71042 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 28, 2000 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 648

[Docket No. 001121328–0328–01; I.D.

111500C]

RIN 0648–AN71

Fisheries of the Northeastern United

States; Summer Flounder, Scup, and

Black Sea Bass Fisheries; 2001

Specifications

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for

comments.

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes specifications

for the 2001 summer flounder, scup,

and black sea bass fisheries. The

implementing regulations for the

Fishery Management Plan for the

Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea

Bass Fisheries (FMP) require NMFS to

publish specifications for the upcoming

fishing year for each fishery and to

provide an opportunity for public

comment. This proposed rule requests

comment on proposed measures for

summer flounder and black sea bass and

on four alternative management options

for the 2001 scup fishery. The intent is

to specify the allowed harvest in 2001

and other measures to address

overfishing of the summer flounder,

scup, and black sea bass resources.

DATES: Public comments must be

received (see ADDRESSES) no later than

5 p.m. eastern standard time on

December 19, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on the

proposed specifications should be sent

to Patricia A. Kurkul at the same

address. Mark on the outside of the

envelope, ‘‘Comments—2001 Summer

Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass

Specifications.’’ Comments may also be

sent via facsimile (fax) to (978) 281–

9371. Comments will not be accepted if

submitted via e-mail or the Internet.

Send comments on any ambiguity or

unnecessary complexity arising from the

language used in this proposed rule to

Patricia A. Kurkul at the same address.

Copies of supporting documents used

by the Summer Flounder, Scup, and

Black Sea Bass Monitoring Committees;

the Environmental Assessment,

Regulatory Impact Review, Initial

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/

RIR/IRFA); and the Essential Fish

Habitat Assessment are available from

Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional

Administrator, Northeast Region,

National Marine Fisheries Service, One

Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA

01930–2298. The EA/RIR/IRFA is

accessible via the Internet at http:/

www.nero.nmfs.gov/ro/doc/nero.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Richard A. Pearson, Fishery Policy

Analyst, (978)281–9279, fax (978)281–

9135, e-mail rick.a.pearson@noaa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The regulations implementing the

FMP at 50 CFR part 648, subparts A, G,

H, and I outline the process for

specifying annually the catch limits for

the summer flounder, scup and black

sea bass commercial and recreational

fisheries, as well as other management

measures (e.g., mesh requirements,

minimum fish sizes, seasons, and area

restrictions) for these fisheries. These

measures are intended to achieve the

annual targets set forth for each species

in the FMP, specified either as a fishing

mortality rate (F) or an exploitation rate.

The FMP is a joint plan involving the

Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management

Council (Council) and the Atlantic

States Marine Fisheries Commission

(Commission). A Monitoring Committee

for each species, made up of members

from NMFS, the Commission, and both

the Mid-Atlantic and New England

Fishery Management Councils, is

required to review available information

and to recommend catch limits and

other management measures necessary

to achieve the target F or exploitation

rate for each fishery, as specified in the

FMP. The Council’s Demersal Species

Committee and the Commission’s

Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea

Bass Board (Board) then consider the

Monitoring Committee’s

recommendations and any public

comment in making their

recommendations. The Council and

Board made their annual

recommendations at a joint meeting

held August 14–17, 2000. In addition to

recommending annual measures, the

Council proposes modifying the current

trip limit provisions in the FMP so that

they are possession limits to enhance atsea enforcement. For black sea bass and

scup, the Council also approved a

motion that the possession limit would

be the maximum amount that could be

landed in a 24-hour period (calendar

day).

NMFS notes that the Council

included a recommendation that 2

percent of the 2001 Total Allowable

Landings (TAL) for summer flounder,

scup and black sea bass be set aside for

experimental fishing and data collection

purposes. This deduction was to occur

no later than December 31, 2000, if the

Council and Commission approved a

specific project or projects that would

use the set-aside allocation. However,

the Council does not expect to complete

its work until February 2001 on the

framework action that would have

authorized the provision for the setaside allocation. Although this proposed

rule includes a statement indicating the

amount of the 2-percent research setaside, NMFS has not made the

deduction in the allocations for 2001,

because the legal authority for doing so

will not be in place until that framework

action is implemented.

Scup

Scup was most recently assessed at

the 31st Northeast Regional Stock

Assessment Review Committee (SARC

31) in June 2000, which determined that

scup are overfished and that overfishing

is occurring. SARC 31 concluded that

the scup spawning stock biomass (SSB)

is low. The 1998–2000 Northeast

Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) spring

survey 3-year average SSB was 0.10 SSB

kg/tow, which is less than 5 percent of

the index that defines the stock as

overfished (2.77 kg/tow; the maximum

NEFSC spring survey 3-year average of

SSB). Indices of recruitment have

generally trended downward in recent

years, except for a moderate 1994 year

class, a moderate to strong 1999 year

class, and a strong 1997 year class. Due

to the 1997 and 1999 year classes,

spawning stock abundance has been

increasing since 1998. However, the

overall stock has a highly truncated age

structure (i.e., there are fewer older fish

than there would be in a healthy stock),

which likely reflects prolonged high

fishing mortality rates. SARC 31 also

noted that F should be reduced

substantially and immediately, and that

a reduction in fishing mortality from

discards would have the most impact on

rebuilding the stock, especially

considering the importance of allowing

recent year classes and all future good

recruitment to contribute to rebuilding

of the stock size and age structure.

The FMP established a target

exploitation rate for scup in 2001 of 33

percent. The total allowable catch (TAC)

associated with that rate is allocated 78

percent to the commercial sector and 22

percent to the recreational sector by the

FMP. Scup discard estimates are

deducted from both TACs to establish

TALs for both sectors (TAC ¥ discards

= TAL). The commercial TAL is then

allocated with differing percentages to

three quota periods—Winter I (January–

April)—45.11 percent; Summer (May–

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 28, 2000 / Proposed Rules 71043

October)—30.95 percent; and Winter II

(Nov–December)—15.94 percent.

The proposed scup specifications for

fishing year 2001 are based on the

exploitation rate in the rebuilding

schedule that was approved when scup

was added to the FMP in 1996, prior to

passage of the Sustainable Fisheries Act

(SFA). Subsequently, to comply with

the SFA amendments to the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and

Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens

Act), the Council prepared Amendment

12, which proposed to maintain the

existing rebuilding schedule. On April

28, 1999, NMFS disapproved that

rebuilding plan for scup because it did

not comply with the Magnuson-Stevens

Act. Although the exploitation rate

portion of the overfishing definition

(converted to an F) was conceptually

sound, though somewhat risk-prone,

NMFS determined that the combination

of that exploitation rate and the general

decline of the stock made the risk that

the rebuilding plan would not achieve

stock rebuilding goals in the long-term

unacceptable. The proposed scup

specifications for 2001 are based on the

exploitation rate that was found to be

conceptually sound. NMFS believes that

the long-term risks that were associated

with the disapproved rebuilding plan do

not apply to the proposed specifications

since they apply only for 1 fishing year

and will be reviewed, and modified as

appropriate, by the Council and NMFS

annually. Furthermore, setting the scup

specifications using that exploitation

rate is a more cautious approach to

managing this resource than not setting

any specifications until the Council

submits, and NMFS approves, a revised

rebuilding plan that meets all

Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements.

Recommended Scup Harvest Limits

In making its recommendation to the

Council, the Scup Monitoring

Committee reviewed the available data.

Deterministic projections of the NEFSC

spring survey SSB, based on year 2000

index values and mean recruitment

from the 1993 to 2000 surveys,

indicated that the 2001 spring survey

SSB could increase to 0.24 kg/tow if the

F on ages 0–4 scup was 1.0. Assuming

an F of 1.0 for 1999, and an average SSB

that is at least equal to the 2000 value

of 0.17 kg/tow in 2001 (average of 0.11

for 1999, 0.15 for 2000, and the

projected 0.24 for 2001), then the target

scup exploitation rate of 33 percent

could be achieved with a 2001 TAL of

5.0 million lb (2.27 million kg), which

is the level recommended by the Scup

Monitoring Committee. Then, using the

same proportion of discards to landings

as assumed for 2000 (57 percent), the

Scup Monitoring Committee

recommended a 2001 TAC of 7.85

million lb (3.56 million kg). Based on

the sector allocation specified in the

FMP (commercial—78 percent;

recreational—22 percent), this results in

a commercial TAC of 6.123 million lb

(2.78 million kg) and a recreational TAC

of 1.727 million lb (0.78 million kg).

The Scup Monitoring Committee

assumed that the proportion of

commercial discards to catch would

remain the same in 2001 as in 2000

(45.1 percent), and estimated

commercial discards of 2.76 million lb

(1.25 million kg), resulting in a

commercial quota of 3.36-million lb

(1.52 million kg). Similarly, assuming

that the proportion of recreational

discards to catch would remain the

same as in 2000 (4.96 percent), then

recreational discards would be 0.09

million lb (0.039 million kg), resulting

in a recreational harvest limit of 1.64

million lb (0.74 million kg).

If a research quota set-aside of 2

percent were implemented for 2001 it

would be deducted from the overall

TAL, and the resulting commercial

quota and recreational harvest limit

would be 3.29 million lb (1.49 million

kg) and 1.61 million lb (0.73 million kg),

respectively.

The commercial allocation

recommended by the Scup Monitoring

Committee is shown, by period, in Table

1. These allocations are preliminary and

would be subject to downward

adjustment, as required by the FMP, for

any landings in excess of quota

allocation in 2000 that are found when

final 2000 data are available (a quota

overage). Since the data collection for

all periods in 2000 has not yet been

finalized, this table shows the

allocations prior to any deductions for

overages. As of October 7, 2000, the

Winter I allocation has been exceeded

by 259,991 lb (117,930 kg) and the

Summer allocation has been exceeded

by 570,326 lb (258,695 kg).

TABLE 1.—PERCENT ALLOCATION OF COMMERCIAL SCUP QUOTA BASED ON THE SCUP MONITORING COMMITTEE

RECOMMENDATION

Period Percent TAC 1 Discards 2

Quota Allocation Possession

Lb

Limits

Kg Lb Kg 3

Winter I ................................................... 45.11 2,762,085

(1,252,860)

1,246,840

(565,557)

1,515,245 687,303 4 10,000 4,536

Summer .................................................. 38.95 2,384,908

(1,081,776)

1,076,577

(488,327)

1,308,331 593,449 *n/a ....................

Winter II .................................................. 15.94 976,006

(442,709)

440,581

(199,844)

535,425 242,865 2,000 907

Total 5 .............................................. 100.00 6,122,999

(2,777,346)

2,763,998

(1,253,728)

3,359,001 1,523,617 .................... ....................

1Total allowable catch, in pounds (kilograms in parentheses).

2 Discard estimates, in pounds (kilograms in parentheses).

3Kilograms are as converted from pounds.

4The Winter I landing limit will drop to 1,000 lb (454 kg) upon attainment of 75 percent of the seasonal allocation.

5Totals subject to rounding error.

*n/a—Not applicable.

At its August 2000 meeting, the

Council reviewed the recommendations

of the Scup Monitoring Committee and

did not accept its TAL and TAC

recommendations. Rather than relying

upon a 2001 SSB estimate of 0.17 kg/

tow, which is based upon a 3-year

average, the Council instead selected an

SSB estimate of 0.21 in 2001, using the

rationale that this value is higher than

the 0.15 SSB value estimated for 2000,

but slightly less than the 0.24 projected

for 2001. Then, assuming an F of 1.0 for

1999, and an SSB estimate of 0.21 kg/

tow in 2001, the target scup exploitation

71044 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 28, 2000 / Proposed Rules

rate of 33 percent could be achieved if

landings (TAL) do not exceed 6.22

million lb (2.82 million kg) in 2001.

Using an assumption different from that

used by the Scup Monitoring

Committee—that the amount of scup

(rather than the proportion) calculated

to be discarded in 2001 would remain

the same as that calculated for 2000

(equating to 2.15 million lb (0.97

million kg)), the Council recommended

a 2001 TAC of 8.37 million lb (3.80

million kg). This would result in a

commercial TAC (78 percent) of 6.53

million lb (2.96 million kg) and a

recreational TAC (22 percent) of 1.84

million lb (0.83 million kg). Using the

same value for scup discards as in 2000,

the commercial discards would be 2.08

million lb (0.94 million kg), and the

commercial quota would be 4.45 million

lb (2.02 million kg). Similarly,

recreational discards would be 0.07

million lb (0.03 million kg), and the

recreational harvest limit would be 1.77

million lb (0.80 million kg).

If a research quota set-aside of 2

percent were implemented, it would be

deducted from the total TAL and the

resulting commercial quota and

recreational harvest limit would be 4.35

million lb (1.97 million kg) and 1.74

million lb (0.79 million kg),

respectively.

The Council’s proposed commercial

scup allocation is shown in Table 2.

These allocations would be subject to

the same downward adjustment for any

overages as would the Scup Monitoring

Committee allocation recommendations,

as explained previously.

TABLE 2.—PERCENT ALLOCATIONS OF COMMERCIAL SCUP QUOTA BASED ON MID-ATLANTIC COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION

Period Percent TAC 1 Discards 2

Quota Allocation Possession

Lb

Limits

Kg Lb Kg 3

Winter I ................................................... 45.11 2,945,502

(1,336,057)

940,543

(426,623)

2,004,959 909,434 4 10,000 4,536

Summer .................................................. 38.95 2,543,280

(1,153,612)

812,108

(368,365)

1,731,172 785,246 *n/a

Winter II .................................................. 15.94 1,040,818

(472,107)

332,349

(150,751)

708,469 321,356 2,000 907

Total 5 .............................................. 100.00 6,529,600

(2,961,776)

2,085,000

(945,739)

4,444,600 2,016,036

1Total allowable catch, in pounds (kilograms in parentheses).

2 Discard estimates, in pounds (kilograms in parentheses).

3Kilograms are as converted from pounds.

4The Winter I possession limit will drop to 1,000 lb (454 kg) upon attainment of 75 percent of the seasonal allocation.

5Totals subject to rounding error.

*n/a—Not applicable.

The Council based its recommended

40-percent increase in the scup quota

from 2000 to 2001 on assumptions that

scup stock biomass would increase from

the estimated 2000 level and that the

absolute amount of scup discarded (2.15

million lb (0.97 million kg)) would

remain the same in 2001, rather than be

proportional to landings. NMFS is

concerned about these assumptions. The

resultant quota recommendation may be

risky and inconsistent with the best

available scientific information, which

indicates that scup biomass is very

low—less than 5 percent of the biomass

level that defines the stock as

overfished. The Scup Monitoring

Committee used a more conservative

assumption that scup biomass would be

no greater in 2001 than in 2000 in

developing its quota recommendation.

The Council also assumed that the

amount of discards would remain the

same in 2001 as in 2000. This

assumption may be unrealistic.

Historically, the discard rate in the scup

fishery has increased with the

appearance of large year classes or has,

at least, remained proportional to

landings. Using the Council’s rationale,

scup discards as a proportion of scup

catch were assumed to decline. The

Scup Monitoring Committee assumed a

constant proportion of discards to catch,

as assumed in 2000, to establish its 2001

commercial quota and recreational

harvest limit recommendations.

Also, although both the Council and

Scup Monitoring Committee assumed

an F of 1.0 in their quota

recommendations, SARC 31 noted that

F is at least 1.0 and possibly greater.

More recent analysis by the NEFSC

indicates that F is greater than 1.0, and

could be as high as 1.95 for the 1998

year class. This may indicate the need

for a more conservative quota

recommendation. For these reasons,

NMFS is seeking public comment on

both the Monitoring Committee’s and

the Council’s 2001 scup quota

recommendations.

To enhance at-sea enforcement, the

Council recommended changing the

current scup trip limits to possession

limits with the additional provision that

these quantities be the maximum

allowed to be landed within a 24-hour

period (calendar day). To achieve the

recommended commercial quotas, the

Council recommended, and these

specifications propose, a Winter I

(January–April) possession limit of

10,000 lb (4,536 kg) with a reduction to

1,000 lb (454 kg) for the remainder of

that period when 75 percent of the

quota allocation is projected to have

been harvested. The Council also

recommended, and these specifications

propose, decreasing the Winter II period

(November–December) possession limit

from 4,000 lb (1,814 kg) to 2,000 lb (907

kg). The Council also recommended

increasing the thresholds that specify

the amount of scup that may be retained

on board a vessel that is using mesh

smaller than 4.5 inches (11 cm). In order

for a vessel to possess scup in excess of

the threshold, mesh smaller than 4.5

inches (11 cm) must be stowed and

unavailable for use. The Council

recommended increasing the threshold

amount from 200 lb (91 kg) to 500 lb

(227 kg) for the period November 1–

April 30. The threshold would remain at

100 lb (45 kg) for the period May 1–

October 31. The Council’s

recommendation to increase the

threshold for the November–April

period is intended to enable vessels to

fish with smaller mesh for a longer

period of time, but could potentially

increase bycatch and subsequent

discard of undersized scup. If discards

are converted to landings due to the

change in the mesh threshold, without

additional discards occurring when the

500-lb (227 kg) threshold is reached, as

the Council and industry believe would

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 28, 2000 / Proposed Rules 71045

occur, then the proposed change could

be acceptable. Therefore, NMFS is

specifically seeking public comments on

the recommendation to increase the

November–April threshold level from

200 lb (91 kg) to 500 lb (227 kg).

Gear Restricted Areas (GRAs)

As noted previously, SARC 31

emphasized the need to reduce fishing

mortality from scup discards. The Scup

Monitoring Committee took heed of this

advice, particularly considering the

importance of the 1999 year class to

future recruitment. Therefore, the Scup

Monitoring Committee recommended

that the Council maintain GRAs. The

GRAs seasonally close areas to specified

small-mesh fisheries using trawl gear

with codend mesh sizes less than 4.5

inches (11 cm), to reduce discards of

scup.

GRAs were originally established by

the Council in the 2000 specifications

for the scup fishery to reduce scup

bycatch in small-mesh fisheries (65 FR

33486, May 24, 2000). The GRAs

established in the 2000 specifications

became effective November 1, 2000.

There are two GRAs: the Northern GRA

(November–December), and the

Southern GRA (January–April). The

Scup Monitoring Committee reviewed a

proposal to modify the existing GRAs

that was developed by the Council staff.

The Council staff analysis indicated that

the modification would decrease scup

discards by 61 percent (as opposed to 71

percent under the existing GRAs), yet

decrease revenues by only $7.2 million

(as opposed to $13.7 million under the

existing GRAs). The Committee

recommended to the Council that the

existing GRAs be modified consistent

with the staff analysis. The Council

adopted this recommendation and

requested NMFS to make the

modification effective November 1,

2000. NMFS has published a proposed

rule (65 FR 65818, November 2, 2000)

that proposes to: (1) Modify the GRAs as

recommended by the Council; (2)

exempt the Atlantic mackerel smallmesh fishery from the GRA restrictions;

(3) exempt the Loligo squid small-mesh

fishery from the GRA restriction from

November 1–December 31, 2000; and (4)

modify the procedure and criteria for

exempting small-mesh fisheries from

the requirements of the GRAs. Further

information concerning the

modification of the GRAs may be found

in the preamble to the proposed rule

and is not repeated here. Subsequent

text of this proposed rule refers to these

modified GRAs as the GRAs

recommended by the Council.

Scup Management Options

While SAW 31 concluded that a

reduction in fishing mortality from

discards would provide the most benefit

to rebuilding the scup stock, the issue

is complicated by a lack of sufficient sea

sampling (observer) data to characterize

the sources of the discards. Although

NMFS does not have a precise estimate

of scup discards, it is known that

discards contribute to the mortality of

small scup, and that levels of scup

discards may have approached or

exceeded scup landings in recent years.

Given the relatively small amount of

observer data, it has been difficult to

determine exactly when, where, and in

what fisheries the discards have

occurred, and what the magnitudes of

the scup discards are. In addition,

because scup are migratory and fishing

operations are mobile, it is difficult to

define GRAs that will be equally

effective over time (i.e., fishing effort

may change over time). All of the

uncertainties have made it difficult to

devise GRAs that are expected to reduce

scup bycatch and discards sufficiently

without also significantly impacting

small-mesh fisheries.

While NMFS has proposed to modify

the GRAs as recommended by the

Council, NMFS also recognizes that

GRAs are not the only way to address

scup discard mortality. Therefore,

through this proposed rule, NMFS is

seeking comments on four possible

options to meet the regulatory

requirement at 50 CFR 648.120 that the

Regional Administrator implement

measures to ensure that the target

exploitation rate will not be exceeded.

The four options vary in terms of the

TAC quota recommendation they

incorporate, the discard deduction made

to calculate TALs, the size and location

of the GRAs, and the fisheries to be

exempted from the GRAs. In general, if

GRAs are used to reduce scup bycatch,

the discard deduction made in

establishing TAL is lower than it would

be without GRAs, and the resultant

quotas are higher. In other words, while

scup need to be rebuilt, there are several

ways to go about achieving that, but all

involve reducing fishing mortality on

scup.

The four options for scup

management in 2001 on which NMFS is

seeking comments are:

Option I—(This option is reflected in

the regulatory text of this proposed rule

as the recommendation of the Council

and does not necessarily reflect NMFS’

preferred alternative.) This option

includes: (1) The Council’s proposed

quota for scup (a TAC of 8.37 million lb

(3.80 million kg), a discard deduction of

2.15 million lb (0.97 million kg), and a

TAL of 6.22 million lb (2.82 million

kg)); (2) the GRAs recommended by the

Council; and (3) exemptions for Atlantic

herring, Atlantic mackerel and Loligo

squid small-mesh fisheries.

Under this option, the commercial

TAC would be 6.53 million lb (2.96

million kg) minus discards of 2.08

million lb (0.94 million kg), resulting in

a commercial quota of 4.45 million lb

(2.02 million kg). The recreational TAC

would be 1.84 million lb (0.83 million

kg) minus discards of 0.07 million lb

(0.03 million kg), resulting in a

recreational harvest limit of 1.77 million

lb (0.80 million kg).

Option II—This option includes: (1)

The Scup Monitoring Committee’s quota

recommendation for 2001 (a TAC of

7.85 million lb (3.56 million kg), a

discard deduction of 2.85 million lb

(1.29 million kg), and a TAL of 5.0

million lb (2.27 million kg)); (2) GRAs

as recommended by the Council; and (3)

exemptions for the Atlantic herring and

Atlantic mackerel small-mesh fisheries.

Under this option, the commercial

TAC would be 6.12 million lb (2.78

million kg) minus discards of 2.76

million lb (1.25 million kg), resulting in

a commercial quota of 3.36 million lb

(1.52 million kg). The recreational TAC

would be 1.73 million lb (0.78 million

kg) minus discards of 0.09 million lb

(0.04 million kg), resulting in a

recreational harvest limit of 1.64 million

lb (0.74 million kg).

Option III—This option includes: (1)

The temporary suspension of GRA

restrictions for 2001; and (2) a TAL

established at a level that is consistent

with the SARC conclusion that

commercial discards are approximately

equal to commercial landings (a TAC of

7.85 million lb (3.56 million kg), a

discard deduction of 3.15 million lb

(1.43 million kg), and a TAL of 4.70

million lb (2.13 million kg).

Under this option, the commercial

TAC would be 6.12 million lb (2.78

million kg) minus discards of 3.06

million lb (1.39 million kg), resulting in

a commercial quota of 3.06 million lb

(1.39 million kg). The recreational TAC

would be 1.73 million lb (0.78 million

kg) minus discards of 0.09 million lb

(0.04 million kg), resulting in a

recreational harvest limit of 1.64 million

lb (0.74 million kg).

Option IV—This option includes: (1)

Modified GRAs that are shorter in

duration and that exclude the Hudson

Canyon area, but incorporate other areas

of high scup concentration and smallmesh fishing activities; (2) the

Monitoring Committee’s quota

recommendation for 2001 (a TAC of

7.85 million lb (3.56 million kg), a

71046 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 28, 2000 / Proposed Rules

discard deduction of 2.85 million lb

(1.29 million kg), and a TAL of 5.0

million lb (2.27 million kg)); and (3)

exemptions for the Atlantic herring and

Atlantic mackerel small-mesh fisheries.

Under this option, the commercial

TAC would be 6.12 million lb (2.78

million kg) minus discards of 2.76

million lb (1.25 million kg), resulting in

a commercial quota of 3.36 million lb

(1.52 million kg). The recreational TAC

would be 1.73 million lb (0.78 million

kg) minus discards of 0.09 million lb

(0.04 million kg), resulting in a

recreational harvest limit of 1.64 million

lb (0.74 million kg).

The more southerly GRA under this

option encompasses a large portion of

the scup stock during the winter

months, and would impact a substantial

amount of coincident fishing effort

directed at Loligo squid, according to

vessel logbook reports. Therefore, the

GRA would be expected to reduce scup

discards in the winter, although a

quantitative estimate of the reduction is

not possible. The coordinates and time

period of the modified GRAs for this

option would be:

NORTHERN GEAR RESTRICTED AREA I

(NOVEMBER 1–DECEMBER 31)

Point N. lat. W. long.

NGA 1 ............... 41° 00′′ 71° 00′′

NGA 2 ............... 41° 00′′ 71° 30′′

NGA 3 ............... 40° 00′ 72° 40′′

NGA 4 ............... 40° 00′′ 72° 05′′

NGA 1 ............... 41° 00′′ 71° 00′′

SOUTHERN GEAR RESTRICTED AREA

(JANUARY 1–MARCH 15)

Point N. lat. W. long.

SGA 1 ............... 39° 20′′ 72° 50′′

SGA 2 ............... 39° 20′′ 72° 25′′

SGA 3 ............... 38° 00′′ 73° 55′′

SGA 4 ............... 37° 00′′ 74° 40′′

SGA 5 ............... 36° 30′′ 74° 40′′

SGA 6 ............... 36° 30′′ 75° 00′′

SGA 7 ............... 37° 00′′ 75° 00′′

SGA 8 ............... 38° 00′′ 74° 20′′

SGA 1 ............... 39° 20′′ 72° 50′′

The four options for managing scup

are significantly different from one

another. While Option I may alleviate

much of the negative economic impacts,

NMFS is concerned that a 40-percent

scup quota increase in combination

with an exemption for the Loligo squid

small-mesh fishery from the GRAs could

result in an unacceptably high level of

fishing mortality. Option II would

incorporate the Scup Monitoring

Committee’s quota recommendation and

the GRAs recommended by the Council,

without exempting the Loligo squid

small-mesh fishery. The Scup

Monitoring Committee’s quota

recommendations appear to be more

risk-averse than the Council’s

recommendation, with regard to discard

assumptions and stock biomass.

However, Option II would have greater

negative economic impacts on smallmesh fisheries than would Option I.

Suspending the GRAs for 2001 and

reducing the scup quota to reflect more

accurately scup discards, as in Option

III, could reduce negative economic

impacts on small-mesh fisheries, but

would likely impose greater impacts on

vessels that are more dependent on scup

than would Options I or II. Option IV,

which would further modify the GRAs,

would allow small-mesh fishing in the

Hudson Canyon area, but would restrict

small-mesh fishing in areas farther

south, albeit for a shorter duration than

under the existing GRAs or the

Council’s proposed GRAs. A more

detailed discussion of the analysis of

these options is found in the

Classification section of this proposed

rule.

When it was discussing the annual

specifications, the Council noted its

interest in obtaining more information

about scup discard through

experimental fisheries. NMFS notes that

it has received one application for an

experimental fishing permit (EFP) to

conduct gear research in the small-mesh

fisheries of the Mid-Atlantic region,

particularly with regard to mesh

selectivity in retaining scup. In order to

issue an EFP, NMFS must publish a

notification in the Federal Register to

allow the public to comment. This

notification should be published in the

near future.

Summer Flounder

In order to comply with a Court Order

issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for

the District of Columbia on April 25,

2000, NMFS implemented an

emergency interim rule on August 2,

2000 (65 FR 47648), temporarily

amending the FMP and its

implementing regulations that establish

the target to be achieved by the 2001

TAL for summer flounder. The

emergency rule established a biomass

target for 2001, rather than the F target

specified in the FMP, and requires that

the 2001 total quota be set at a level that

will achieve, with at least a 50-percent

probability, the biomass level that

would have been achieved at the end of

2001 if the F target had been met in

1999 and 2000, and would be met in

2001.

As indicated in the emergency interim

regulations, the most recent stock

assessment specified a biomass target of

148.8 million lb (67.5 million kg) for

December 31, 2001. The biomass target

was calculated using the results of the

summer flounder stock assessment

completed by SARC 31 in June 2000.

Although the F of 0.32 estimated for

1999 represents a significant decline

from the F of 1.31 estimated for 1994,

the assessment indicates that the stock

is still overfished and overfishing is still

occurring, relative to the FMP

overfishing definitions. Spawning stock

biomass (SSB) has increased steadily

each year since 1989 to a current 64.8

million lb (29.4 million kg), the highest

value in the time series. However, total

stock biomass, which is the basis for the

overfishing definition, has been stable

since 1994. Projections based on

assumptions about future landings,

discards, and recruitment to the stock,

indicate that if the 2000 TAL is not

exceeded, total stock biomass will

exceed the minimum biomass threshold

in January 2001. Because of these

assumptions, however, the forecast of

stock biomass for January 2001 has a

wide confidence interval. When the

total stock biomass is above the stock’s

minimum biomass threshold, the stock

will no longer be considered overfished,

though it will remain below the level

necessary to produce maximum

sustainable yield (Bmsy). Because the

Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that

stocks be managed to produce MSY,

additional rebuilding of the stock still

needs to be accomplished.

The SARC 31 assessment estimated

the 1999 year class to be the smallest

since 1988, at 19 million fish. However,

the Council noted that the Virtual

Population Analysis (VPA) tends to

underestimate the size of recent yearclasses. Year-class estimates for 1996,

1997 and 1998, based on the VPA,

ranged from 32 to 38 million fish, which

is about average.

The Summer Flounder Monitoring

Committee reviewed the stock status

and projections to meet the biomass

target based on these data and

recommended a 17.91-million lb (8.125

million kg) TAL for 2001, which would

be divided into a commercial quota of

10.75 million lb (4.877 million kg) and

a recreational harvest limit of 7.16

million lb (3.248 million kg). The

Council adopted these

recommendations, and NMFS proposes

to implement them because they are

consistent with the emergency interim

rule. Based on the current status of the

stock and the catches estimated for 1999

and 2000, this level has a 50-percent

probability of achieving the 2001

biomass target of 148.8 million lb (6,751

mt).

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 28, 2000 / Proposed Rules 71047

Although the Council and the Board

met jointly, the Board declined to make

a TAL recommendation for summer

flounder in August 2000. The Board is

scheduled to make its TAL

recommendation at a meeting on

November 29, 2000.

Currently, the Commission has

voluntary measures in place to decrease

discards of sublegal fish in the

commercial fishery, as well as to reduce

regulatory discards occurring as a result

of landing limits in the states. The

Commission established a system

whereby 15 percent of each state’s quota

could be voluntarily set aside each year

for vessels to land an incidental catch

allowance (implemented as trip limits)

after the directed fishery has been

closed. The intent of the voluntary

incidental catch set-aside is to reduce

discards by allowing fishermen to land

summer flounder caught incidentally in

other fisheries during the year, while

also ensuring that the state’s overall

quota is not exceeded.

The FMP requires that landings of

summer flounder in excess of a state’s

commercial quota allocation in one year

be deducted from that state’s allocation

for the following year. The emergency

interim rule established a provision for

the specification of quotas in 2001

whereby any under-harvest of an

individual state’s summer flounder

commercial quota in 2000 would be

applied to the final 2001 specifications

for that state. This temporary measure

was enacted because NMFS expected

that some states might have been

prompted by the Court Order to reduce

commercial harvests prior to the

implementation of the emergency

measures. Therefore, the measure was

established to avoid penalizing states for

their precautionary action.

The proposed commercial quotas, by

state, for 2001 are presented in Table 3.

These quotas are preliminary and

subject to downward or upward

adjustments if there are overages or

underages in a state’s 2000 harvest. As

of October 13, 2000, the only known

overages are 2,033 lb (922 kg) in Maine

and 14,142 lb (6,415 kg) in New Jersey.

These and additional adjustments will

be necessary as 2000 landings data are

finalized. NMFS will publish such

adjustments in the Federal Register.

TABLE 3.—2001 SUMMER FLOUNDER STATE COMMERCIAL QUOTAS

State Percent

share

Directed 15 Percent as incidental

catch

Total

lb kg1

lb kg1 lb kg1

ME ............................................................ 0.04756 4,345 1,971 767 348 5,112 2,319

NH ............................................................ 0.00046 42 19 7 3 49 22

MA ............................................................ 6.82046 623,076 282,625 109,955 49,875 733,031 332,501

RI .............................................................. 15.68298 1,432,704 649,870 252,830 114,683 1,685,534 764,553

CT ............................................................ 2.25708 206,193 93,529 36,387 16,505 242,580 110,034

NY ............................................................ 7.64699 698,583 316,875 123,280 55,919 821,863 372,795

NJ ............................................................. 16.72499 1,527,896 693,049 269,628 122,302 1,797,524 815,352

DE ............................................................ 0.01779 1,625 737 287 130 1,912 867

MD ............................................................ 2.03910 186,280 84,496 32,873 14,911 219,153 99,407

VA ............................................................ 21.31676 1,947,372 883,322 343,654 155,880 2,291,026 1,039,203

NC ............................................................ 27.44584 2,507,289 1,137,299 442,462 200,699 2,949,751 1,337,998

Total .............................................. 100.00 9,135,405 4,143,793 1,612,130 731,257 10,747,535 4,875,050

1Kilograms are as converted from pounds and do not add to the converted total due to rounding.

If a 2-percent research quota set-aside

were implemented for the 2001 fishery,

the total commercial quota would be

10,532,584 lb (4,777,500 kg).

Black Sea Bass

Black sea bass was last assessed by

the 27th Northeast Regional Stock

Assessment Review Committee (SARC

27), with results published December

1998. SARC 27 indicated that black sea

bass are over-exploited and at a low

biomass level. However, relative

exploitation rates, based on the total

commercial and recreational landings

and the moving average of the logtransformed spring survey index (an

index based on scientific sampling of

the distribution and relative

abundance), indicate a significant

reduction in mortality in 1998 and 1999

relative to 1996 and 1997 levels.

Relative exploitation rates in 1999 were

nearly identical to those estimated for

1998.

Results of the spring trawl surveys

conducted by the NEFSC indicate that

stock size of black sea bass has

increased in recent years. The 3-year

moving average for 1998–2000 is 42

percent higher than the value for 1997–

1999. In addition, the recruitment index

for 2000 (1.135) is the highest in the

time series 1968–2000.

The FMP specifies a target

exploitation rate of 37 percent for 2001.

Although the exploitation rate for 2000

is uncertain, relative exploitation

indices have declined in recent years.

Based on length frequencies from the

spring survey, and assuming length at

full recruitment of 25 cm, the average F

was 0.75 (48-percent exploitation rate)

in 1998. If the 2001 biomass is at least

equal to the 2000 value, and assuming

an exploitation rate of 48 percent in

1998, the TAL could remain the same

and the exploitation rate would be

expected to drop to 35 percent, which

is close to the 2001 target of 37 percent

specified in the FMP.

The Black Sea Bass Monitoring

Committee (BSB Monitoring Committee)

reviewed this information and

recommended that the 2001 TAL remain

the same as in 2000—6.173 million lb

(2.80 million kg). Based on this TAL, the

commercial quota would be 3.025

million lb (1.37 million kg) and the

recreational harvest limit would be

3.148 million lb (1.43 million kg). The

BSB Monitoring Committee also

recommended that the minimum fish

size, mesh size, and pot or trap gear vent

size remain unchanged, and that the

threshold triggering the minimum meshsize requirement be reduced from 1,000

lb (454 kg) to 200 lb (91 kg). The BSB

Monitoring Committee recommended

the threshold reduction to discourage

small-mesh directed fishing for black

sea bass. In addition, the BSB

Monitoring Committee recommended

that the possession limits be reduced to

1,500 lb (680 kg) in Quarters 2 and 4,

and to 1,000 lb (454 kg) in Quarter 3.

The Quarter 1 possession limit would

remain at 9,000 lb (4,082 kg). The BSB

Monitoring Committee believed that

71048 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 28, 2000 / Proposed Rules

these possession limits would provide

the best chance of allowing the quotas

to be harvested, while allowing the

fishery to remain open for the entire

quarter, thus providing extended fishing

opportunities.

At their August 2000 meeting, the

Council and Board voted to adopt the

BSB Monitoring Committee’s

recommendations for the black sea bass

TAL and reductions in the possession

limits for Quarters 2 and 3. The Council

also voted to set the possession limit for

Quarter 4 at 2,000 lb (907 kg), rather

than at 1,500 lb (680 kg) as

recommended by the BSB Monitoring

Committee. Possession limit reductions

were recommended to prevent quota

overages in each quarter. In addition,

the Council recommended changing the

current trip limits for black sea bass to

possession limits to enhance at-sea

enforcement, with the provision that

these quantities be the maximum

allowed to be landed within a 24-hour

period (calendar day). The Council and

Board recommended maintaining other

measures at status quo, including

minimum mesh size, minimum fish

size, and sea bass pot vent size. The

Council and Board did not accept the

BSB Monitoring Committee’s

recommendation to drop the level of

catch triggering the requirement to use

the minimum mesh of 4.0 inches (10.2

cm) from 1,000 lb (454 kg) to 200 lb (91

kg).

The proposed commercial quota and

corresponding possession limits are

shown in Table 4. These allocations are

preliminary and would be subject to a

downward adjustment for any overages

in a period’s harvest in 2000, as

provided in the FMP. Since the data

collection for all periods in 2000 has not

yet been finalized, this table shows the

allocations prior to any deductions. As

of October 7, 2000, the Quarter 2

commercial quota has been exceeded by

229,075 lb (103,907 kg) and the Quarter

3 commercial quota has been exceeded

by 64,101 lb (29,076 kg). Additional

adjustments will be necessary as 2000

landings data are finalized.

TABLE 4.—2001 BLACK SEA BASS QUARTERLY COASTWIDE COMMERCIAL QUOTAS AND QUARTERLY POSSESSION LIMITS

Quarter Percent Lb Kg

Possession limits

Lb Kg

1 (Jan-Mar) ............................................................................................... 38.64 1,168,760 530,141 9000 4,082

2 (Apr-Jun) ................................................................................................ 29.26 885,040 401,447 1500 680

3 (Jul-Sep) ................................................................................................ 12.33 372,951 169,168 1000 454

4 (Oct-Dec) ............................................................................................... 19.77 597,991 271,244 2000 907

Total ............................................................................................... 100.00 3,024,742 1,372,000 .................... ....................

If a research quota set-aside of 2

percent were implemented for the 2001

fishery, the resulting commercial quota

and recreational harvest limit would be

2,959,600 lb (1,342,452 kg) and

3,087,000 lb (1,400,239 kg),

respectively.

Classification

This proposed rule has been

determined to be not significant for

purposes of Executive Order 12866.

The Council and NMFS prepared an

IRFA that describes the economic

impact this proposed rule, if adopted,

would have on small entities. A

description of the action, why it is being

considered, and the legal basis for this

action are contained at the beginning of

this section of the preamble and in the

SUMMARY section of the preamble. This

proposed rule does not duplicate,

overlap, or conflict with other Federal

rules. A copy of the complete IRFA can

be obtained from the Northeast Regional

Office of NMFS (see ADDRESSES) or via

the Internet at http:/www.nero.

nmfs.gov/ro/doc/nero.html. A summary

of the analysis follows.

NMFS prepared an Integrated

Analysis of Alternatives for the EA/RIR/

IRFA (NMFS’ analysis) as a

supplemental analysis to the IRFA to

examine the overall economic impacts

of the four options that are being

considered for scup management, in

combination with the proposed

measures for summer flounder and

black sea bass. Specifically, NMFS’

comprehensive analysis incorporated

the effects of the proposed GRAs, the

proposed scup quotas, the preferred

scup trip limits, the preferred summer

flounder and black sea bass quotas and

trip limits, and any known 2000

overages that would impact 2001

quotas. NMFS’ analysis was similar to

that of the Council, but there are several

substantive differences. First, the

Council’s analysis evaluated the

recommended quota specifications and

GRA impacts separately, using different

data sets and different methods; NMFS

analyzed the combined effects of the

GRAs and the quota specifications for

all three species. Second, the Council

did not incorporate the economic effects

of the trip limit changes for scup and

black sea bass; NMFS did. Third, the

Council’s analysis did not reflect the

fact that no non-exempt small-mesh

species may be retained within the

GRAs; NMFS’ analysis does reflect this.

Finally, the Council’s analysis of the

GRAs was based on combinations of

dealer and sea sampling (observer) data,

whereas NMFS used calendar year 1999

logbook and dealer data to analyze the

economic impacts of the quota

specifications, GRAs, and trip limit

changes in a single model. NMFS

believes that this approach incorporates

a more thorough assessment of the

combined effects of the proposed

management measures for 2001. The

four scup management options were

evaluated and compared against the

2000 measures, which was considered

the status quo alternative.

The economic effects of the four scup

options were analyzed using two

different proration methods to provide a

range of impacts. In the first method

(quota baseline), 1999 fishing year data

were prorated by the percent change in

the proposed 2001 adjusted quotas and

then compared to the adjusted 2000

quotas. This proration scheme reflects

changes in fishing opportunity from one

year to the next, without biasing the

impacts due to a large overage that may

have occurred in the baseline year.

Nevertheless, a large overage in a given

year does represent a potential loss of

income to participating vessels in the

subsequent year. Therefore, a second

proration scheme was developed. Under

the second method (landings baseline),

the adjusted 2001 quota was compared

to actual 2000 landings wherever

available, and to 1999 landings

otherwise. Using both proration

schemes provides a range to estimate

economic impacts for the status quo and

all other alternatives considered. The

alternatives and results of the analyses

are summarized below.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 28, 2000 / Proposed Rules 71049

The use of 2000 measures as status

quo provides the baseline against which

the proposed options are compared. The

status quo was defined as being

equivalent to a continuation of measures

that were in effect for fishing year 2000

into 2001, except that the summer

flounder TAL was adjusted to 17.91

million lb (8.12 million kg), which is the

level necessary to meet the requirements

of the Court Order. The GRAs analyzed

as status quo are the GRAs

recommended by the Council, except

that Atlantic herring was the only

exempted fishery. The fishing year 2000

trip limits for black sea bass and scup

were assumed to be carried forward to

2001. Affected trips for the analysis of

GRA impacts were those fishing trips

that used less than 4.5-inch (11.43 cm)

mesh during the proposed time and

areas of the GRAs. Exempted trips were

composed of trips in the area

encompassed by the GRA that landed

herring. Consistent with the exemption

regulations that were implemented for

fishing year 2000, landings of any nonexempt small-mesh species other than

herring (Atlantic mackerel, Loligo squid,

whiting, black sea bass) were deducted

from total landings on exempted trips. While the scup options have been

described earlier in this preamble, the

analyses made other assumptions as

well. Based on 1999 logbook data, under

Option I, aggregate scup landings would

be expected to exceed 75 percent of the

resulting Winter I scup quota, so a

10,000-lb (4,536-kg) trip limit was

assumed to prevail for the entire Winter

I period. For Options II, III, and IV, the

lower overall 2001 TAL for scup means

that 75 percent of the Winter I scup

quota would likely be reached by the

end of February, based on 1999 logbook

data, so a 1,000-lb (454-kg) trip limit for

scup was applied for March and April

of the Winter I period under these three

options. NMFS’ analysis found that the

proposed management measures

potentially impact a total of 1,158

vessels that participated in at least one

of the summer flounder, scup and black

sea bass fisheries, or had fished with

mobile gear with less than 4.5-inch

(11.43 cm) mesh inside at least one of

the proposed GRAs. Using the landings baseline proration

method, Options I and III are expected

to yield total gross revenues higher than

would the status quo measures by

approximately $0.91 million and $0.40

million, respectively, whereas Options

II and IV yielded total gross revenues

lower than the status quo by

approximately $0.16 million and $0.13

million, respectively. As part of the IRFA supplement,

NMFS’ analysis examined the four

options relative to the status quo (2000

measures, as described earlier) to

determine the percentage of the 1,158

potentially affected vessels that would

experience a revenue loss of 5 percent

or greater. A summary is provided here.

PERCENT OF VESSELS EXPERIENCING

REVENUE LOSS > 5%

Landings

baseline

Quota

baseline

Option I ..................... 2.1 3.4

Option II .................... 3.2 4.6

Option III ................... 2.8 4.1

Option IV ................... 2.9 4.7

The Council’s IRFA analysis

examined the cumulative impacts of

four alternative levels of commercial

harvest limits (see Table 5). Alternative

1 analyzed the cumulative impacts of

the harvest limits proposed by the

Council and Board for summer flounder,

scup, and black sea bass on vessels that

are permitted to catch any of these three

species. Alternative 2 analyzed the

cumulative impacts if the harvest limits

remained the same as 2000 (status quo).

Alternative 3 analyzed the cumulative

impacts of the least restrictive possible

harvest levels—those that would result

in the least reductions (or greatest

increases) in landings (relative to 1999)

for all species. Alternative 3 resulted in

the highest possible landings for 2001,

regardless of their probability of

achieving the biological targets.

Alternative 4 analyzed the cumulative

impacts of the most restrictive possible

harvest levels—those that would result

in the greatest reductions in landings

(relative to 1999) for all species.

TABLE 5.—COMPARISON OF THE ALTERNATIVES OF QUOTA COMBINATIONS REVIEWED

Commercial

quota

Quota specification as

a proportion

of the 2000

quotas

Percent

change

Quota Alternative 1 (Council Alternative):

FLK Preferred Alternative ................................................................................................................. 10,747,535 0.967 ¥3.27

Scup Preferred Alternative ............................................................................................................... 4,444,600 1.754 75.38

Black Sea Bass Preferred Alternative .............................................................................................. 3,024,742 1 0

Quota Alternative 2 (Status Quo):

FLK Status Quo ................................................................................................................................ 11,111,298 1 0

Scup Status Quo .............................................................................................................................. 2,534,160 1 0

Black Sea Bass Status Quo ............................................................................................................. 3,024,742 1 0

Quota Alternative 3 (Least Restrictive):

FLK Non-Selected Alternative 3 ....................................................................................................... 12,276,662 1.105 10.49

Scup Non-Selected Alternative 3 ..................................................................................................... 5,138,800 2.028 102.78

Black Sea Bass Non-Selected Alternative 3 .................................................................................... 3,875,900 1.281 28.14

Quota Alternative 4 (Most Restrictive):

FLK Non-Selected Alternative 4 ....................................................................................................... 9,940,643 0.895 ¥10.54

Scup Non-Selected Alternative 4 ..................................................................................................... 3,496,120 1.380 37.96

Black Sea Bass Non-Selected Alternative 4 .................................................................................... 1,999,200 0.661 ¥33.91

‘‘FLK’’ is summer flounder

The categories of small entities likely

to be affected by this action include

commercial vessel owners holding an

active Federal permit for summer

flounder, scup, or black sea bass, as well

as vessels that fish for any of these

species in state waters. The Council

estimates that the proposed 2001 quotas

could affect 1,969 vessels with a Federal

summer flounder, scup, and/or black

sea bass permit. Of these, 1,087 vessels

are actively participating (i.e., landed

catch in 1999) in these fisheries. Note

that this number is lower than the

number estimated to be impacted in the

NMFS analysis. This is because the

NMFS analysis also includes vessels

71050 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 28, 2000 / Proposed Rules

that used fishing mesh less than 4.5

inches (11.43 cm) within the GRAs.

The Council’s analysis of the harvest

limits in Alternative 1 indicates that

these harvest levels would result in

greater than a 5-percent revenue loss to

eight of the 1,087 commercial vessels

expected to be impacted by this rule.

Six of the vessels with projected

revenue losses of 5 percent or greater

landed black sea bass only, one vessel

landed scup and black sea bass, and the

other vessel landed black sea bass and

summer flounder. Six vessels would

experience no change in revenue. Five

hundred and forty-four vessels would

experience revenue losses of less than 5

percent, and 529 vessels would

experience an increase in revenue under

the Council’s proposed harvest limits.

The analysis of Alternative 2 (status

quo) indicated that these harvest limits

would result in a revenue loss of 5

percent or greater to 15 of the 1,087

commercial vessels expected to be

impacted by this rule. Six of the vessels

with projected revenue losses of 5

percent or greater landed black sea bass

only, five vessels landed scup and black

sea bass, one vessel landed black sea

bass and summer flounder, two vessels

landed summer flounder scup and black

sea bass, and one vessel landed scup

only. No change in revenue would be

experienced under the Alternative 2 by

6 vessels, while 95 vessels would have

revenue losses less than 5 percent. 971

vessels would experience an increase in

revenue.

The analysis of the least restrictive

harvest limits (Alternative 3) indicated

that none of the 1,087 vessels expected

to be impacted by this rule would

experience revenue losses of 5 percent

or greater. All but one of the vessels

would experience an increase in

revenue. The vessel projected to

experience a revenue loss of less than 5

percent possessed a summer flounder

permit.

The analysis of the most restrictive

harvest limits (Alternative 4) indicated

that revenue reductions of 5 percent or

more would be experienced by 214 out

of the 1,087 commercial vessels

expected to be impacted by this rule.

Eighty-six of the vessels with projected

revenue losses of 5 percent or greater

landed black sea bass only; 39 vessels

landed summer flounder, scup and

black sea bass; 38 vessels landed black

sea bass and summer flounder; 25

vessels landed summer flounder only;

22 vessels landed scup and black sea

bass; and 4 vessels landed summer

flounder and scup. Six hundred and

eighty-nine vessels would have a

revenue loss less than 5 percent, and

184 vessels would experience an

increase in revenue.

The Council also prepared an analysis

of the alternative recreational harvest

limits. For the summer flounder

recreational fishery, the preferred

harvest limit of 7.165 million lb (3.25

million kg) in 2001 (Alternative 1) is

only slightly less than the harvest limit

for 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000, and

about 1.201 million lb (0.54 million kg)

below the recreational landings for

1999. Alternative 2’s recreational

harvest limit of 7.41 million lb (3.36

million kg) in 2001 would be the same

harvest level that was implemented

each year beginning in 1997. However,

it could result in a decrease in

recreational landings of about 1 million

lb (0.45 million kg) from estimated

recreational landings for 1999.

Alternative 4’s recreational harvest limit

of 6.63 million lb (3.0 million kg) in

2001 would be 0.78 million lb (0.35

million kg) below the recreational

harvest limit for 2000 and 0.96 million

lb (0.44 million kg) below the 1999

recreational landings. If Alternative 1, 2,

or 4 were chosen, it is likely that more

restrictive management measures would

be required to prevent anglers from

exceeding the recreational harvest limit

in 2001. The effect of greater restrictions

is unknown at this time. More limiting

regulations could affect demand for

party/charter boat trips. However, party/

charter activity in the 1990s has

remained relatively stable, so the effects

may be minimal. Alternative 3 would

allocate 8.184 million lb (3.71 million

kg) to the summer flounder recreational

fishery and would increase short-term

economic benefits due to increased

landings.

For the scup recreational fishery,

Alternative 1’s recreational harvest limit

of 1.77 million lb (0.80 million kg) is

nearly identical to 1999 landings and,

therefore, should have minimal impacts.

Alternative 2’s limit of 1.238 million lb

(0.56 million kg) could result in a

decrease in recreational landings of

about 0.65 million lb (0.29 million kg)

from estimated recreational landings for

1999. Alternative 4’s recreational

harvest limit of 1.504 million lb (0.68

million kg) ould be a 20-percent

decrease from the 1999 recreational

landings, but 0.3 million lb (0.14

million kg) more than the recreational

harvest limit implemented for 2000.

With Alternative 2 or 4, it is likely that

more restrictive management measures

would be required to prevent anglers

from exceeding the recreational harvest

limit in 2001. The effect of greater

restrictions on party/charter boats is

unknown at this time. Alternative 3

would increase the recreational harvest

limit by 4 percent compared to 1999

recreational landings, or to 1.967

million lb (0.89 million kg), and

therefore is not expected to result in

negative economic impacts.

For the black sea bass recreational

fishery, harvest limits under Alternative

1 and 2 (3.14 million lb (1.42 million

kg)) are about 85 percent above the 1999

recreational landings. As such they are

not expected to result in negative

economic impacts on the recreational

fishery. Under Alternative 3 and 4

recreational landings would be

increased by more than 2 million lb

(0.90 million kg) and 0.38 million lb

(0.17 million kg), respectively, over the

1999 landings estimate; therefore these

alternatives are not expected to cause

negative economic impacts.

The Council analysis used 1998

Vessel Trip Report (VTR) data to

estimate that a maximum of 172 vessels

would be affected by the GRAs. The

Council’s analysis identified affected

vessels as those that fished with trawl

gear with codend mesh less than 4.5

inches (11.4 cm) in the largest of the

GRAs evaluated in the 2000

specifications. These GRAs incorporated

full statistical areas, while the GRAs

that were implemented and that are

analyzed here are smaller. Therefore,

the Council concluded that 172 vessels

would represent the maximum number

of affected entities; the actual number

would likely be smaller but could not be

quantified.

The Council noted that the economic

impacts of the GRA alternatives may be

overestimated because the GRAs do not

prohibit all trawling activity, but may

rather redirect it to other open areas.

The amount of redirection could not be

quantified. The economic impacts of a

reduction in landings from inside the

GRAs are likely to be mitigated by an

increase in landings from outside the

GRAs, though vessel costs could

increase if being displaced from the

GRAs increases trip length or decreases

catch per unit effort.

The Council analysis concludes that

the proposed mesh threshold increase

from 200 lb to 500 lb (91 kg to 227 kg)

for the November–April period is

expected to have a positive impact on

harvesters using small mesh, since more

scup will be able to be retained in the

small mesh fishery than under the status

quo.

The 75-percent landing trigger

proposed for the scup Winter I period

would decrease the landing limit from

10,000 lb (4,536 kg) to 1,000 lb (453 kg)

per trip. An 85-percent trigger was used

in 2000. The 75-percent trigger is

expected to decrease landings early

enough in the period so that the quota

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 28, 2000 / Proposed Rules 71051

will be distributed over more of the

Winter I period. This measure is not

expected to have a major negative effect

on landings during the period, because

it is not a major change from the 2000

measure.

The major impact associated with the

proposed change in the scup possession

limit in Winter II from 4,000 lb (1,814

kg) to 2,000 lb (907 kg) is a potential

increase in the number of trips made by

vessels during that period. The Council

estimated that the proposed change in

the possession limit for Winter II would

increase the numbers of trips from 142

to 232. If harvesters are unable to make

additional trips to compensate for the

reduction in landings associated with

the possession limit (142 trips was a

limiting factor), then each of the

estimated 49 vessels landing scup in

this period would lose an estimated

$3,692. This loss in revenue is likely to

be overestimated, since vessels could

make additional trips or fish longer on

the same trips for other species to

compensate for landings reductions

associated with the proposed scup

possession limit. This would have an

unknown impact on scup mortaltiy.

The major impact associated with the

proposed black sea bass possession limit

changes in Quarter 2, from 3,000 lb

(1,361 kg) to 1,500 lb (680 kg) and

Quarter 3, from 2,000 lb (907 kg) to

1,000 lb (454 kg) is a potential increase

in the number of trips made by vessels

during those periods. Based on 1999

dealer reports, the Council estimated

that the proposed possession limits for

Quarters 2 and 3 would increase the

numbers of trips needed to land the

same amount of black sea bass landed

during those quarters in 1999 from 144

to 256, and from 102 to 177,

respectively. If harvesters are unable to

make additional trips to compensate for

the reduction in landings associated

with the possession limits (144 and 102

trips were limiting factors), each vessel

would lose an estimated $7,802 and

$7,065 during Quarters 2 and 3,

respectively. These revenue losses are

likely to be overestimated, since vessels

could make additional trips or fish

longer on the same trips for other

species to compensate for landings

reductions associated with the proposed

landing limit. This would have an

unknown impact on black sea bass

mortality.

The President has directed Federal

agencies to use plain language in their

communications with the public,

including regulations. To comply with

this directive, we seek public comment

on any ambiguity or unnecessary

complexity arising from the language

used in this proposed rule. Such

comments should be sent to the

Northeast Regional Administrator (see

ADDRESSES).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648

Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: November 22, 2000.

William T. Hogarth,

Deputy Assistant Administrator for Fisheries,

National Marine Fisheries Service.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is proposed

to be 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 § 648.14, paragraph (a)(123) is

removed; and paragraphs (a)(84), (a)(92),

(a)(122) and (u)(9) are revised to read as

follows:

§ 648.14 Prohibitions.

(a) * * *

(84) Fish for, catch, possess, or retain

scup in or from the EEZ north of

35°15.3′ N. lat. in excess of the amount

specified in § 648.123 (500 lb (226.8 kg)

or more from November 1–April 30, or

100 lb (45.4 kg) or more from May 1–

October 31), unless the vessel meets the

gear restrictions in § 648.123.

* * * * *

(92) Fish for, catch, possess, or retain

1,000 lb (453.4 kg) or more of black sea

bass in or from the EEZ north of 35°15.3′

N. lat., the latitude of Cape Hatteras

Light, NC, to the U.S.—Canadian border,

unless the vessel meets the gear

restrictions of § 648.144.

* * * * *

(122) Fish for, catch, possess, retain or

land silver hake or black sea bass in or

from the areas, and during the time

periods, described in § 648.122(a), (b),

or (c) while in possession of any trawl

nets or netting that do not meet the

minimum mesh restrictions, or that are

modified, obstructed or constricted, as

specified in § 648.122 and § 648.123(a),

unless the nets or netting are stowed in

accordance with § 648.23(b).

* * * * *

(u) * * *

(9) Possess, retain, or land black sea

bass harvested in or from the EEZ in

excess of the commercial possession

limit established at § 648.140.

* * * * *

3. In § 648.120, paragraph (b)(2) is

revised to read as follows:

§ 648.120 Catch quotas and other

restrictions.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(2) Possession limits for the Winter I

and Winter II periods. The possession

limit is the maximum quantity of scup

that is allowed to be landed within a 24

hour period (calendar day).

* * * * *

4. In § 648.122, paragraphs (d) and (e)

are redesignated as (e) and (f);

paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) are revised,

and a new paragraph (d) is added as

follows:

§ 648.122 Season and area restrictions.

(a) Southern Gear Restricted Area. (1)

From January 1 through April 30, all

trawl vessels in the Southern Gear

Restricted Area that fish for or possess

non-exempt species as specified in

paragraph (a)(2) of this section, must

fish with nets that have a minimum

mesh size of 4.5 inches (11.43 cm)

diamond mesh, applied throughout the

codend for at least 75 continuous

meshes forward of the terminus of the

net. For codends with fewer than 75

meshes, the minimum-mesh-size

codend must be a minimum of one-third

of the net, measured from the terminus

of the codend to the head rope,

excluding any turtle excluder device

extension, unless otherwise specified in

this section. The Southern Gear

Restricted Area is an area bounded by

straight lines connecting the following

points in the order stated (copies of a

chart depicting the area are available

from the Regional Administrator upon

request):

SOUTHERN GEAR RESTRICTED AREA

Point N. Lat. W. Long.

SGA1 ........................ 39°00′ 72°50′

SGA2 ........................ 39°11′ 72°58′

SGA3 ........................ 38°00′ 74°05′

SGA4 ........................ 38°00′ 73°57′

SGA1 ........................ 39°00′ 72°50′

(2) Non-exempt species. Unless

otherwise specified in paragraph (d) of

this section, the restrictions specified in

paragraph (a)(1) of this section apply

only to vessels in the Southern Gear

Restricted Area that are fishing for or in

possession of the following non-exempt

species: Black sea bass and silver hake

(whiting).

(b) Northern Gear Restricted Area I.

(1) From November 1 through December

31, all trawl vessels in the Northern

Gear Restricted Area I that fish for or

possess non-exempt species as specified

in paragraph (b)(2) of this section must

fish with nets that have a minimum

71052 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 28, 2000 / Proposed Rules

mesh size of 4.5 inches (11.43 cm)

diamond mesh, applied throughout the

codend for at least 75 continuous

meshes forward of the terminus of the

net. For codends with fewer than 75

meshes, the minimum-mesh-size

codend must be a minimum of one-third

of the net, measured from the terminus

of the codend to the head rope,

excluding any turtle excluder device

extension, unless otherwise specified in

this section. The Northern Gear

Restricted Area I is an area bounded by

straight lines connecting the following

points in the order stated (copies of a

chart depicting the area are available

from the Regional Administrator upon

request):

NORTHERN GEAR RESTRICTED AREA I

Point N. Lat. W. Long.

NGA1 ................ 41°00′ 71°00′

NGA2 ................ 41°00′ 71°30′

NGA3 ................ 40°00′ 72°40′

NGA4 ................ 40°00′ 72°05′

NGA1 ................ 41°00′ 71°00′

(2) Non-exempt species. Unless

otherwise specified in paragraph (d) of

this section, the restrictions specified in

paragraph (b)(1) of this section apply

only to vessels in the Northern Gear

Restricted Area I that are fishing for, or

in possession of, the following nonexempt species: Black sea bass and

silver hake (whiting).

(c) Northern Gear Restricted Area II.

(1) From December 1 through January

31, all trawl vessels in the Northern

Gear Restricted Area II that fish for or

possess non-exempt species as specified

in paragraph (c)(2) of this section must

fish with nets that have a minimum

mesh size of 4.5 inches (11.43 cm)

diamond mesh, applied throughout the

codend for at least 75 continuous

meshes forward of the terminus of the

net. For codends with fewer than 75

meshes, the minimum-mesh-size

codend must be a minimum of one-third

of the net, measured from the terminus

of the codend to the head rope,

excluding any turtle excluder device

extension, unless otherwise specified in

this section. The Northern Gear

Restricted Area II is an area bounded by

straight lines connecting the following

points in the order stated (copies of a

chart depicting the area are available

from the Regional Administrator upon

request):

NORTHERN GEAR RESTRICTED AREA II

Point N. Lat. W. Long.

NGA6 ................ 40°00′ 71°40′

NGA7 ................ 40°00′ 72°10′

NGA8 ................ 39°00′ 73°09′

NGA9 ................ 39°00′ 72°50′

NGA6 ................ 40°00′ 71°40′

(2) Non-exempt species. Unless

otherwise specified in paragraph (d) of

this section, the restrictions specified in

paragraph (c)(1) of this section apply

only to vessels in the Northern Gear

Restricted Area II that are fishing for, or

in possession of, the following nonexempt species: Black sea bass, Loligo

squid, and silver hake (whiting).

(d) Transiting. Vessels that are subject

to the provisions of the Southern and

Northern GRAs, as specified in

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

section, respectively, may transit these

areas provided that trawl net codends

on board of mesh size less than that

specified in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c)

of this section are not available for

immediate use and are stowed in

accordance with the provisions of

§ 648.23(b).

* * * * *

5. In § 648.123, paragraphs (a)(1) and

(a)(5) are revised to read as follows:

§ 648.123 Gear restrictions.

(a) * * *

(1) Minimum mesh size. The owners

or operators of otter trawlers who are

issued a scup moratorium permit and

who possess 500 lb (226.8 kg) or more

of scup from November 1 through April

30, or 100 lb (45.4 kg) or more of scup

from May 1 through October 31, must

fish with nets that have a minimum

mesh size of 4.5 inches (11.43 cm)

diamond mesh, applied throughout the

codend for at least 75 continuous

meshes forward of the terminus of the

net. For codends with fewer than 75

meshes, the minimum-mesh-size

codend must be a minimum of one-third

of the net, measured from the terminus

of the codend to the head rope,

excluding any turtle excluder device

extension. Scup on board these vessels

shall be stored separately and kept

readily available for inspection.

* * * * *

(5) Stowage of nets. The owner or

operator of an otter trawl vessel

retaining 500 lb (226.8 kg) or more of

scup from November 1 through April

30, or 100 lb (45.4 kg) or more of scup

from May 1 through October 31, and

subject to the minimum mesh

requirements in paragraph (a)(1) of this

section, and the owner or operator of a

midwater trawl or other trawl vessel

subject to the minimum mesh size

requirement in § 648.122, may not have

available for immediate use any net, or

any piece of net, not meeting the

minimum mesh size requirement, or

mesh that is rigged in a manner that is

inconsistent with the minimum mesh

size. A net that conforms to one of the

methods specified in § 648.23(b), and

that can be shown not to have been in

recent use is considered to be not

available for immediate use.

* * * * *

6. In § 648.140, paragraph (b)(2) is

revised to read as follows:

§ 648.140 Catch quotas and other

restrictions.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(2) A commercial possession limit for

all moratorium vessels may be set from

a range of zero to the maximum allowed

to assure that the quarterly quota is not

exceeded, with the provision that these

quantities be the maximum allowed to

be landed within a 24-hour period

(calendar day).

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 00–30336 Filed 11–22–00; 4:41 pm]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P