

2. Amend § 69.3 by revising

paragraphs (e)(6), (e)(9), and (i)(1) to

read as follows:

§ 69.3 Filing of access service tariffs.

* * * * *

(e) * * *

(6) A telephone company or

companies that elect to file such a tariff

shall notify the association not later

than March 1 of the year the tariff

becomes effective, if such company or

companies did not file such a tariff in

the preceding biennial period or crossreference association charges in such

preceding period that will be crossreferenced in the new tariff. A telephone

company or companies that elect to file

such a tariff not in the biennial period

shall file its tariff to become effective

July 1 for a period of one year.

Thereafter, such telephone company or

companies must file its tariff pursuant

to paragraphs (f)(1) or (f)(2) of this

section.

* * * * *

(9) A telephone company or group of

affiliated telephone companies that

elects to file its own Carrier Common

Line tariff pursuant to paragraph (a) of

this section shall notify the association

not later than March 1 of the year the

tariff becomes effective that it will no

longer participate in the association

tariff. A telephone company or group of

affiliated telephone companies that

elects to file its own Carrier Common

Line tariff for one of its study areas shall

file its own Carrier Common Line

tariff(s) for all of its study areas.

* * * * *

(i) * * *

(1) In addition to the withdrawal

provisions of paragraphs (e)(6) and (e)(9)

of this section, a telephone company or

group of affiliated companies that

participates in one or more association

tariffs during the current tariff year and

that elects to file price cap tariffs or

optional incentive regulation tariffs

effective July 1 of the following tariff

year shall notify the association by

March 1 of the following tariff year that

it is withdrawing from association

tariffs, subject to the terms of this

section, to participate in price cap

regulation or optional incentive

regulation.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 00–27904 Filed 10–30–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 648

[Docket No. 000426114–0114–01; I.D.

101700E]

RIN 0648–AN53

Fisheries of the Northeastern United

States; Spiny Dogfish Fishery; 2000

Specifications; Extension of an Interim

Rule

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Extension of the effective date

of an interim rule.

SUMMARY: NMFS informs the public that

the interim rule published on May 4,

2000, to implement specifications and

seasonal trip limits for fishing year 2000

(May 1, 2000, through April 30, 2001)

for the spiny dogfish (Squalus

acanthias) fishery, is extended through

April 24, 2001. The extension maintains

the total quota for the 2000 fishing year

and sets aside a portion of the total

quota for vessels participating in spiny

dogfish exempted fishing projects. The

interim final rule is necessary to prevent

overfishing of spiny dogfish and extend

the effective period of the quota.

DATES: Effective October 29, 2000,

through April 24, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Copies of documents

supporting this action are available from

the Northeast Regional Office, NMFS,

Office of Sustainable Fisheries, 1

Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Peter W. Christopher, Fishery Policy

Analyst, 978–281–9288, fax 978–281–

9135, e-mail

peter.christopher@noaa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Spiny

Dogfish Fishery Management Plan

(FMP) prepared by the Mid-Atlantic and

New England Fishery Management

Councils (Councils) was partially

approved by NMFS on behalf of the

Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) on

September 29, 1999. The final rule

implementing the FMP was published

on January 11, 2000 (65 FR 1557), and

was initially scheduled to be effective

on February 10, 2000. However, the

Councils were unable to reach

agreement on a preferred commercial

quota and trip limit measure for this

action. After delays in implementing the

FMP from February to April, 2000, in

order to provide the Councils additional

opportunities to reach agreement,

NMFS, on behalf of the Secretary,

published an interim rule on May 4,

2000 (65 FR 25887), which established

a quota and trip limits for fishing year

2000.

The interim rule allocated quota into

two periods (May 1 through October 31,

and November 1 through April 30), with

trip limits intended to preclude directed

fishing. As of September 23, 2000,

reported landings have exceeded the

annual quota of 4 million lb (1,814 mt),

with approximately 4.7 million lb (2,131

mt) reported. In addition, the

Commonwealth of Massachusetts closed

its waters to spiny dogfish fishing on

August 26, 2000, based on its

determination that landings in that state

reached the 7 million lb (3,175 mt) of

spiny dogfish that the Commonwealth

believed appropriate. Therefore, the

landings of 4.6 million lb (2,086 mt)

currently included in Federal landings

records is incomplete. Due to the

excessive landings in quota period 1,

which have exceeded the annual quota,

the fishery will not be reopened for

quota period 2.

The research quota set–-aside of

500,000 lb (226.7 mt) was established

for vessels participating in research

projects designed to improve selectivity

of spiny dogfish fishing gear and

methods. The primary goal in providing

this incentive for research is to

investigate ways to shift fishing effort

away from female spiny dogfish, which

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