30176 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 106 /Wednesday, June 3, 1998 / Proposed Rules

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

2. In § 622.7, paragraph (aa) is added

to read as follows:

§ 622.7 Prohibitions.

* * * * *

(aa) Falsify information submitted on

the testing of a BRD or the results of

such testing, as specified in

§ 622.41(g)(3)(i).

3. In § 622.41, the first sentence of

paragraph (g)(1) is revised and

paragraph (g)(3) is added to read as

follows:

§ 622.41 Species specific limitations.

* * * * *

(g) * * *

(1) * * * Except as exempted in

paragraph (g)(3)(ii) of this section, on a

penaeid shrimp trawler in the South

Atlantic EEZ, each trawl net that is

rigged for fishing and has a mesh size

less than 2.50 inches (6.35 cm), as

measured between the centers of

opposite knots when pulled taut, and

each try net that is rigged for fishing and

has a headrope length longer than 16.0

ft (4.9 m), must have a certified BRD

installed. * * *

* * * * *

(3) Certification of BRDs—(i) A person

who seeks to have a BRD certified for

use in the South Atlantic EEZ must

submit an application to test such BRD,

conduct the testing, and submit to the

RD the results of the test conducted and

recorded in accordance with the Testing

Protocol for BRD Certification, which

along with forms and procedures, is

included in the Bycatch Reduction

Device Testing Protocol Manual which

is available from the SAFMC, One

Southpark Circle, Suite 306, Charleston,

SC 29407–4699, and from the RD. A

BRD that meets the certification

criterion, as determined under the

Testing Protocol for BRD Certification,

will be added to the list of certified

BRDs in paragraph (g)(2) of this section.

(ii) A penaeid shrimp trawler that is

authorized to test a BRD in the EEZ for

possible certification, has such

authorization on board, and is

conducting such test in accordance with

the Testing Protocol for BRD

Certification is exempt from the BRD

requirement specified in paragraph

(g)(1) of this section.

4. In § 622.48, paragraph (h) is revised

to read as follows:

§ 622.48 Adjustment of management

measures.

* * * * *

(h) South Atlantic shrimp. BRD

certification criteria, BRD specifications,

BRD testing protocol, certified BRDs,

nets required to use BRDs, and times

and locations when the use of BRDs is

required.

The Testing Protocol for BRD

Certification published as an uncodified

appendix to the final rule implementing

Amendment 2 to the FMP on April 16,

1997 (62 FR 18536) is revised by adding

the following paragraph at the end

thereof:

Appendix—Testing Protocol for BRD

Certification

Before conducting any certification

test, or series of tests, the appropriate

state director or designee, must be

notified. In the event that the applicant

plans to submit the certification

proposal directly to the RD, the

applicant must notify the RD in writing.

This notification should identify the

sponsor of the tests, when and where

the tests will be conducted, the vessel

or vessels involved, any special

conditions or requirements of the tests,

the statistical design that will be

followed, the names and affiliations of

the observers, data that will be

collected, a complete description of the

BRDs including detailed descriptions of

how the BRDs will be installed in the

nets, and types of TEDs that will be

used. The appropriate state director or

designee, will review the notification

and if adequate will authorize the

applicant to conduct tests in state

waters. Similarly, if testing in the EEZ

is required, the state director will

submit the applicant’s notification to

the RD, with the director’s

recommendation. Once the RD

determines that the notification is

complete and all applicable regulations

are satisfied, the RD will issue the

applicant a letter of authorization to

conduct BRD testing in Federal waters.

[FR Doc. 98–14593 Filed 6–2–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–F

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 622

[I.D. 052698E]

South Atlantic Fishery Management

Council; Public Hearings

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Public hearings; request for

comments.

SUMMARY: The South Atlantic Fishery

Management Council (Council) will

convene six public hearings on its Draft

Habitat Plan, Draft Habitat

Comprehensive Amendment (Draft

Habitat Amendment), and associated

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

(DEIS) and Draft Supplemental

Environmental Impact Statement

(DSEIS); and on its Draft Sustainable

Fisheries Act Amendment (Draft SFA

Amendment). Public meetings on the

NMFS draft Essential Fish Habitat (EFH)

recommendations will be held following

two of the public hearings.

DATES: Written comments will be

accepted until 5 p.m. on July 15, 1998.

The public hearings will be held from

June 15 to June 26, 1998; see

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for specific

dates and times.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on the

Council’s documents should be sent to

Bob Mahood, Executive Director, South

Atlantic Fishery Management Council,

One Southpark Circle, Suite 306,

Charleston, SC 29407-4699. Copies of

the Draft Habitat Amendment, DSEIS,

and DEIS are available from Susan

Buchanan at (843) 571-4366 and will

also be available to the public at the

hearings.

Written comments on the NMFS draft

EFH recommendation will be accepted

at the public meetings, or may be sent

to: Habitat Conservation Division,

NMFS, 9721 Executive Center Drive N.,

St. Petersburg, FL 33702–2432, Attn:

Draft EFH Recommendation to SAC.

Copies of the draft EFH

recommendations may be obtained by

calling (813) 570–5317.

The hearings will be held in Florida,

Georgia, South Carolina, and North

Carolina. See SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION for locations of the

hearings and for special

accommodations.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Susan Buchanan, Public Information

Officer, South Atlantic Fishery

Management Council, 843-571-4366;

fax: 843-769-4520; e-mail address:

susan.buchanan@noaa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Council will hold public hearings on the

Draft Habitat Plan, the Draft Habitat

Amendment and its DEIS and DSEIS,

and the Draft SFA Amendment. These

amendments have been prepared to

satisfy the requirements of the

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery

Conservation and Management Act

(Magnuson-Stevens Act), as amended in

October 1996 by the Sustainable

Fisheries Act.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 106 /Wednesday, June 3, 1998 / Proposed Rules 30177

Draft Habitat Plan and Draft Habitat

Amendment

The Draft Habitat Plan includes

background and additional rationale for

the Draft Habitat Amendment.

The Draft Habitat Amendment would

amend the Council’s existing Fishery

Management Plans (FMPs) to include

EFH provisions and would create, in

part, two new FMPs for sargassum and

calico scallops. The Draft Habitat

Amendment includes the following

management measures:

1. Amendment 4 to the FMP for the

Shrimp Fishery of the South Atlantic

Region would:

Action 1. Identify EFH for penaeid

and rock shrimp.

Action 2. Establish Essential Fish

Habitat-Habitat Areas of Particular

Concern (EFH-HAPCs) for penaeid

shrimp.

Action 3. Require use of transponders

by rock shrimp vessels fishing in the

South Atlantic exclusive economic zone

(EEZ).

The following two options are being

considered, with no preferred option:

Option A. Require use of transponders

by shrimp vessels in the South Atlantic

EEZ.

Option B. Require use of transponders

by shrimp vessels fishing in the South

Atlantic EEZ south of 28°30’ N. lat.

2. Amendment 1 to the FMP for the

Red Drum Fishery of the South Atlantic

Region would:

Action 1. Identify EFH for red drum.

Action 2. Establish EFH-HAPCs for

red drum.

3. Amendment 10 to the FMP for the

Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South

Atlantic Region would:

Action 1. Identify EFH for species in

the snapper-grouper management unit.

Action 2. Establish EFH-HAPCs for

species in the snapper-grouper

management unit.

Action 3. Prohibit all fishing within

the Experimental Closed Area.

4. Amendment 10 to the FMP for the

Coastal Migratory Pelagics Fishery of

the South Atlantic Region would:

Action 1. Identify EFH for coastal

migratory pelagics.

Action 2. Establish EFH-HAPCs for

coastal migratory pelagics.

Action 3. Prohibit fishing for coastal

migratory pelagics in the Experimental

Closed Area.

5. Amendment 1 to the FMP for the

Golden Crab Fishery of the South

Atlantic Region would:

Action 1. Identify EFH for golden

crab.

Action 2. Establish EFH-HAPCs for

golden crab.

6. Amendment 5 to the FMP for the

Spiny Lobster Fishery of the South

Atlantic Region would:

Action 1. Identify EFH for spiny

lobster.

Action 2. Establish EFH-HAPCs for

spiny lobster.

Action 3. Prohibit fishing for spiny

lobster in the Experimental Closed Area.

7. Amendment 4 to the FMP for Coral,

Coral Reefs, and Live/Hard Bottom

Habitats of the South Atlantic Region

would:

Action 1. Identify EFH for coral, coral

reefs, and live/hard bottom habitats of

the South Atlantic Region.

Action 2. Establish EFH-HAPCs for

coral, coral reefs, and live/hard bottom

habitats.

Action 3A. Expand the Oculina Bank

HAPC to an area bounded to the west

by 80° W. long., to the north by 28°30’

N. lat., to the south by 27°30’ N. lat., and

to the east by the 100–fathom (600–ft)

(182–m) depth contour.

Action 3B. Expand the Oculina Bank

HAPC by 1 to 5 miles on the western

side between 27°30’ N. lat. and 28°30’

N. lat.

Action 4. Prohibit all fishing within

the Experimental Closed Area.

8. The FMP for the Calico Scallop

Fishery of the South Atlantic Region

would:

Action 1. Identify EFH for calico

scallops.

Action 2. Establish EFH-HAPCs for

calico scallops.

Action 3. Establish an FMP for the

calico scallop fishery of the South

Atlantic Region.

Action 4. Prohibit harvest of calico

scallops in the area bounded to the west

by 80° W. long., to the north by 28°30’

N. lat., to the south by 27°30’ N. lat., and

to the east by the 100–fathom (600–ft)

(182–m) depth contour.

Action 5. Require use of transponders

by calico scallop vessels.

The following two options are being

considered, with no preferred option:

Option A. Require use of transponders

by calico scallop vessels in the South

Atlantic EEZ.

Option B. Require use of transponders

by calico scallop vessels fishing in the

South Atlantic EEZ south of 28°30’ N.

lat.

NMFS Draft EFH Recommendations

NMFS is in the process of developing

EFH recommendations to the Council in

accordance with the recent amendments

to the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The

NMFS draft EFH recommendation to the

Council includes a review and

comments on the draft EFH amendment.

The NMFS draft EFH recommendation

to the Council will be available for

public distribution June 8, 1998, and

will be available at all of the Council’s

public hearings. Copies may be

requested (see ADDRESSES). NMFS will

hold a public meeting on the draft

NMFS EFH recommendations

immediately following the Council’s

public hearings in St. Augustine, FL, on

June 15, and in Charleston, SC, on June

22. Written comments on the NMFS

draft EFH recommendations will be

accepted at the two public meetings or

may be sent to the NMFS Habitat

Conservation Division (see ADDRESSES).

Draft SFA Amendment

The Draft SFA Amendment includes

management measures that would

address the subjects listed here. The

Council approved this amendment for

public hearing with no preferred

options, given that the MagnusonStevens Act national standard

guidelines had not been finalized at that

time. The Draft SFA Amendment

contains the following measures:

1. Definitions to address consistency

with SFA section 102 definitions:

Action 1. No action to amend FMPs

is required.

2. Other Required Provisions;

Bycatch—bycatch management

measures and bycatch reporting

requirements.

Action 2. No action to amend the

bycatch management measures in the

FMPs is required.

3. Commercial, recreational, and

charter fishing—sector descriptions,

landing trends, and data specification.

Action 3. No action to amend FMPs

is required.

4. Fishing communities—

identification and definition of fishing

communities.

Action 4. Amend the Shrimp, Red

Drum, Snapper-Grouper, Coastal

Migratory Pelagics, Golden Crab, Spiny

Lobster, Coral and Coral Reefs and Live/

Hard Bottom Habitat FMPs to include

available information on fishing

communities.

5. Maximum Sustainable Yield

(MSY), Optimum Yield (OY),

overfishing, and overfished.

Action 5. Amend the Shrimp, Red

Drum, Snapper-Grouper, Coastal

Migratory Pelagics, Golden Crab, Spiny

Lobster, Coral and Coral Reefs and Live/

Hard Bottom Habitat FMPs as required.

(No preferred options—see the

following options).

A. Shrimp FMP.

1. MSY.

Option 1. No action.

Option 2. MSY is equal to 30 to 40

percent of the static spawning potential

ratio (SPR) (Council to specify).

Option 3. Other modifications to the

proxy MSY values. Note: Under this

option, one would have to develop the

rationale for any such modification.
30178 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 106 /Wednesday, June 3, 1998 / Proposed Rules

2. OY.

Option 1. No action.

Option 2. The Council’s target level or

OY is 30 to 100 percent of the static SPR

(Council to specify).

Option 3. Other modifications to the

OY specifications. Note: Under this

option, one would have to develop the

rationale for any such modification.

3. Overfishing level to meet

Magnuson-Stevens Act mandate.

Option 1. No action.

Option 2. Modify the overfishing

definitions.

Note: Under this option, one would

have to develop the rationale for any

such modification.

Option 3. Modify the rock shrimp

definition to track brown and pink

shrimp.

Option 4. Establish a rebuilding

timeframe equal to 1 to 10 years, or

within a time period equal to 1.5 times

the mean generation time. Generation

time is computed as the age at which

the average female achieves half of her

expected lifetime egg production

(Council to specify).

B. Red Drum FMP.

1. MSY.

Option 1. No action.

Option 2. MSY is equal to 30 to 40

percent of the static SPR (Council to

specify).

2. OY.

Option 1. No action.

Option 2. OY for the Atlantic Coast

red drum fishery is the amount of

harvest that can be taken by U.S.

fishermen while maintaining the SPR at

or above 40 to 100 percent of the static

SPR (Council to specify).

Option 3. Other modifications to the

OY specification. Note: Under this

option, one would have to develop the

rationale for any such modification.

3. Overfishing level to meet the

Magnuson-Stevens Act mandate.

Option 1. No action.

Option 2. Specify a threshold level in

the range of 1 to 20 percent of SPR, an

overfished level in the range of 20 to 55

percent SPR, and a target (OY) level in

the range of 30 to 100 SPR.

Option 3. Other modifications to the

overfishing definitions.

Note: Under this option, one would

have to develop the rationale for any

such modification.

Option 4. Specify a threshold level of

between 2 pounds (0.4 kg) and 1 million

pounds (0.4 million kg) (Council to

specify).

Option 5. Establish a rebuilding

timeframe equal to 1 to 10 years or

within a time period equal to 1.5 times

the mean generation time. Generation

time is computed as the age at which

the average female achieves half of her

expected lifetime egg production

(Council to specify).

C. Snapper-Grouper FMP.

1. MSY.

Option 1. No action.

Option 2. MSY is equal to 30 to 40

percent of the static SPR (Council to

specify).

Option 3. Other modifications to the

proxy MSY values. Note: Under this

option, one would have to develop the

rationale for any such modification.

2. OY.

Option 1. No action.

Option 2. For snapper-grouper species

that change sex, or for all snappergrouper species (Council to specify),

specify a target or OY level equal to F0.1.

Option 3. Other modifications to the

OY specifications. Note: Under this

option, one would have to develop the

rationale for any such modification.

3. Overfishing level to meet the

Magnuson-Stevens Act mandate.

Option 1. No action.

Option 2. Redefine overfishing.

a. A snapper-grouper species

(including jewfish) is considered to be

overfished when the transitional SPR is

below 20 percent.

b. When a stock is overfished

(transitional SPR less than 20 percent),

a rebuilding program that makes

consistent progress toward restoring the

stock condition must be implemented

and continued until the stock is restored

beyond the overfished condition. The

rebuilding program must be designed to

achieve recovery within an acceptable

timeframe as specified by the Council

(generally cannot exceed 10 years). The

Council will continue to rebuild the

stock until the stock is restored to the

management target (OY).

c. When a stock is not overfished

(transitional SPR equal to or greater than

20 percent), the act of overfishing is

defined as a static SPR that exceeds 20

percent (i.e., F20%). If fishing mortality

rates that exceed the level associated

with the static SPR overfished level are

maintained, the stock may become

overfished. Therefore, if overfishing is

occurring, a program to reduce fishing

mortality rates toward management

target levels (OY) will be implemented,

even if the stock is not in an overfished

condition.

d. The threshold level for snappergrouper species is defined as 10 percent

transitional SPR. If the stock(s) were to

be overfished to such an extent that

their transitional SPR was below the

threshold level, the Council will take

appropriate action, including, but not

limited to, eliminating directed fishing

mortality and evaluating measures to

eliminate any bycatch mortality in a

timely manner through the framework

procedure.

e. For species where there is

insufficient information to determine

whether the stock is overfished

(transitional SPR), overfishing is defined

as a fishing mortality rate in excess of

the fishing mortality rate corresponding

to a default static SPR of 30 percent. If

overfishing is occurring, a program to

reduce fishing mortality rates to at least

the level corresponding to management

target levels will be implemented.

f. The timeframe for recovery of

overfished stocks remains unchanged.

For species that were not documented

as overfished in Amendment 3 to the

Snapper-Grouper FMP, Year 1 is the

year in which the species is

documented as being overfished. For

example, gag were documented as being

overfished in the 1996 assessment;

therefore, Year 1 for gag is 1996.

Option 3. Specify a threshold level in

the range of 5 to 30 percent SPR and a

target level in the range of 30 to 50

percent SPR.

Option 4. Establish species-specific

definitions of overfishing—target,

overfished, and threshold. For example,

jewfish—specify 50 percent SPR as a

target level, 40 percent SPR as an

overfished level, and 20 percent as the

threshold level.

Option 5. Specify a threshold level in

the range of 1 to 20 percent SPR, an

overfished level in the range of 20 to 50

percent SPR, and a target (OY) level in

the range of 30 to 100 percent SPR.

Option 6. Specify a threshold level of

between 2 pounds (0.8 kg) and 1 million

pounds (0.4 million kg) (Council to

specify) for each species.

Option 7. For snapper-grouper species

that change sex, or for all snappergrouper species (Council to specify),

specify an overfished level equal to

Fmax.

Option 8. The Snapper-Grouper

Assessment Group concluded that

rebuilding to OY should occur within a

time period equal to 1.5 times the mean

generation time. Generation time is

computed as the age at which the

average female achieves half of her

expected lifetime egg production.

D. Coastal Migratory Pelagics FMP.

1. MSY.

Option 1. No action.

Option 2. MSY is equal to 30 to 40

percent static SPR (Council to specify).

2. OY.

Option 1. No action.

Option 2. Specify a target level or OY

in the range of 30 to 100 percent SPR

(Council to specify).

Option 3. Modifications to the OY

specification.

Note: Under this option, one would

have to develop the rationale for any

such modification.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 106 /Wednesday, June 3, 1998 / Proposed Rules 30179

3. Overfishing level to meet the

Magnuson-Stevens Act mandate.

Option 1. No action.

Option 2. Redefine overfishing

(proposed action in Amendment 8 to the

FMP).

a. A mackerel stock or migratory

group is considered to be overfished

when the transitional SPR is below 20

percent.

b. When a stock or migratory group is

overfished (transitional SPR less than 20

percent), a rebuilding program that

makes consistent progress toward

restoring stock condition must be

implemented and continued until the

stock is restored beyond the overfished

condition. The rebuilding program must

be designed to achieve recovery within

an acceptable timeframe as specified by

the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico

Fishery Management Councils

(Councils). The Councils will continue

to rebuild the stock until the stock is

restored to the management target (OY)

within an unspecified timeframe.

c. When a stock is not overfished

(transitional SPR equal to or greater than

20 percent), the act of overfishing is

defined as a static SPR that exceeds the

threshold of 20 percent (i.e., F20≠). If

fishing mortality rates that exceed the

level associated with the static SPR

overfished level are maintained, the

stock may become overfished.

Therefore, if overfishing is occurring, a

program to reduce fishing mortality

rates toward management target levels

(OY) will be implemented, even if the

stock is not in an overfished condition.

d. The Councils have requested that

the Mackerel Stock Assessment Panel

provide a range of possibilities and

options for specifying an absolute

biomass level that could be used to

represent a depleted condition or state.

In a future amendment, the Councils

will describe a process whereby, if the

biomass is below such a level, the

Councils would take appropriate action,

including, but not limited to,

eliminating directed fishing mortality

and evaluating measures to eliminate

any bycatch mortality in a timely

manner through the framework

procedure.

e. For species like cobia, where there

is insufficient information to determine

whether the stock or migratory group is

overfished (transitional SPR),

overfishing is defined as a fishing

mortality rate in excess of the fishing

mortality rate corresponding to a default

threshold static SPR of 30 percent. If

overfishing is occurring, a program to

reduce fishing mortality rates to at least

the level corresponding to management

target levels will be implemented.

Option 3. Specify a threshold level in

the range of 1 to 20 percent SPR, an

overfished level in the range of 20 to 55

percent SPR, and a target (OY) level in

the range of 30 to 100 percent SPR.

Option 4. Specify a threshold level of

between 2 pounds (0.8 kg) and 2 million

pounds (0.8 million kg) (Council to

specify) for each species.

Option 5. Rebuilding to OY should

occur within a time period equal to 1.5

times the mean generation time.

Generation time is computed as the age

at which the average female achieves

half of her expected lifetime egg

production.

E. Golden Crab FMP.

1. MSY.

Option 1. No action.

Option 2. MSY is equal to 30 to 40

percent static SPR (Council to specify).

2. OY.

Option 1. No action.

Option 2. OY for the golden crab

fishery is the amount of harvest that can

be taken by U.S. fishermen while

maintaining the SPR at or above 40

percent static SPR.

Option 3. Other modifications to the

OY specification. Note: Under this

option, one would have to develop the

rationale for any such modification.

3. Overfishing level to meet the

Magnuson-Stevens Act mandate.

Option 1. No action.

Option 2. Specify a threshold level of

between 2 pounds (0.8 kg) and 2 million

pounds (0.8 million kg) (Council to

specify).

Option 3. Specify a threshold level in

the range of 1 to 20 percent SPR, an

overfished level in the range of 20 to 55

percent SPR, and a target (OY) level in

the range of 30 to 100 percent SPR.

Option 4. Rebuilding to OY should

occur within a time period equal to 1.5

times the mean generation time.

Generation time is computed as the age

at which the average female achieves

half of her expected lifetime egg

production.

F. Spiny Lobster FMP.

1. MSY.

Option 1. No action.

Option 2. MSY is equal to 30 to 40

percent static SPR (Council to specify).

2. OY.

Option 1. No action.

Option 2. OY for the spiny lobster

fishery is the amount of harvest that can

be taken by U.S. fishermen while

maintaining the SPR at or above 40 to

100 percent (Council to specify).

Option 3. Other modifications to the

OY specification. Note: Under this

option, one would have to develop the

rationale for any such modification.

3. Overfishing level to meet the

Magnuson-Stevens Act mandate.

Option 1. No action.

Option 2. Specify a threshold level in

the range of 1 to 20 percent SPR, an

overfished level in the range of 20 to 55

percent SPR, and a target (OY) level in

the range of 30 to 100 percent SPR.

Option 3. Specify a threshold level of

between 2 pounds (0.8 kg) and 2 million

pounds (0.8 million kg) (Council to

specify) for each species.

Option 4. Rebuilding to OY should

occur within a time period equal to 1.5

times the mean generation time.

Generation time is computed as the age

at which the average female achieves

half of her expected lifetime egg

production.

G. Sargassum Habitat FMP.

1. MSY.

Option 1. No action.

Option 2. MSY is equal to 30 to 40

percent static SPR (Council to specify).

Option 3. Given the limited data, do

not specify a MSY at this time.

2. OY.

Option 1. OY for sargassum is the

level of harvest specified or as may be

authorized pursuant to the permitting

criteria established in this plan.

Option 2. OY for the sargassum

fishery is the amount of harvest that can

be taken by U.S. fishermen while

maintaining the SPR at or above 40 to

100 percent (Council to specify).

Option 3. OY is all sargassum that can

be harvested legally under the

provisions of the Sargassum FMP,

which is equivalent to that level of

sargassum harvest that would minimize

user conflicts among vessels, minimize

the cost of fishing, produce a stable

level of landings that would maximize

returns to the fishermen, provide for a

stable supply, and minimize

management costs.

Option 4. Other modifications to the

OY specification. Note: Under this

option, one would have to develop the

rationale for any such modification.

3. Overfishing level to meet the

Magnuson-Stevens Act mandate.

Option 1. No action.

Option 2. Specify a threshold level in

the range of 1 to 20 percent SPR, an

overfished level in the range of 20 to 55

percent SPR, and a target (OY) level in

the range of 30 to 100 percent SPR.

Option 3. Specify a threshold level of

between 2 pounds and 2 million pounds

(Council to specify) for each species.

Option 4. Rebuilding to OY should

occur within a time period equal to 1.5

times the mean generation time.

Generation time is computed as the age

at which the average female achieves

half of her expected lifetime egg

production.
30180 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 106 /Wednesday, June 3, 1998 / Proposed Rules

DEIS and DSEIS Public Comment

Period

NMFS intends to file the DSEIS and

DEIS with the Environmental Protection

Agency to initiate a 45-day public

comment period pursuant to the

requirements of the National

Environmental Policy Act, prior to the

Council’s public hearings.

Public Hearings

The hearings will begin at 6 p.m. and

will end when all business is

completed. The dates and locations are

scheduled as follows:

1. Monday, June 15, 1998--Ponce de

Leon Resort, 4000 U.S. Highway 1,

North, St. Augustine, FL; telephone:

904–924–2821;

2. Monday, June 22, 1998--Town &

Country, 2008 Savannah Highway,

Charleston, SC; telephone: 843–571–

1000;

3. Tuesday, June 23, 1998--Carteret

Community College, 3505 Arendell

Street, Morehead City, NC; telephone:

919–247–3094;

4. Wednesday, June 24, 1998--Holiday

Inn, Highway 17 South at I–95,

Richmond Hill (near Savannah), GA;

telephone: 912–756–3351;

5. Thursday, June 25, 1998--Holiday

Inn, 7151 Okeechobee Road, Ft. Pierce,

FL; telephone: 561–464–5000;

6. Friday, June 26, 1998--Hawk’s Cay

Resort, Mile Marker 61, Marathon, FL;

telephone: 305–743–7000.

Special Accommodations

These meetings are physically

accessible to people with disabilities.

Requests for sign language

interpretation or other auxiliary aids

should be directed to the Council office

(see ADDRESSES) by June 9, 1998.

Dated: May 28, 1998.

George H. Darcy,

Acting Director, Office of Sustainable

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 98–14739 Filed 6–2–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–F

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 660

[I.D. 052098C]

RIN 0648–AK21

Fisheries Off West Coast States and in

the Western Pacific; Bottomfish and

Seamount Groundfish Fisheries; Draft

Amendment 5

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of availability of a draft

amendment to a fishery management

plan; request for comments.

SUMMARY: The Western Pacific Fishery

Management Council (Council) is

seeking comments on Draft Amendment

5 to the Fishery Management Plan for

Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish of

the Western Pacific Region (FMP).

DATES: Comments on Draft Amendment

5 must be received by the Council office

no later than July 20, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be sent to, and copies of Draft

Amendment 5 are available from, the

Western Pacific Fishery Management

Council, 1164 Bishop St., Suite 1400,

Honolulu, HI 96813.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kitty M. Simonds, Executive Director;

808–522–8220.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Council is seeking comments on Draft

Amendment 5 to the FMP, which would

establish a limited access program for

the Mau Zone bottomfish fishery in the

Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI).

The Mau Zone limited access program

is intended to address the low economic

returns in the fishery, the potential for

excessive harvest capacity, and other

conservation and economic concerns.

Draft Amendment 5 would specify a

target number of vessels for the fishery;

establish qualifying criteria for

allocation of initial limited access

permits based on historical and current

landings; impose permit holder

restrictions; establish a use-it-or-lose-it

requirement for permit renewal;

prohibit the transfer, lease, charter, and

sale of permits to reduce the number of

vessels in the fishery to the target

number; direct the Council to assess

periodically how effectively the limited

access program meets the objectives of

the FMP; and establish criteria to allow

new entrants into the Mau Zone when

the number of vessels falls below the

target number specified for the fishery.

Since March 1997, there has been a 2-

year moratorium on the issuance of new

permits for harvesting bottomfish in the

Mau Zone so that effort in the fishery

can be stabilized while the Council

develops a long-term limited access

program (see the final rule published in

the February 26, 1997, issue of the

Federal Register at 62 FR 8637). The

moratorium expires on March 27, 1999,

at which time proposed Amendment 5

is expected to be implemented. The

Council will be taking action on draft

Amendment 5 at its 97th meeting to be

held in July in Kailua-Kona, Hawaii.

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

Dated: May 28, 1998.

Bruce C. Morehead,

Acting Director, Office of Sustainable

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 98–14746 Filed 6–2–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–F