29238 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 104 / Wednesday, May 30, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

dismissal of its alternate proposal to

allot Channel 236C to Sun City West,

Arizona (RM–9770), and the selection of

Mayer as its community of license. The

petition for partial reconsideration is

denied as it does not meet the limited

provisions set forth in the Commission’s

Rules under which a rule making action

will be reconsidered. This document

also announces that we will no longer

be considering optional or alternative

proposals by a single party in a single

rulemaking proceeding. With this

action, this docketed proceeding is

terminated.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nancy Joyner, Mass Media Bureau, (202)

418–2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

synopsis of the Commission’s

Memorandum Opinion and Order, in

MM Docket No. 99–246, adopted May 2,

2001, and released May 11, 2001. The

full text of this Commission decision is

available for inspection and copying

during normal business hours in the

FCC Reference Information Center

(Room CY–A257), 445 Twelfth Street,

SW., Washington, DC. The complete

text of this decision may also be

purchased from the Commission’s copy

contractor, International Transcription

Service, Inc., 1231 20th Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20036, (202) 857–3800.

Federal Communications Commission.

John A. Karousos,

Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules

Division, Mass Media Bureau.

[FR Doc. 01–13453 Filed 5–29–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 648

[Docket No. 001127331–1044–02; I.D.

052301B]

Fisheries of the Northeastern United

States; Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and

Butterfish Fisheries; Closure of

Fishery for Loligo Squid

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Closure.

SUMMARY: NMFS announces that the

directed fishery for Loligo squid in the

exclusive economic zone (EEZ) for the

second quarter of the year is closed.

Vessels issued a Federal permit to

harvest Loligo squid may not retain or

land more than 2,500 lb (1.13 mt) per

trip per calendar day of Loligo squid for

the remainder of the quarter. This action

is necessary to prevent the fishery from

exceeding the Quarter II quota and

allow for rebuilding of this overfished

stock, while allowing for fishing

throughout the year.

DATES: Effective 0001 hours, May 29,

2001, through 2400 hours, July 1, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Myles Raizin, Fishery Policy Analyst,

508–281–9104, fax 978–281–9135, email myles.a.raizin.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulations governing the Loligo squid

fishery are found at 50 CFR part 648.

The regulations require specifications

for maximum optimal yield, initial

optimum yield, allowable biological

catch, domestic annual harvest (DAH),

domestic annual processing, joint

venture processing and total allowable

levels of foreign fishing for the species

managed under the Atlantic Mackerel,

Squid, and Butterfish Fishery

Management Plan. The procedures for

setting the annual initial specifications

are described in § 648.21.

The 2001 specification of DAH for

Loligo squid was set at 17,000 mt (66 FR

13024, March 2, 2001). This amount is

allocated by quarter, based on the

following table.

TABLE. Loligo QUARTERLY

ALLOCATIONS

Quarter Percent Metric Tons

I (Jan–Mar) 33.23 5,649

II (Apr–Jun) 17.61 2,994

III (Jul–Sep) 17.30 2,941

IV (Oct–Dec) 31.86 5,416

Total 100.00 17,000

Section 648.22 requires NMFS to

close the directed Loligo squid fishery in

the EEZ when 80 percent of the

quarterly allocation is harvested in

Quarters I, II and III, and when 95

percent of the total annual DAH has

been harvested. NMFS is further

required to: Notify, in advance of the

closure, the Executive Directors of the

Mid-Atlantic, New England, and South

Atlantic Fishery Management Councils;

mail notification of the closure to all

holders of Loligo squid permits at least

72 hours before the effective date of the

closure; provide adequate notice of the

closure to recreational participants in

the fishery; and publish notification of

the closure in the Federal Register. The

Administrator, Northeast Region,

NMFS, based on dealer reports and

other available information, has

determined that 80 percent of the DAH

for Loligo squid in Quarter II, has been

harvested. Therefore, effective 0001

hours, May 29, 2001, the directed

fishery for Loligo squid is closed and

vessels issued Federal permits for Loligo

squid may not retain or land more than

2,500 lb (1.13 mt) of Loligo. Such vessels

may not land more than 2,500 lb (1.13

mt) of Loligo during a calendar day. The

directed fishery will reopen effective

0001 hours, July 1, 2001, when the

Quarter III quota becomes available.

Classification

This action is required by 50 CFR part

648 and is exempt from review under

Executive Order 12866.

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

Dated: May 24, 2001.

Richard W. Surdi,

Acting Director, Office of Sustainable

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 01–13534 Filed 5–24–01; 3:13 pm]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 660

[Docket No. 000906253–1117–02; I.D.

061500E]

RIN 0648–AL51

Fisheries off West Coast States and in

the Western Pacific; West Coast

Salmon Fisheries; Amendment 14

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: NMFS issues this final rule to

implement portions of Amendment 14

to the Fishery Management Plan for

Commercial and Recreational Salmon

Fisheries off the Coasts of Washington,

Oregon, and California (Salmon FMP).

This final rule makes minor changes to

language regarding spawning

escapement and management goals;

implements a new recreational

allocation to the Port of La Push and

adjusts the Neah Bay allocation

accordingly; adds preseason flexibility

for recreational port allocations north of

Cape Falcon; and implements preseason

flexibility in setting recreational port

allocations or recreational and

commercial allocations north of Cape

Falcon to take advantage of selective

fishing opportunities for marked

hatchery fish. The intended effect of this

final rule is to employ management

measures that minimize impacts to

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 104 / Wednesday, May 30, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 29239

species, stocks, or size/age classes of

concern, while maximizing access to

harvestable fish.

DATES: Effective June 29, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Copies of Amendment 14,

the final supplemental environmental

impact statement (FSEIS)/regulatory

impact review (RIR)/initial regulatory

flexibility analysis (IRFA), and the

appendices, including the Review of

1999 Ocean Salmon Fisheries, are

available from Dr. Donald O. McIsaac,

Executive Director, Pacific Fishery

Management Council, 2130 SW Fifth

Ave., Suite 224, Portland, OR 97201.

Copies of the final regulatory

flexibility analysis (FRFA) are available

from Donna Darm, Acting Regional

Administrator, Northwest Region,

NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way N.E.,

Seattle, WA 98115-0070, fax: 206-526-

6376; or Rebecca Lent, Regional

Administrator, Southwest Region,

NMFS, 501 West Ocean Boulevard,

Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802-4213,

fax: 562-980-4018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Christopher L. Wright at 206– 526–6140;

Svein Fougner at 562–980–4040; or Dr.

Donald O. McIsaac at 503–326–6352.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Secretary approved the Salmon

FMP under the Magnuson-Stevens

Fishery Conservation and Management

Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), 16 U.S.C.

1801 et seq., in 1978. The Council has

amended the Salmon FMP 14 times

since 1978. The regulations are codified

at 50 CFR part 660, subpart H. The

Salmon FMP was amended annually

from 1979 to 1983; however, in 1984, a

framework amendment was

implemented that provided the

mechanism for making preseason and

inseason adjustments in the regulations

without annual FMP amendments.

The Council prepared Amendment 14

to the Salmon FMP and submitted it on

June 12, 2000, for Secretarial review.

NMFS published a notice of availability

for Amendment 14 in the Federal

Register on June 27, 2000 (65 FR 39584),

announcing a 60-day public comment

period, which ended on August 28,

2000. NMFS approved Amendment 14

on September 27, 2000. The proposed

rule was published in the Federal

Register on October 20, 2000 (65 FR

63047), with the 45-day public comment

period ending on December 4, 2000.

NMFS received one comment; the

comment addressed provisions of

Amendment 14 that were not the subject

of the proposed rule. The final rule

remains unchanged from the proposed

rule.

Only some parts of Amendment 14

are codified in the final rule. Those

parts not codified revise the Salmon

FMP to bring it into compliance with

the Sustainable Fisheries Act’s (SFA)

1996 amendments to the MagnusonStevens Act. The most significant

changes include a new definition of

optimum yield (OY); a bycatch

definition and new requirements to

reduce bycatch; new requirements

designed to prevent overfishing and

rebuild overfished stocks; and the

designation of Essential Fish Habitat

(EFH), with a discussion of threats to

EFH and recommended measures to

conserve and enhance EFH. A new

section in chapter 1 entitled ‘‘What This

Plan Covers’’ was added to the Salmon

FMP to provide a clear description of

management actions included in the

document. In addition, the amendment

provides information on fishery-specific

stock impacts and updates the fishery

description to reference new

appendices.

Those parts of Amendment 14

codified in the final rule make minor

changes to language regarding

escapement and management goals;

implement a new recreational allocation

to the Port of La Push and adjusts the

Neah Bay allocation accordingly; add

preseason flexibility for recreational

port allocations north of Cape Falcon;

and implement preseason flexibility in

setting recreational port allocation or

recreational and commercial allocations

north of Cape Falcon to take advantage

of selective fishing opportunities.

The former ‘‘Escapement and

Management Goals’’ section,

§ 660.410(a), was changed to a new

‘‘Conservation Objectives’’ section.

Amendment 14 establishes a

recreational allocation for the La Push

Port area separate from the Neah Bay

port area, and the Annual Actions

section (660.408(c)(v)) was modified

accordingly. The La Push subarea

allocation is now set at 5.2 percent,

which is approximately 20 percent of

the former combined Neah Bay/La Push

allocation. This portion is equal to the

level provided to La Push during the

annual preseason process beginning in

1990. In addition, during years when

there is an Area 4B add-on fishery

inside Washington internal waters

(which benefits only Neah Bay), 25

percent of the numerical value of that

fishery shall be added to the

recreational allowable ocean harvest

north of Leadbetter Point prior to

applying the sharing percentages for

Westport and La Push. The increase to

Westport and La Push will be subtracted

from the Neah Bay ocean share to

maintain the same total harvest

allocation north of Leadbetter Point.

Therefore, La Push would receive 2.6

percent of the basic coho allocation plus

1.2 percent of the Area 4B add-on.

Section 660.408(c)(v)(A) was modified

to allow flexibility to deviate from

Salmon FMP subarea quotas in order to

meet recreational fishery objectives, if

those measures are agreed to by

representatives of the affected ports. In

addition, the regulation establishes a

Council process to deviate from the nonIndian recreational and/or commercial

allocations north of Cape Falcon to

selectively harvest hatchery-produced

coho salmon, while not increasing

impacts to natural stocks.

Minor changes to the regulatory

language in 50 CFR part 660 necessary

to implement Amendment 14 were also

made.

Comments and Responses

NMFS received one comment

regarding the proposed rule; however,

this comment did not refer to the

changes proposed in the rule.

Comment: The National Association

of Home Builders (NAHB) et al.,

represented by Perkins Coie, LLP,

commented on the portion of

Amendment 14 that deals with EFH.

The NAHB believes that the EFH

provisions in Amendment 14 should be

included in the proposed rule and that

an IRFA should have been prepared for

them.

Response: The proposed rule includes

only those regulatory changes needed to

implement Amendment 14. The

designation of EFH by Amendment 14

does not require implementing

regulations, and therefore, an IRFA is

not required. The RFA only requires

completion of regulatory flexibility

analyses when an agency promulgates

regulations. Under the MagnusonStevens Act, an FMP must describe and

identify EFH, but implementing

regulations for an EFH designation are

not required. If implementing

regulations are required in the future

(for example, to avoid adverse effects on

EFH caused by fishing), regulatory

flexibility analyses may be prepared in

accordance with applicable law.

Classification

NMFS has determined that

Amendment 14 is consistent with the

national standards and other provisions

of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other

applicable laws.

The Council prepared an IRFA

describing the economic impacts to

small entities of all the alternatives

considered in the proposed rule. No

comments were received on the IRFA,

except as described above. A copy of the

29240 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 104 / Wednesday, May 30, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

IRFA is available from the Council (see

ADDRESSES).

NMFS, Northwest Region, prepared

an FRFA based on the IRFA in

compliance with 5 U.S.C. 604(a). The

FRFA indicated that the rule will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities. A

copy of the FRFA is available from

NMFS (see ADDRESSES). A summary of

the FRFA follows:

The economic effects of the

regulations are expected to be generally

positive. The regulatory changes are

intended to reallocate fish among small

entities with the intent of increasing

overall harvest. The Port of La Push

regulations formalize practices that have

been employed for a number of years; La

Push would receive 2.6 percent of the

basic coho allocation plus 1.2 percent of

the Area 4B add-on. Flexibility to

deviate from subarea allocations in

order to meet recreational objectives is

expected to result in only positive

economic effects. Flexibility in setting

preseason recreational port allocations

or recreational and commercial

allocations north of Cape Falcon for

selective fishing on hatchery stock coho

would likely lead to positive economic

effects on ocean fisheries because such

measures result in increased fishing

opportunities when such fish are

available. These selective fisheries are

open primarily in August and

September, although the Council may

consider opening selective fisheries at

other times. Compared to the original

allocation scheme, the selective fishery

regime does not increase the mortality

of natural stocks. Other allocation

objectives (i.e., treaty Indian, or ocean

and inside allocations) are addressed

during the negotiations in the North of

Cape of Falcon Forum.

The general effects of the regulatory

changes are to provide flexibility to the

Council’s decision making processes

and allow increased fish harvest levels,

when possible, through pre-season

allocation setting procedures. User

groups (non-tribal ocean troll and ocean

recreational fisheries) participate

directly in the consultative processes, so

it is unlikely that any single group will

suffer economically while some or all

user groups would likely benefit. The

consultation process is designed to

provide the maximum economic

benefits to all user groups.

The intended effect of this final rule

is to employ management measures that

minimize impacts to species, stocks, or

size/age classes of concern, while

maximizing access to harvestable fish.

This is accomplished through

management measures including gear

restrictions, time/area closures, and

catch or retention restrictions that allow

fishermen to harvest marked hatchery

salmon and release natural-origin fish.

Analysis of 1996 fishery information

shows that selective ocean coho harvest

could be increased by over 300 percent

without impacting natural stocks.

Without such selective fisheries, total

salmon harvest would have to be

sharply reduced to protect depressed

natural stocks. These procedures also

allow managers to make in-season

trades between ocean fisheries, and

between user groups, in order to

increase harvest opportunities for all

user groups.

Insufficient data preclude a

quantitative analysis; however, the

Council’s qualitative cost-benefit

summary in support of Executive Order

12866 assesses the direct and indirect

economic effects of the regulatory

changes. This analysis shows that these

changes would allow increased numbers

of recreational and charter boat salmon

fishing trips. If this is realized, aggregate

catch would increase, but depending on

the magnitude of increase in the number

of recreational and charter trips,

individual catch per trip could decline.

The ocean troll fishery quotas would not

be directly reduced as a result of the

regulatory changes, but cost per unit of

harvest may increase because of the

selective fishery regulations. Indirect

economic effects on inside fisheries

(fisheries occurring in state internal

waters) may be positive or negative,

depending on which selective fisheries

are employed in the ocean and inside

fisheries. The State of Washington has

adopted selective fishing practices for

inside coho fisheries. Selective practices

for inside chinook fisheries are still

under development because of the

difficulty in modeling selective fishery

impacts on chinook stocks. However,

ocean harvests of inside chinook stocks

are minimal and managing such stocks

will be primarily driven by Endangered

Species Act (ESA) requirements and

State of Washington decisions

concerning the future of its fisheries.

The final rule has been determined to

be not significant for the purposes of

Executive Order 12866.

The NMFS Northwest Region has

completed a section 7 informal

consultation under the ESA on the

effects of Amendment 14 on listed

salmon stocks. Amendment 14 does not

by itself authorize any fishing or other

activity that would result in the take of

listed fish. It modifies certain aspects of

the current Salmon FMP but in no way

affects the existing Salmon FMP

requirements that management

measures comply with NMFS ESA

consultation standards for listed

species. Three of the Amendment 14

components (overfishing, EFH, and

bycatch) will result in neutral effects or

in more conservative management of

non-listed salmon stocks, and should

therefore provide greater protection to

natural stocks of listed and non-listed

species. While there are some

uncertainties regarding the effects of

selective fisheries on naturally

spawning stocks, NMFS retains the

authority and responsibility for ensuring

that annual management measures

developed under the Salmon FMP

comply with ESA consultation

standards, and that analysis of these

measures is based on the best available

science. The remaining elements of the

amendment, including recreational

allocation, definition of OY, and various

editorial changes will have no effect on

management of listed stocks.

Based on these considerations, NMFS

concluded that Amendment 14 and its

implementing regulations are not likely

to adversely affect any of the salmon

stocks presently listed under ESA or

their critical habitat.

The Council prepared an FSEIS for

Amendment 14. It provides an updated

description of the fishery, and clarifies

what is covered in the Salmon FMP. To

be consistent with the SFA, it redefines

optimum yield, provides new criteria to

prevent or end overfishing, describes

and defines essential fish habitat, and

establishes salmon bycatch reporting

specifications. The FSEIS has been

incorporated in the Amendment 14

document, and may be obtained from

the Council (see ADDRESSES). A notice of

availability of the FSEIS was published

on August 11, 2000 (65 FR 49237).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 660

Administrative practice and

procedure, American Samoa, Fisheries,

Fishing, Guam, Hawaiian Natives,

Indians, Northern Mariana Islands,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

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

Dated: May 21, 2001.

William T. Hogarth,

Acting Assistant Administrator for Fisheries,

National Marine Fisheries Service.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, NMFS amends 50 CFR part

660 as follows:

PART 660—FISHERIES OFF WEST

COAST STATES AND IN THE

WESTERN PACIFIC

1. The authority citation for part 660

continues to read as follows:

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

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 104 / Wednesday, May 30, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 29241

2. In § 660.402, the definition ‘‘Pacific

Coast Salmon Plan’’ is added in

alphabetical order to read as follows:

§ 660.402 Definitions.

* * * * *

Pacific Coast Salmon Plan (PCSP or

Salmon FMP) means the Fishery

Management Plan, as amended, for

commercial and recreational ocean

salmon fisheries in the Exclusive

Economic Zone (EEZ)(3 to 200 nautical

miles offshore) off Washington, Oregon,

and California. The Salmon FMP was

first developed by the Council and

approved by the Secretary in 1978. The

Salmon FMP was amended on October

31, 1984, to establish a framework

process to develop and implement

fishery management actions. Other

names commonly used include: Pacific

Coast Salmon Fishery Management

Plan, West Coast Salmon Plan, West

Coast Salmon Fishery Management

Plan.

* * * * *

3. In § 660.408, the first two sentences

in paragraph (c)(1)(ii), paragraph

(c)(1)(v) and paragraph (c)(1)(v)(A), and

the last sentence in paragraph (c)(1)(vi)

are revised; paragraph (c)(1)(viii) is

redesignated as paragraph (c)(1)(ix), and

paragraph (c)(1)(ix) is redesignated as

paragraph (c)(1)(x) and a new paragraph

(c)(1)(viii) is added to read as follows:

§ 660.408 Annual actions.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(1) * * *

(ii) Deviations from allocation

schedule. The initial allocation may be

modified annually in accordance with

paragraphs (c)(1)(iii) through (viii) of

this section. These deviations from the

allocation schedule provide flexibility

to account for the dynamic nature of the

fisheries and better achieve the

allocation objectives and fishery

allocation priorities in paragraphs

(c)(1)(ix) and (x) of this section. ***

* * * * *

(v) Recreational allocation. The

recreational allowable ocean harvest of

chinook and coho derived during the

preseason allocation process will be

distributed among the four major

recreational subareas as described in the

coho and chinook distribution sections

below. The Council may deviate from

subarea quotas to meet recreational

season objectives, based on agreement of

representatives of the affected ports

and/or in accordance with section

6.5.3.2 of the Pacific Coast Salmon Plan,

regarding certain selective fisheries.

Additionally, based upon the

recommendation of the recreational

Salmon Advisory Subpanel

representatives for the area north of

Cape Falcon, the Council will include

criteria in its preseason salmon

management recommendations to guide

any inseason transfer of coho among the

recreational subareas to meet

recreational season duration objectives.

(A) Coho distribution. The preseason

recreational allowable ocean harvest of

coho north of Cape Falcon will be

distributed to provide 50 percent to the

area north of Leadbetter Point and 50

percent to the area south of Leadbetter

Point. In years with no fishery in

Washington State management area 4B,

the distribution of coho north of

Leadbetter Point will be divided to

provide 74 percent to the subarea

between Leadbetter Point and the

Queets River (Westport), 5.2 percent to

the subarea between Queets River and

Cape Flattery (La Push), and 20.8

percent to the area north of the Queets

River (Neah Bay). In years when there

is an Area 4B (Neah Bay) fishery under

state management, 25 percent of the

numerical value of that fishery shall be

added to the recreational allowable

ocean harvest north of Leadbetter Point

prior to applying the sharing

percentages for Westport and La Push.

The increase to Westport and La Push

will be subtracted from the Neah Bay

ocean share to maintain the same total

harvest allocation north of Leadbetter

Point. Each of the four recreational port

area allocations will be rounded, to the

nearest hundred fish, with the largest

quotas rounded downward, if necessary,

to sum to the preseason recreational

allowable ocean harvest of coho north of

Cape Falcon.

* * * * *

(vi) Inseason trades and transfers. * *

* Inseason trades or transfers may vary

from the guideline ratio of four coho to

one chinook to meet the allocation

objectives in paragraph (c)(1)(ix) of this

section.

* * * * *

(viii) Selective fisheries. Deviations

from the initial gear and port area

allocations may be allowed to

implement selective fisheries for

marked salmon stocks as long as the

deviations are within the constraints

and process specified in section 6.5.3.2

of the Pacific Coast Salmon Plan.

* * * * *

4. In § 660.410, the section heading

and paragraphs (a) and (b)(1) are revised

to read as follows:

§ 660.410 Conservation objectives.

(a) The conservation objectives are

summarized in Table 3-1 of the Pacific

Coast Salmon Plan.

(b) * * *

(1) A comprehensive technical review

of the best scientific information

available provides conclusive evidence

that, in the view of the Council, the

Scientific and Statistical Committee,

and the Salmon Technical Team,

justifies modification of a conservation

objective; except that the 35,000 natural

spawner floor for Klamath River fall

chinook may be changed only by

amendment.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 01–13431 Filed 5–29–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 679

[Docket No. 010112013–1013–01; I.D.

052301F]

Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic

Zone Off Alaska; Pacific Cod by the

Offshore Component in the Western

Regulatory Area in the Gulf of Alaska

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Closure.

SUMMARY: NMFS is prohibiting directed

fishing for Pacific cod by the offshore

component in the Western Regulatory

Area of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA). This

action is necessary to prevent exceeding

the Pacific cod A season allowance

specified for the offshore component in

the Western Regulatory Area.

DATES: Effective 1200 hrs, Alaska local

time (A.l.t.), May 24, 2001, until 2400

hrs, A.l.t., June 10, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Andrew Smoker, 907–586–7228.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS

manages the groundfish fishery in the

GOA exclusive economic zone

according to the Fishery Management

Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of

Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North

Pacific Fishery Management Council

under authority of the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and

Management Act. Regulations governing

fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance

with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50

CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.

The 2001 A season Pacific cod TAC

apportioned to vessels catching Pacific

cod for processing by the offshore

component in the Western Regulatory

Area of the GOA is 1,098 metric tons