69492 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 223 / Friday, November 17, 2000 / Proposed Rules

because the Commission believes that

the amendment, if promulgated, will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

The Commission has tentatively reached

this conclusion will respect to the

proposed amendment because the

amendment would impose no

additional obligations, penalties or

costs. Ten amendments simply would

allow covered companies to use a new

generic name for a new fiber that may

not appropriately fit within current

names and definitions. The amendment

would impose no additional labeling

requirements.

To ensure that no substantial

economic impact is being overlooked,

however, the Commission requests

public comment on the effect of the

proposed amendment on costs, profits,

and competitiveness of, and

employment in, small entities. After

receiving public comment, the

Commission will decide whether

preparation of a final regulatory

flexibility analysis is warranted.

Accordingly, based on available

information, the Commission certifies,

pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility

Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), that the proposed

amendment, if promulgated, would not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

V. Paperwork Reduction Act

This proposed amendment does not

constitute a ‘‘collection of information’’

under the Paperwork Reduction Act of

1995 (PL 104–13, 109 Stat. 163) and its

implementing regulations. (5 CFR 1320

et seq.) The collection of information

imposed by the procedures for

establishing generic names (16 CFR

303.8) has been submitted to OMB and

has been assigned control number 3084–

0101.

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 303

Labeling, Textile, Trade practices.

Authority: Sec. 7(c) of the Textile Fiber

Products Identification Act (15 U.S.C. 70e(c)).

By direction of the Commission.

Donald S. Clark,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–29468 Filed 11–16–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6750–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 635

[Docket No. 001113318-0318-01; I.D.

110200D]

RIN 0648-AO75

Atlantic Highly Migratory Species

Fisheries; Atlantic Bluefin Tuna

Incidental Catch

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed

rulemaking (ANPR); request for

comments.

SUMMARY: NMFS intends to undertake

rulemaking to reduce the level of

Atlantic bluefin tuna (BFT) that is

discarded dead by vessels in the pelagic

longline fishery, and issues this ANPR

to request comments on potential

changes to the Atlantic tuna regulations

that could reduce the level of dead

discards of BFT including the

adjustment of target catch requirements

for landing incidental catch. The level

of allowed discards needs to be reduced

in order to decrease the waste of

valuable bycatch.

DATES: Written comments on this ANPR

must be received on or before December

14, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be addressed to Christopher Rogers,

Acting Chief, Highly Migratory Species

Management Division (F/SF1), National

Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 EastWest Highway, Silver Spring, MD

20910.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brad

McHale or Pat Scida, 978-281-9260.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Atlantic pelagic longline fishery, which

commonly targets swordfish, sharks,

and yellowfin and bigeye tunas, also

occasionally catches BFT incidental to

these other fisheries. Because the U.S.

longline fleet has not historically

targeted BFT, the portion of the U.S.

national BFT quota allocated to the

longline category has always been

intended to account for incidental catch

only. Accordingly, under current BFT

regulations, vessels permitted in the

Atlantic Tunas Longline category are

permitted to retain and land BFT caught

with pelagic longline gear only if a

specific minimum level of other fish

species are landed from the same trip.

While the regulations pertaining to

landing incidental BFT catch have been

adjusted on several occasions, the

pelagic longline industry continues to

comment that the target catch

requirements are overly restrictive and

result in unnecessary dead discards.

Background

The history of U.S. regulatory activity

and public comment regarding this

issue dates back to the early 1980’s. A

full description of this history is

provided in the Fishery Management

Plan for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and

Sharks (HMS FMP) chapter 3, section

3.5.3 ‘‘Management Measures to

Address Bycatch Problems.’’

In 1998, the International Commission

for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas

(ICCAT), in its recommendation on

western BFT rebuilding, required that

nations minimize dead discards of BFT

to the extent practicable and established

a dead discard allowance of 79 metric

tons (mt) for western BFT, 68 mt of

which was allocated to the United

States. The 1998 ICCAT

recommendation also provided that, if a

nation exceeds its dead discard

allowance in one year, that nation must

deduct the excess from its following

year’s landing quota. If the actual

amount of dead discards is less than the

allowance, one-half of the difference

may be added to the allocation of catch

that can be retained. Dead discards of

BFT are reported to ICCAT by NMFS,

along with landings data, and are

summarized in the U.S. National Report

to ICCAT.

The final rule that implemented the

HMS FMP addressed the dead discard

issue by establishing a time/area closure

for the use of pelagic longline gear in

the Northwestern Atlantic from 39° to

40° N. lat. and 68° to 74° W. long.

during the month of June. This closed

area was chosen to meet the goal of

minimizing BFT dead discards while

having the least economic impact on the

directed pelagic longline fisheries. Since

NMFS first implemented BFT incidental

catch regulations, the agency has

received public comment and inquiries

regarding the target catch requirements

to retain incidental catch of BFT and the

effectiveness of the regulations in

avoiding dead discards. These

comments have continued after the

publication of the HMS FMP.

Potential Adjustments

Several reviews of landings, logbook,

and observer data have been conducted

in recent years regarding the pelagic

longline fisheries interaction with BFT.

Observer data from longline trips (from

1991 to 1994) indicate that two or fewer

BFT were hooked on 91 percent of all

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 223 / Friday, November 17, 2000 / Proposed Rules 69493

observed trips. Longline landings

information for 1998 and 1999 indicate

that median values for landed catch (not

including BFT) are approximately 3,000

lb ( 1,361 kg) for trips made in the

months of January through April, and

3,800 lb (1,724 kg) for trips made in May

through December, in fisheries south of

34° N. lat.; and 3,700 lb (1,679 kg) for

trips made throughout the year in

fisheries north of 34° N. lat. For the

same time period, 75 percent of the trips

had a landed catch (other than BFT) of

approximately 1,350 lb (613 kg) for trips

made in the months of January through

April, and 1,650 lb (749 kg) for trips

made in May through December, in

fisheries south of 34° N. lat; and 1,600

(726 kg) for trips made throughout the

year in fisheries north of 34° N. lat.

Based on current landings and dead

discard information, NMFS could

consider several possible adjustments.

One approach could be to undertake a

comprehensive review and adjust target

catch requirements, geographic location,

and seasonal subdivisions. An

alternative could be to adjust the target

catch requirements while maintaining

the current geographic and southern

area seasonal subdivision. For example,

in the Longline south subcategory, from

January through April, one fish per

vessel per fishing trip with at least 1,500

lb (680 kg) of target catch, or two fish

per vessel per trip with at least 4,500 lb

(2,040 kg) of target catch; from May

through December, one fish per vessel

per fishing trip with at least 3,500 lb

(1,588 kg) of target catch, or two fish per

vessel per trip with at least 6,000 lb

(2,722 kg) of target catch. In the

Longline north subcategory, one fish per

vessel per fishing trip with at least 3,500

lb (1,588 kg), or two fish per vessel per

trip, with at least 6,000 lb (2,722 kg) of

target catch. Under this alternative,

another option could be to adjust only

the percent target catch requirement for

the Northern area (e.g., 5 or 8 percent

versus two percent) and to maintain the

current target catch requirements, by

season, for the south.

Another alternative could be to

institute one target catch requirement

(either a percent or a fixed number of

BFT) coastwide regardless of season. For

example, one BFT per vessel per fishing

trip with at least 1,500 lb (680 kg) of

target catch, or two fish per vessel per

trip with at least 4,000 lb (1,815 kg) of

target catch, or one BFT per trip, so long

as other targeted species are landed.

Under this alternative, another option

could be to apply a percent target catch

requirement coastwide.

Request for Comments

NMFS requests comments on possible

changes to the BFT landings allowances

as outlined above or on alternative

means of reducing dead discards of BFT

in the pelagic longline fisheries.

Comments received by the due date will

be considered in drafting any proposed

changes to the Atlantic tuna regulations.

Authority: 16 U.S.C.971 et seq. and 1801

et seq.

Dated: November 13, 2000.

William T. Hogarth,

Deputy Assistant Administrator for Fisheries,

National Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 00–29473 Filed 11–14–00; 3:22 pm]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S