18794 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 71 / Thursday, April 13, 1995 / Proposed Rules

proceeding. This action will facilitate

the development of a full and complete

record on these issues.

DATES: Reply comments are now due on

May 12, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications

Commission, Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Alan E. Aronowitz, Mass Media Bureau,

(202) 776–1653.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Adopted: March 31, 1995.

Released: March 31, 1995.

By the Chief, Mass Media Bureau:

1. On October 25, 1994, the

Commission released a Notice of

Proposed Rule Making in MM Docket

No. 94–123, 59 FR 55402 (November 7,

1994) (NPRM), in this proceeding,

soliciting comment on the legal and

policy justifications, in light of current

economic and technological conditions,

for the Prime Time Access Rule,

§ 73.658(k) of the Commission’s Rules,

and to consider the continued need for

the rule in its current form. By an Order

adopted on December 7, 1994, the

deadline for filing comments was

extended to March 7, 1995, and the

deadline for filing reply comments was

extended to April 6, 1995. See Order

Granting Extension of Time for Filing

Comments and Reply Comments in MM

Docket No. 94–123, 59 FR 64382

(December 14, 1994).

2. On March 24, 1995, a motion for

extension of time for filing reply

comments in this proceeding was filed

by the Network Affiliated Stations

Alliance, which states that it is

authorized to represent the Association

of Independent Television Stations, Inc.,

Viacom, Inc. King World Productions,

Inc., Capital Cities/ABC, Inc., CBS Inc.,

the National Broadcasting Company,

Inc., the Motion Picture Association of

America, Inc., and the Media Access

Project (‘‘Joint Petitioners’’) in this

request. The motion requests that the

deadline for filing reply comments be

extended from April 6, 1995, to May 12,

1995.

3. The Joint Petitioners contend that

the comments filed in this proceeding

include detailed economic studies on all

sides of the issues. These parties, who

take differing views on the continued

need for the Prime Time Access Rule,

assert that certain data underlying those

studies is now becoming available and

is expected to be accessible for public

review at the Commission shortly. In

order to respond to the comprehensive

economic analysis called for in the

NPRM and to properly evaluate the

comments and economic studies

submitted thus far, the Joint Petitioners

suggest that absent an extension of time,

any meaningful review of this data prior

to the deadline for filing reply

comments would be virtually

impossible. These parties maintain that

the grant of this request for a modest

extension will serve the public interest

by permitting a more thorough public

and industry review of the economic

data, which would, in turn, facilitate the

submission of reply comments that will

prove more useful in generating the

comprehensive record that the

Commission seeks in this proceeding.

4. As set forth in § 1.46 of the

Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.46, it is

our policy that extensions of time for

filing comments in rulemaking

proceedings shall not be routinely

granted. However, under the

circumstances described above, we

believe that the requested extension of

time to file reply comments is

warranted. This extension of time

should facilitate the development of a

full and complete record on the issues

raised in the NPRM and, thus, it appears

reasonable to provide the commenting

parties additional time to analyze and

address these issues.

5. Accordingly, it is ordered That the

above-mentioned motion for an

extension of time is granted, and that

the time for filing reply comments in

this proceeding is extended to May 12,

1995.

6. This action is taken pursuant to

authority found in sections 4(i) and

303(r) of the Communications Act of

1934, as amended, and §§ 0.204(b),

0.283, and 1.45 of the Commission’s

rules.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR part 73:

Television broadcasting.

Federal Communications Commission.

Roy J. Stewart,

Chief, Mass Media Bureau.

[FR Doc. 95–9093 Filed 4–12–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

GENERAL SERVICES

ADMINISTRATION

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND

SPACE ADMINISTRATION

48 CFR Parts 32 and 52

[FAR Case 94–764]

RIN 9000–AG36

Federal Acquisition Regulation;

Contract Financing

AGENCIES: Department of Defense (DOD),

General Services Administration (GSA),

and National Aeronautics and Space

Administration (NASA).

ACTION: Proposed rule—notice of followup public meeting.

SUMMARY: This notice of a follow-up

public meeting is issued pursuant to the

Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of

1994, Public Law 103–355 (the Act).

The Federal Acquisition Regulatory

Council is considering amending

Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)

parts 32 and 52 as a result of changes

to 10 U.S.C. 2307 and 41 U.S.C. 255 by

Sections 2001 and 2051 of the Act. A

public meeting was held concerning this

proposed rule on April 3, 1995. Due to

the short time frame between

publication of the proposed rule in the

Federal Register (60 FR 14156, March

15, 1995) and the initial public meeting,

we are giving the public another

opportunity to submit prepared

statements for presentation and

consideration.

DATES: Comment Due Date: Comments

on the proposed rule should still be

submitted not later than May 15, 1995,

to be considered in the formulation of

a final rule.

Public Meeting: A follow-up public

meeting will be held on April 28, 1995,

at 1 p.m.

Oral/Written Statements: Views to be

presented at the public meeting should

be sent, in writing, to the FAR

Secretariat, at the address given below,

not later than April 26, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Interested parties should

submit written comments to: General

Services Administration, FAR

Secretariat (VRS), 18th & F Streets, NW,

Room 4037, Washington, DC 20405,

Telephone: (202) 501–4755.

The public meeting will be held at:

Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E

Street, NW, Room 1350, Washington,

DC 20415–0001.

Please cite FAR case 94–764 in all

correspondence related to this case.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. John Galbraith, Contract Financing/

Payment Team Leader, at (703) 697–

6710 in reference to this FAR case. For

general information, contact the FAR

Secreatariat, Room 4037, GS Building,

Washington, DC 20405 (202) 501–4755.

Please cite FAR case 94–764.

Dated: April 7, 1995.

C. Allen Olson,

Director, Office of Federal Acquisition Policy,

General Services Administration.

[FR Doc. 95–9083 Filed 4–12–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6820–EP–M
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 71 / Thursday, April 13, 1995 / Proposed Rules 18795

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 625

[I.D. 032295A]

Summer Flounder Fishery; Public

Hearings; Supplemental Environmental

Impact Statement (SEIS)

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an

SEIS; scoping meetings; request for

comments.

SUMMARY: NMFS announces that the

Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management

Council (Council) intends to prepare an

SEIS for proposed Amendment 7 to the

Summer Flounder Fishery Management

Plan (FMP). NMFS informs the public

herewith of the opportunity to

participate in the further development

of Amendment 7 to the FMP. All

persons affected by, or otherwise

interested in, the proposed amendment

are invited to participate in determining

the scope of significant issues to be

considered in the SEIS by submitting

written comments. The scoping process

also will identify issues that are not

significant and will eliminate them from

detailed study.

DATES: Written comments must be

received by April 14, 1995.

The hearings are scheduled as

follows:

1. April 10, 1995, 7 p.m., Manteo, NC;

2. April 10, 1995, 7 p.m., Galilee, RI;

3. April 10, 1995, 7:30 p.m.,

Ronkonkoma, NY; and

4. April 12, 1995, 7 p.m., Cape May

Courthouse, NJ.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments on

the scoping process and scope of the

SEIS to David R. Keifer, Executive

Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery

Management Council, Room 2115

Federal Building, 300 South New Street,

Dover, DE 19904–6790; telephone: 302–

674–2331; FAX: 302–674–5399.

The hearings will be held at the

following locations:

1. Manteo—North Carolina State

Aquarium, Airport Road, Roanoke

Island, Manteo, NC 27954;

2. Galilee—Dutch Inn, 307 Great

Island Rd., Galilee, RI 02882;

3. Ronkonkoma—Holiday Inn, 3845

Veterans Memorial Highway,

Ronkonkoma, NY 11779; and

4. Cape May Courthouse—Cape May

County Extension Office, Dennisville

Rd., Route 657, Cape May Courthouse,

NJ 08210.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David R. Keifer, Executive Director,

302–674–2331; FAX: 302–674–5399.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Problems to be Discussed for This

Amendment

1. A Moratorium on Entry of Additional

Vessels Into the Commercial Fishery

A moratorium on entry of additional

vessels Into the summer flounder

commercial fishery was implemented

with Amendment 2. The moratorium

automatically expires in 1997. Given the

large number of unemployed and

underemployed fishing vessels in the

Northwest Atlantic and the overfished

nature of the summer flounder resource,

serious consideration should be given to

continuing the moratorium.

Extension of the moratorium will

provide an opportunity for participants

in the fishery to benefit as the resource

continues to rebuild as a result of the

fishing mortality reduction program. If

the moratorium is allowed to lapse, the

fishery will revert to open access and

new vessels will enter the fishery. This

would tend to dissipate any chances of

profitability. More likely, the problems

experienced by the existing participants

in the fishery would be increased in

magnitude; more fishermen would be

attempting to catch the same quantity of

fish, thereby increasing costs and

decreasing income.

2. Moratorium Permits

Vessels with documented landings of

summer flounder for sale between

January 26, 1985, and January 26, 1990,

qualify for a moratorium permit to land

and sell summer flounder under this

moratorium program. The FMP provides

that, if a commercial vessel fails to land

any summer flounder within any 52-

week period, its moratorium permit

expires. The theory behind this

provision is that the FMP had very

liberal qualification rules for a

moratorium permit, so a retirement

provision was needed to reduce

harvesting capacity over time. Another

view of this issue is that the retirement

rule could force fishermen to participate

in the summer flounder fishery only to

keep their eligibility, thereby increasing

effort to the fishery each year.

3. Vessel Replacement Criteria

The New England Council has

requested that the Mid-Atlantic Council

adopt the replacement language of the

Multispecies FMP in the Summer

Flounder FMP.

The Summer Flounder FMP prohibits

vessel replacement unless the vessel

sinks, burns, or is declared unseaworthy

by the Coast Guard. The rule was

implemented to prevent increases in

fishing power. The New England

Council’s Northeast Multispecies FMP

also contains a vessel moratorium. The

Multispecies FMP allows vessel

replacement, as long as the horsepower

does not increase by more than 20

percent and the length, gross registered

tonnage, and net tonnage do not

increase by more than 10 percent.

The Multispecies FMP also provides

that the moratorium permits issued for

a given vessel may not be divided

between two vessels. Therefore, under

the Multispecies FMP rules, if the

owner of a vessel with multispecies and

summer flounder permits wants to build

a replacement vessel, the owner would

not be able to transfer the summer

flounder permit to the replacement

vessel.

Many vessels are permitted under

both FMPs. Of the 4,516 vessels that

have commercial multispecies permits,

and of the 1,206 vessels that have

commercial summer flounder permits,

1,032 vessels have permits under both

FMPs.

4. Recreational Catch Limitation

Adjustment System

The Summer Flounder FMP provides

that, if a state exceeds its commercial

quota, the excess is deducted from the

next year’s quota. There is no parallel

system if the coastwide harvest limit for

the recreational fishery is exceeded. If

the recreational fishery were to exceed

its target, it is possible that the overall

quota (commercial quota and

recreational harvest limit) would need

to be reduced for the next year. In other

words, the commercial fishery quota

may be reduced because the recreational

target was exceeded. Some people in the

industry believe that this situation

presents an equity problem that should

be addressed.

If the coastwide recreational

management system continues, one

management alternative would be to

deduct any recreational overage from

the harvest target for the following year.

5. Commercial Quota System

When Amendment 2 was being

developed, many quota management

systems were considered, including a

coastwide quota, regional, and state-bystate quotas. A simple coastwide system

was not feasible, due to the migratory

patterns of summer flounder. Fishermen

at the southern end of the range could

possibly catch all the quota before

fishermen at the northern end of the

range had access to the summer

flounder.
18796 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 71 / Thursday, April 13, 1995 / Proposed Rules

To mitigate this inequity, the Council

adopted a state-by-state quota system.

The states are responsible for managing

their quotas, and NMFS retains an

oversight role to assure that the state

quotas are not exceeded. Since then, the

FMP has been amended to allow the

states to combine or trade quotas.

Some industry representatives would

like the Council to consider alternative

quota allocation systems. Many of the

states have divided their annual quotas

into quotas for shorter time periods, e.g.,

quarterly, and have instituted trip limit

systems to reduce the chances of

closure. The trip limits may be adequate

for resident fishermen, but may be too

small to support transient vessels that

traditionally have landed in a number of

states from Massachusetts to North

Carolina.

Another problem with state-by-state

quotas is differing trip limits in adjacent

states. Vessels will land in the state with

the highest trip limit. This problem

occurred in Connecticut, where trip

limits were considered unnecessary and

thus were not imposed. However, in

response to a reduction in the

Massachusetts trip limit, many vessels

landed in Connecticut and filled

Connecticut’s quota in a few days—

before preventative action could be

implemented.

In general, any alternative to a stateby-state quota system would have to

allow for an equitable allocation of the

commercial quota between northern and

southern participants, as well as

between the smaller day boats and

larger offshore vessels. Due to the

seasonal nature of the summer flounder

fishery, the quota also would have to be

divided into smaller temporal units to

allow for a fair distribution. One

possible approach is a bimonthly quota

allocation system. To minimize effects

on traditional landings patterns, the

allocation to each period would be

based on past landings instead of a

system that divided the quota equally

over the six periods. For example, based

on 1992 data, 23 percent would be

allocated to period 1 (January–February)

and only 6 percent to period 3 (May–

June)(Table 1.).

TABLE 1.—THE PERCENT OF THE

TOTAL SUMMER FLOUNDER LANDED

COMMERCIALLY IN 1992 FOR EACH

2–MONTH PERIOD

Period Percent

Jan–Feb ........................................ 22.68

Mar–Apr ........................................ 13.78

May–Jun ....................................... 5.97

Jul–Aug ......................................... 8.29

Sep–Oct ........................................ 28.13

TABLE 1.—THE PERCENT OF THE

TOTAL SUMMER FLOUNDER LANDED

COMMERCIALLY IN 1992 FOR EACH

2–MONTH PERIOD—Continued

Period Percent

Nov–Dec ....................................... 21.14

Source: NMFS Weighout Data.

A coastwide bimonthly quota

allocation system would allow

fishermen to land in any port along the

coast. All commercial landings during a

bimonthly period would count toward

the quota for that period. When the

quota had been landed for a bimonthly

period, fishing for and/or landing

summer flounder would be prohibited

for the remainder of the period.

Landings in excess of the allocation for

the period would be subtracted from the

following year’s quota for the same

period.

However, bimonthly allocations

without trip limits would encourage

derby-style fishing practices that would

allow the quota to be landed by larger,

more mobile vessels at the beginning of

each period. Supplies of summer

flounder would be discontinuous and

smaller boats would be disadvantaged.

Therefore, trip limits would be

necessary to ensure a safer and more

equitable fishery.

The trip limits could be established

and modified throughout the 2-month

period to allow for a continuous supply

of product and equitable distribution of

flounder to fishermen using both small

and large vessels. For example, a 3,000-

lb (1,360.78 kg) trip limit could be

established for the beginning of period

1. The limit would decrease to 1,000 lb

(453.59 kg) when 50 percent of the

allocation was reached, to 500 lb (226.8

kg) when 75 percent of the quota was

taken, and to 100 lb (45.36 kg) when 90

percent of the landings were reached.

Different trip limit systems could be

designed for each period to ensure

equitable distribution over each 2-

month period.

Unlike the current management

program that allows states to design

their own systems, NMFS would be

responsible for implementing trip limits

for each period. Therefore, NMFS will

need significant resources to design and

implement such a system.

6. Management of the Recreational

Fishery

During the development of

Amendment 2, much debate arose over

whether the recreational fishery should

be managed on a state-by-state basis (the

same as the commercial fishery), on a

regional basis, or coastwide. The final

decision was to manage on a coastwide

basis.

The recreational fishery is now

managed with a combination of

minimum fish size limits, possession

limits, and seasons that apply

coastwide. However, recreational

landings are not equally distributed

along the coast. For example, summer

flounder landings are considerably

higher in New York and New Jersey

than they are in North Carolina.

Coastwide management results in the

fishing mortality reduction measures

effectively being averaged across all of

the states. To ensure greater equity

between northern and southern states,

the Council has been asked to consider

regional or state-by-state management of

the recreational fishery.

Regional management could require

that different measures be implemented

in the three regions along the coast. As

an example, the fishing mortality

reduction strategy in Amendment 2

called for a reduction of 47 percent in

the first 3 years of implementation. The

resulting coastwide management

measures included a 14-inch (35.6-cm)

minimum fish size, a 3-fish possession

limit and no closed season on a

coastwide basis. Had the fishing

mortality reduction strategy been

implemented in subregions with the

same size limit and season, the

possession limit would have been two

from Maine to Connecticut, two in the

states from New York to Delaware, and

six from Maryland to North Carolina.

A state-by-state system would allocate

recreational quota to each state. Each

state would then be required to develop

management measures to ensure that the

harvest limit would not be exceeded for

that state.

7. Summer Flounder Bycatch in the Sea

Scallop Fishery

Although scallop dredges account for

approximately 1 percent of the summer

flounder landings, they are the second

most important gear in the commercial

summer flounder fishery (after otter

trawls). The scallop fishery is currently

managed under the Atlantic Sea Scallop

FMP, which placed a moratorium on the

entry of additional vessels into the sea

scallop fishery and imposed an effort

limitation system.

Under the Summer Flounder FMP,

sea scallop fishermen, if they qualify for

a permit, may land all the summer

flounder they catch, as long as they

meet the minimum fish size limit and

comply with the applicable state trip

limits or closures. However, the summer

flounder FMP and implementing

regulations provide that when a state’s

commercial quota has been taken, no
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 71 / Thursday, April 13, 1995 / Proposed Rules 18797

commercial vessels may land summer

flounder. The issue arises then, of

whether sea scallop fishermen should

be allowed to land their bycatch without

regard to state summer flounder trip

limits or closures, so long as the

flounder meet the minimum fish size

limit.

8. Bycatch Allowance

The summer flounder FMP provides

that only vessels with moratorium

permits may land summer flounder for

sale. All other vessels must comply with

the recreational seasons, size limits, and

possession limits. The issue for scoping

is whether commercial vessels that did

not qualify for moratorium permits

should be allowed to land for sale a

specified amount of summer flounder

caught as bycatch in fisheries directed at

other species.

9. De Minimis Status for States

The Summer Flounder FMP is a joint

plan prepared under both the Magnuson

Fishery Conservation and Management

Act of 1976, as amended, and the

Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative

Management Act (ACFCMA). Under

ACFCMA, if a state does not implement

measures required by an FMP, the

Federal Government may impose a

moratorium on landing the species

covered by the FMP in that state.

In the case of summer flounder,

several states, e.g., Maine, New

Hampshire, and Delaware, had

historically very small, or de minimis,

commercial fisheries and, therefore,

received very small quota allocations. A

question for resolution under

Amendment 7 is whether these states

should be required to impose a full

array of management measures for what

could be a bycatch fishery.

This issue is essentially an Atlantic

States Marine Fisheries Commission

(ASMFC) concern, because the Director,

Northeast Region, NMFS, must ensure

no landing of summer flounder by

federally permitted vessels once a state’s

quota has been landed. The Federal

minimum fish size limit would apply to

summer flounder in commerce.

Federally permitted vessels would be

required to use the appropriate

minimum cod end on otter trawl nets,

which is the management measure

established by the FMP.

Several states also have de minimis

landings in the recreational sector. It

must be determined whether adequate

conservation reasons exist to incur the

governmental costs associated with

preparing and implementing

regulations. The state-by-state

distribution of the 1989 summer

flounder recreational catch is shown in

Table 2 below.

TABLE 2.—ESTIMATED TOTAL RECREATIONAL CATCH OF ALL SPECIES AND SUMMER FLOUNDER (SF), MAINE TO NORTH

CAROLINA, 1989

State

Total catch SF catch State SF

catch as

percent of

coast SF

catch

State SF

catch as

percent of

state total

(lb) (lb) catch

% %

ME ....................................................................................................................................... 2,206,420 .................... ................ ................

NH ....................................................................................................................................... 1,765,093 6,360 0.2 0.4

MA ....................................................................................................................................... 14,137,658 26,122 0.9 0.2

RI ......................................................................................................................................... 4,984,989 120,842 4.3 2.4

CT ........................................................................................................................................ 5,908,942 33,875 1.2 0.6

NY ........................................................................................................................................ 20,114,161 449,865 16.0 2.2

NJ ........................................................................................................................................ 17,176,916 651,288 23.2 3.8

DE ........................................................................................................................................ 4,371,203 143,750 5.1 3.3

MD ....................................................................................................................................... 12,791,667 471,839 16.8 3.7

VA ........................................................................................................................................ 20,127,089 527,566 18.8 2.6

NC ....................................................................................................................................... 16,852,753 372,652 13.3 2.2

Source: Unpublished NMFS Data.

(Table originally appeared as Table 42 in Amendment 2 to the Summer Flounder Fishery Management Plan)

10. Summer Flounder Landings by

Vessels Without Federal Summer

Flounder Permits

A better reporting system must be

developed for summer flounder caught

in state waters. Currently, vessels that

land summer flounder caught in state

waters are not required to have Federal

permits, and therefore, are not required

to file Federal logbook reports. In

addition, some dealers handle only

summer flounder caught in state waters

and are thus also not subject to the

Federal permitting and reporting

requirements.

The commercial quota, however,

applies to all summer flounder caught

for sale, regardless of where caught. The

states must, therefore, implement a

reporting system to account for the

summer flounder caught in state waters.

11. In-Season Quota Adjustments

The summer flounder FMP allows

quotas to be set once a year and to take

effect January 1. It may be desirable to

change quotas during the year as new

information becomes available. This

may create uncertainty in the industry,

however, and further complicate the

quota setting process.

12. Quota Setting Process

The annual quota setting process

would be more clearly defined under

the alternative proposed in Amendment

7. The summer flounder FMP contains

fishing mortality rate targets, factors to

be considered in setting the quotas, and

a process for the Council to follow in

setting the quotas. The FMP does not

discuss the limits that may be placed on

the Council’s discretion in setting the

quotas, specifically the probability of

achieving the target fishing mortality

rates. This alternative would establish

guidelines to be used by the Council

when it sets annual quotas.

13. Fishing Mortality Rate Reduction

Strategy

The current fishing mortality rate

reduction strategy, incorporated in

Amendment 2, called for a reduction in

fishing mortality (F) to 0.53 during the

first year that Amendment 2 was in
18798 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 71 / Thursday, April 13, 1995 / Proposed Rules

effect (1993). That rate was to remain

constant for a total of three years (1993–

95). In 1996, the fishing mortality rate

will be reduced to Fmax (F = 0.23) and

remain constant at that level.

Although the fishing mortality

reduction program has had some

success, the poor 1993 year class will

significantly reduce the allowable catch

in 1996 in order to meet the fishing

mortality rate target. This reduction may

have significant negative impact on the

fisheries. Therefore, it might be

appropriate to readjust the fishing

mortality rate reduction strategy in

order to reduce the severity of the 1996

reduction.

For example, an alternative strategy

could set the fishing mortality rate for

1996 at 0.38, which is halfway between

the 1995 target F (0.53) and 0.23. Based

on the information provided by the

latest stock assessment, this

intermediate reduction could allow for

a 1996 quota that was approximately 50

percent larger than the one associated

with the current strategy (i.e., an F of

0.23). However, this increase in quota

would have a slight affect on the

spawning stock; stock numbers would

only be reduced by 10 percent in 1997

relative to the stock size associated with

the current reduction strategy.

Current Management Objectives. (Part

of scoping is the possible reevaluation

of the existing objectives). The

objectives of the FMP are to:

1. Reduce fishing mortality in the

summer flounder fishery to assure that

overfishing does not occur.

2. Reduce fishing mortality on

immature summer flounder to increase

spawning stock biomass.

3. Improve the yield from the fishery.

4. Promote compatible management

regulations between state and Federal

jurisdictions.

5. Promote uniform and effective

enforcement of regulations.

6. Minimize regulations to achieve the

management objectives stated above.

Commercial Fishery Management

Measures. Possible management

measures for the commercial fishery

include: Minimum and/or maximum

fish size, minimum mesh size, closed

seasons, quotas (including adjustment

among states), moratorium on vessels,

ITQs, trip limits, permit limits, and gear

restrictions and limits.

Recreational Fishery Management

Measures. Possible management

measures for the summer flounder

recreational fishery include: Minimum

and/or maximum fish size, maximum

possession limit, closed seasons, closed

areas, gear restrictions and limits,

quotas (including adjustments among

states), and restrictions on the ability to

sell recreationally caught fish.

Possible management measures for

the summer flounder fishery that carries

recreational fishermen for hire include:

Minimum and/or maximum fish size,

maximum possession limit, closed

seasons, closed areas, gear restrictions

and limits, quotas (including adjustment

among states), and restrictions on the

ability to sell recreationally caught fish.

Any measures that are implemented

under Amendment 7 would most likely

be included in the summer flounder

framework. The framework allows the

Monitoring Committee, made up of

representatives of the three Councils,

ASMFC, and NMFS, to review annually

the condition of the resource and fishery

and recommend adjustments to the

measures (e.g., possession limit, quota,

etc.) to achieve the desired goals.

Permitting and Reporting. It is not

anticipated that the permitting and

reporting provisions of the current FMP

will be changed as a result of this

Amendment.

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

Dated: April 7, 1995.

Richard H. Schaefer,

Director of Office of Fisheries Conservation

and Management, National Marine Fisheries

Service.

[FR Doc. 95–9082 Filed 4–10–95; 9:16 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–W