13024 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 42 / Friday, March 2, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

19Opposition of Nextel Communications, Inc., to

Petition for Reconsideration of the American

Mobile Telecommunications Association, Inc., filed

on April 10, 2000, at 2 (Nextel Opposition). 20Nextel Opposition at 5. 21 Id. AMTA and PCIA agree that the relocation

process has proceeded successfully. AMTA Petition

at 2; PCIA Comments at 3. 22Amendment to the Commission’s Rules

Regarding a Plan for Sharing the Costs of

Microwave Relocation, First Report and Order and

Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 11 FCC

Rcd. 8825, 8838 (paragraph 23) 61 FR 29679 (June

12, 1996) (incumbent must be made ‘‘whole,’’

which includes being provided with ‘‘comparable

facilities’’). Section 101.75 requires the payment of

relocation costs to the incumbent but envisages that

this will occur after the relocation process is

completed, not according to a progress payments

system. See 47 CFR 101.75.

23AMTA Petition at 4–5 (paragraph 8), 6–7

(paragraphs 11–13).

24Petrocom Petition at 1.

25 Id.

26Auction 34 concluded on September 1, 2000,

and Auction 36 concluded on December 5, 2000.

27See In re Cellular Service and Other

Commercial Mobile Radio Services in the Gulf of

Mexico, WT Docket No. 97–112, Second Further

Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 12 FCC Rcd. 4578,

4600 (paragraph 62) (1997), 65 FR 24168 (Apr. 25,

2000) (Gulf Cellular Second Further Notice). The

Commission took notice in the Gulf Cellular Second

Further Notice of Petrocom’s petition for

rulemaking. Id. at 4600–1 (paragraph 62) (citing

Letter from Kenneth W. Burnley, Myers Keller

Communications Law Group, to David Furth, FCC,

dated February 21, 1997).

the payment of relocation costs as they

see fit, and we continue to do so.

5. AMTA does not present any new

arguments to support its current request

that the Commission require EA

licensees to make progress payments to

incumbent 800 MHz licensees during

their involuntary relocation. Moreover,

there is nothing currently before us in

the record that would prompt us to

change our decision. In its opposition,

Nextel, the predominant winner of EA

licenses in the upper 200 channel

auction, states that it has initiated

relocation discussions with over ninety

percent of the nation’s upper 200

channel incumbents and has already

reached voluntary agreements to acquire

or relocate over fifty percent of the total

number of incumbent channels that it,

as an EA licensee, will be allowed to

relocate.19 Nextel recommends that the

timing of payments for relocation

expenses should continue to be left to

the negotiation process and the common

sense of the parties ‘‘to select the

payment schedule and other terms that

meet the unique requirements of the

individual transaction.’’ 20 Nextel also

points out that neither AMTA nor PCIA

has cited any instance in which an EA

licensee did not agree to some form of

progress payments or an incumbent has

been harmed by the current rule

structure.21 We also note that the

Commission did not adopt a progress

payments method when it established

policies relocating 2 GHz microwave

licensees by PCS MTA and BTA

licensees.22 For these reasons, we deny

AMTA’s petition.

6. We also disagree with AMTA’s

contention that incumbent licensees

will be especially vulnerable after the

involuntary relocation period begins

because they will not be in a position

to negotiate with the EA licensee.23 As

our discussion above demonstrates, an

EA licensee that seeks to involuntarily

relocate an incumbent licensee assumes

a broad range of obligations to the

incumbent that must be met before the

incumbent can be required to relocate.

Because the burden of providing

comparable facilities and paying

relocation costs rests on the EA licensee,

we do not believe that an incumbent

will be prejudiced by the process.

B. Petrocom Petition

7. In its petition,24 Petrocom, which

holds site-specific SMR licenses as well

as one of the cellular licenses for the

Gulf of Mexico, requested that the

Commission include the Gulf of Mexico

as an additional Economic Area (EA) in

the then-upcoming 800 MHz auctions

for the 150 General Category channels

(Auction 34) and the Lower 80 channels

(Auction 36). Petrocom acknowledged

that it had not previously raised this

issue in the 800 MHz proceeding.25

Since Petrocom filed its petition, both

Auction 34 and Auction 36 have

concluded.26 Although neither of these

auctions provided for EA licensing in

the Gulf, we note that Petrocom has

filed a similar petition for rulemaking in

the Gulf Cellular proceeding,27 and that

we have sought comment in that

proceeding as to whether we should

establish a Gulf EA in the 800 and 900

MHz SMR services for possible future

licensing. Because this issue is before us

in the Gulf Cellular proceeding, and

because Petrocom has not raised it

previously in this proceeding, we

decline to address it here. Therefore, we

dismiss Petrocom’s petition.

III. Procedural Matters

A. Regulatory Flexibility Act

8. No Supplemental Final Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis (Supplemental

FRFA) has been prepared for this item

because this Third Order on

Reconsideration does not promulgate or

revise any rules, and our previous RFA

analyses in this proceeding remain

unchanged. Furthermore, no Regulatory

Flexibility comments were received

regarding the Memorandum Opinion

and Order on Reconsideration.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

Analysis

9. This Third Report and Order on

Reconsideration does not contain a new

or modified information collection.

IV. Ordering Clauses

10. Pursuant to sections 4(i) and 405

of the Communications Act as 1934, as

amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 405, the

petition for reconsideration filed by the

American Mobile Telecommunications

Association is denied.

11. Further, pursuant to sections 4(i)

and 405 of the Communications Act as

1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 405,

the petition for reconsideration filed by

the Petroleum Communications, Inc., is

dismissed.

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Deputy, Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01–5041 Filed 3–1–01; 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.

102600B]

RIN 0648–AN69

Fisheries of the Northeastern United

States; Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and

Butterfish Fisheries; 2001

Specifications and Foreign Fishing

Restrictions

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Final rule; specifications for

2001.

SUMMARY: NMFS issues final

specifications for the 2001 fishing year

for Atlantic mackerel, squid, and

butterfish (MSB). This action also

allocates the domestic annual harvest

for Loligo squid into quarterly periods.

The intent of this final rule is to

conserve and manage the MSB resource

in compliance with the Fishery

Management Plan for the Atlantic

Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish

Fisheries (FMP); the regulations; and the

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery

Conservation and Management Act

(Magnuson-Stevens Act).

DATES: Effective March 2, 2001, except

that the quotas for Loligo and Illex

squid, Atlantic mackerel, and butterfish

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 42 / Friday, March 2, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 13025

are effective March 2, 2001, through

December 31, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on any

ambiguity or unnecessary complexity

arising from the language used in this

final rule to Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional

Administrator, Northeast Region,

National Marine Fisheries Service, One

Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA

01930–2298.

Copies of supporting documents,

including the Environmental

Assessment(EA), Regulatory Impact

Review (RIR), Final Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) and the

Essential Fish Habitat Assessment, are

available from Patricia A. Kurkul (see

previous address). The EA/RIR/FRFA is

accessible via the Internet at http://

www.nero.gov/ro/doc/nr.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul

H. Jones, Fishery Policy Analyst, 978-

281-9273, fax 978-281-9135, e-mail

paul.h.jones@noaa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulations implementing the FMP

require NMFS to publish annual

specifications for maximum optimum

yield (Max OY), allowable biological

catch (ABC), initial optimum yield

(IOY), domestic annual harvest (DAH),

domestic annual processing (DAP), joint

venture processing (JVP), and total

allowable levels of foreign fishing

(TALFF) for the species managed under

the FMP.

Proposed 2001 initial specifications

were published on December 5, 2000

(65 FR 75912). Public comments were

requested through January 4, 2001. The

final specifications are unchanged from

those that were proposed. A complete

discussion of the specifications appears

in the preamble to the proposed rule

and is not repeated here.

2001 Final Specifications

The following table contains the final

specifications for the 2001 MSB

fisheries as recommended by the MidAtlantic Fishery Management Council

(Council).

TABLE 1. FINAL ANNUAL SPECIFICATIONS FOR ATLANTIC MACKEREL, SQUID, AND BUTTERFISH FOR THE FISHING YEAR

JANUARY 1 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2001. METRIC TONS (MT)

Specifications

Squid Atlantic

Mackerel Butterfish

Loligo Illex

Max OY 26,000 24,000 N/A1 16,000

ABC 17,000 24,000 347,000 7,200

IOY 17,0006 24,0006 88,0002,6 5,9006

DAH 17,000 24,000 85,0003 5,897

DAP 17,000 24,000 50,000 5,897

JVP 0 0 20,0004 0

TALFF 0 0 3,000 35

1 Not applicable. 2 OY may be increased during the year, but the total ABC will not exceed 347,000 mt 3 Includes 15,000 mt of Atlantic mackerel recreational allocation. 4 JVP may be increased up to 30,000 mt at discretion of RA. 5 Bycatch TALFF specified at § 648.21(b)(3)(ii). 6 If a 2 percent research set-aside is deducted, the total IOY would be as follows: Atlantic mackerel - 86,240 mt, Loligo–16,660 mt, Illex–

23,520 mt, and butterfish– 5,782 mt.

Atlantic Mackerel

This final rule specifies an Atlantic

mackerel JVP of 20,000 mt for the 2001

fishery, with a possible increase of up

to 10,000 mt (for a total JVP of up to

30,000 mt) later in the fishing year,

should additional applications for JVP

be received. This adjustment would be

made through publication of a

notification in the Federal Register.

This action also specifies an Atlantic

mackerel DAP of 50,000 mt and a DAH

of 85,000 mt, which includes a 15,000-

mt recreational component.

A TALFF of 3,000 mt is specified for

the 2001 Atlantic mackerel fishery.

Several foreign nations have expressed

their interest in JVP, with two

applications already submitted by

Lithuania and the Russian Federation. A

permit would only authorize a foreign

vessel to harvest TALFF when U.S.

vessels are unable to deliver product to

foreign JV catcher/processor vessels for

a period of time due to events such as

bad weather.

When setting TALFF specifications

for the 2001 Atlantic mackerel fishery,

the Council also recommended

conditions and restrictions for JVs and

TALFF allocations. Those

recommendations include: (1) Allowing

JVs south of 37°30′ N. lat., but restricting

river herring incidental catch to no more

than 0.25 percent of the over-the-side

transfers of Atlantic mackerel; (2)

prohibiting directed foreign fishing for

Atlantic mackerel south of 37° 30′ N.

lat., prohibiting directed foreign fishing

for Atlantic mackerel landward of a line

20 nautical miles from shore north of

37° 30′ N. lat., and specifying no TALFF

for river herring; (3) ensuring, through

the Administrator, Northeast Region,

NMFS (Regional Administrator), that

impacts on marine mammals are

reduced in the prosecution of the

Atlantic mackerel fishery; (4) allowing

the mackerel optimum yield (OY) to be

increased during the year, provided the

total does not exceed 347,000 mt; (5)

allowing the review of applications from

a particular nation for a Atlantic

mackerel JV or TALFF allocation for

2001 to include an evaluation by the

Regional Administrator of that nation’s

performances relative to purchase

obligations for previous years; (6)

releasing 50 percent of the foreign

nation’s TALFF allotment upon

approval of an application for TALFF

and releasing additional TALFF only

when the foreign participant has

purchased 25 percent of the JVP

allotment to that nation, while

specifying no purchase ratios; (7)

requiring foreign fishing vessels (FFVs)

purchasing JVP-caught fish from

contracted U.S. vessels to cease directed

fishing and take the transfer from the

U.S. vessel as soon as practicable if a

FFV engaged in directed fishing is

approached by a contracted U.S. vessel;

(8) authorizing no in-season adjustment

in TALFF (i.e., TALFF not to exceed

3,000 mt), unless the Regional

Administrator, in consultation with the

Council, determines that it is

appropriate to increase IOY to provide

additional TALFF, provided the TALFF

does not exceed a cap of 5,000 mt; and

(9) limiting directed foreign fishing for

Atlantic mackerel to the use of midwater trawl gear. The Council

recommended these conditions and

restrictions to strictly control any

13026 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 42 / Friday, March 2, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

foreign fishing for TALFF for the benefit

of the domestic fishery and in

conformance with the FMP. NMFS will

consider these recommendations prior

to allocating TALFF.

Distribution of Annual Loligo Squid

Quota into Four Quarters

This final rule specifies a Loligo squid

IOY of 17,000 mt, which is equal to

ABC, and sub-divides the annual quota

into quarterly periods. The quota is

allocated to each period based on the

proportion of landings occurring in each

corresponding 3-month period from

1994–1998. The directed Loligo squid

fishery will be closed in Quarters I, II,

and III when 80 percent of any of those

periods’ allocations are harvested, with

vessels restricted to a 2,500-lb (1,134 kg)

Loligo trip limit until the end of the

respective quarter. Additionally, when

95 percent of the total annual DAH has

been harvested, the trip limit will be

reduced to 2,500 lb (1,134 kg) of Loligo

for the remainder of the year. When the

2,500-lb (1,134 kg) trip limit has been

triggered, vessels will be prohibited

from possessing or landing more than

2,500 lb in a single calendar day. Any

quota overages in Quarter I will be

deducted from the allocation in Quarter

III, and any overage in Quarter II will be

deducted from the allocation in Quarter

IV. The quota allocation is shown in

Table 2.

TABLE 2. 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

Butterfish

Regulations promulgated under

Amendment 5 to the FMP eliminated

the possibility of JVP or TALFF

specifications for butterfish, except for a

bycatch TALFF specification if TALFF

is specified for Atlantic mackerel.

Because this final rule allows for an

Atlantic mackerel TALFF allocation, a 3

mt bycatch TALFF for butterfish has

been specified. If the Regional

Administrator, in consultation with of

the Council, determines that it is

appropriate to increase the specified

TALFF of 3,000 mt for Atlantic

mackerel, then the specified TALFF of

3 mt for butterfish also will be

increased. The Regional Administrator

may increase the TALFF for Atlantic

mackerel by up to 2000 mt and may

increase the TALFF for butterfish by up

to 1 mt (A butterfish TALFF of 4 mt is

equal to 0.08 percent of an Atlantic

mackerel TALFF of 5000 mt, as

described at § 648.21(b)(3)(ii).

Comments and Responses

Fifty-two comments were received on

the proposed specifications from the

public during the comment period that

ended on January 4, 2001. Specific

comments related to the proposed

annual specifications and regulations

are discussed and responded to as

follows:

Comment 1: A commenter supported

the allocation of Atlantic mackerel JVP

and TALFF.

Response: This final rule implements

the proposed allocation of Atlantic

mackerel JVP and TALFF.

Comment 2: Many commenters did

not support the allocation of Atlantic

mackerel TALFF. One commenter stated

that commercial and recreational fishers

have been unable to harvest even a

small percentage of the total allowable

landings based on the current

assessment of the mackerel fishery,

leading fishers to believe that the

assessments overestimate the actual

stock size by orders of magnitude. The

commenter concluded that NMFS does

not have the data to take such a risk of

exploiting such a valuable resource.

Another commenter stated that it is

unreasonable to encourage direct foreign

harvest of mackerel while limiting

domestic participation. The commenter

further argued that foreign U.S.

mackerel harvested product would

compete with U.S. domestic mackerel

harvest.

Response: The most recent stock

assessment for Atlantic mackerel (the

30th Northeast Regional Stock

Assessment Workshop, April 2000

(SAW-30)) concluded that the stock is at

a high level of biomass and is

underexploited. Current annual

landings are considerably below the

long-term potential yield estimated to be

150,000 mt. The SAW-30 management

advice stated that the forgone yield is in

excess of 100,000 mt and the fishery can

be increased substantially. The Council

believes the capacity of the domestic

fleet to harvest mackerel greatly exceeds

the domestic processors’ capacity to

process mackerel. The question of

whether or not to provide an allocation

of TALFF, other than zero, was

reviewed and discussed by the Council

at length before it made a final

recommendation. Allowing a very small

level (<1 percent of the ABC) of foreign

fishing to take place, primarily to move

incrementally toward achieving OY and

to provide opportunity to utilize U.S.

harvesting capacity by stimulating JVP

activity, will have a positive impact on

the development of the U.S. Atlantic

mackerel fishery in the world market

and will not compete with mackerel

harvested by U.S. vessels.

Comment 3: A commenter raised the

need for an ecosystem-wide, integrated

approach to population assessments,

and stated that removal of mackerel by

the foreign fleets could dramatically

effect the entire ecosystem food chain

(whales, cod, haddock, dogfish, and

other groundfish) along the east coast of

the Atlantic. The commenter concluded

that any surplus of fish not harvested by

domestic vessels should be reserved for

the ecosystem and those species that

depend upon them for food.

Response: Ecosystem approaches to

fishery assessment and management are

desirable, and NMFS is working on such

approaches that may prove useful in the

future. However, given the complexity

of ecosystem interactions, there is no

demonstrative link between mackerel

abundance and the survival and

recovery of whales, cod, haddock, and

other groundfish. The current

population assessment is consistent

with the best available scientific

information and scientific practices,

complies with requirements of

applicable law, and is adequate to

manage effectively the mackerel fishery.

Comment 4: A commenter argued that

foreign vessels intending to operate

under an allocation of TALFF would

greatly exceed the restrictions of the law

passed by Congress limiting the length,

weight, and horsepower of vessels

participating in the mackerel fishery.

Response: NMFS disagrees. In the

NMFS appropriations bills for fiscal

years 1998 and 1999, Congress restricted

NMFS from using any of its funds to

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 42 / Friday, March 2, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 13027

issue permits or other authorization

letters to domestic vessels exceeding the

established length, weight, and

horsepower limit restrictions. Current

mackerel regulations (§ 648.4(a)(5)(iii))

allow any domestic vessel to obtain a

permit to fish for or retain Atlantic

mackerel in or from the EEZ, except for

vessels that exceed either 165 ft (50.3 m)

in length overall and 750 gross

registered tons, or a shaft horsepower of

3000. These restrictions were put into

place to manage the harvest capacity of

the domestic fleet. In the case of foreign

vessels, the harvest capacity is

controlled by the extremely small

amount of TALFF allocation, rendering

the size limit restrictions immaterial.

Comment 5: A commenter stated that

the allocation of Atlantic mackerel DAP

is overestimated, noted that U.S.

processors in past years have not

attained the DAP levels recommended

by the Council, and recommended

reducing DAP.

Response: NMFS disagrees. Reducing

DAP, which could negatively affect U.S.

processing and exports by infringing on

markets currently engaged in by

domestic processors, goes well beyond

any measures discussed and analyzed

by the Council. In order to be

considered by NMFS, recommendations

to reduce DAP should be made through

the Council for its consideration and

analysis.

Classification

This final rule has been determined to

be not significant for purposes of

Executive Order 12866.

NMFS prepared a FRFA for this

action. A copy of the FRFA is available

from NMFS (see ADDRESSES). A

summary of the FRFA follows:

A description of the reasons why

action by the agency is being taken and

the objectives of this final rule are

explained in the preamble to the

proposed rule and are not repeated here.

This action does not contain any

collection-of-information, reporting,

recordkeeping, or other compliance

requirements. It does not duplicate,

overlap, or conflict with any other

Federal rules. This action is taken under

authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act

and regulations at 50 CFR part 648.

Fifty-two comments were submitted

on the proposed rule, but none of them

were specific to the initial regulatory

flexibility analysis. However, 10

commenters responded to the economic

impacts of the measures on of fishing

industry, and NMFS addressed those

comments (1, 2, and 5) in the Comments

and Responses section of the preamble

to the final rule. No changes were made

to the final rule as a result of these

comments received.

There are 475 Loligo vessels, 77 Illex

vessels, 443 butterfish vessels, and

1,980 Atlantic mackerel vessels that

reported landings during the period

1996–1999 that would likely be

impacted by the 2001 specifications.

Many vessels participate in more than

one of these fisheries; therefore, the

numbers are not additive. The final

Illex, butterfish, and Atlantic mackerel

specifications represent no constraint on

vessels in these fisheries. The levels of

these specifications have not been

achieved by landings for these species

in recent years. Absent a constraint on

the fisheries, no impacts on revenues

are expected.

If the final 2001 DAH specification for

Loligo squid is not exceeded, the result

would be a decrease in catch and

revenue in the Loligo fishery relative to

the 1999 landings and an increase from

the average landings from 1996-1999

(i.e., if the status quo were maintained)

and the 2000 preliminary landings.

The first alternative action for

Atlantic mackerel would be to set the

2001 specifications at the same level as

2000, with DAP at 50,000 mt and JVP at

10,000 mt. Although it was rejected as

inconsistent with the FMP because it

would not meet the policy objectives of

the Council relative to further

development of the U.S. domestic

harvest of Atlantic mackerel, this

alternative would place no constraints,

and consequently no revenue impacts,

on the fishery.

The second alternative for mackerel

would be to set ABC at the long-term

potential catch, or 150,000 mt, with

DAP at 50,000 mt and JVP at 20,000 mt.

This alternative was found inconsistent

with the FMP because it would not

allow for variations and contingencies

in the status of the stock. For example,

the current adult stock was recently

estimated to exceed 2.1 million mt. The

specification of ABC at LTPC would

effectively result in an exploitation rate

of only about 6 percent, well below the

optimal level of exploitation. The level

of foregone yield under this alternative

was considered unacceptable and would

not impact the IOY specifications.

The third alternative for mackerel

would be to lower the specification of

IOY to 68,000 mt and eliminate JVP,

resulting in a DAP of 50,000 mt. This

alternative would not constrain the

fishery and would have no impact on

revenues of participants in this fishery.

For Loligo, one alternative would be

to set the ABC, DAH, DAP, and IOY at

13,000 mt. This was the same level as

2000 until an inseason adjustment

increased the ABC, DAH, DAP, and IOY

to 15,000 mt (65 FR 60118, October 10,

2000). Under the scenario of a 13,000 mt

DAH; if that value were not exceeded in

2001, 121 of the 443 impacted vessels

would experience revenue reductions of

greater than 5 percent. This would

represent a 20.5-percent reduction in

1996-1999 average landings of 16,348

mt. The remaining 322 vessels would

experience less than a 5-percent

reduction in revenue or an increase in

revenue. A second alternative would be

to set ABC, DAH, DAP, and IOY at

11,700 mt. This would represent a 28.4-

percent reduction in 1996-1999 average

landings. Under this scenario, 161 of the

443 impacted vessels would experience

revenue reductions of greater than 5-

percent. The remaining 282 vessels

would experience less than a 5-percent

reduction in revenue, or an increase in

revenue.

For Illex, the first alternative would be

to set Max OY, ABC, IOY, DAH, and

DAP at 30,000 mt, and the second

alternative would be to set Max OY at

24,000 mt and ABC, IOY, DAH, and

DAP at 19,000 mt, far exceeding recent

landings in this fishery. Therefore, there

would be no constraints, and, thus, no

revenue reductions, associated with

these specifications.

Alternatives for butterfish would be a

DAH, OY, and Max OY of 16,000 mt,

and a DAH and OY of 10,000 mt. These

specifications would not constrain or

impact the industry; however, they

would lead to overfishing of the stock,

and, thus, were rejected by the Council.

Because this final rule only

establishes either year-long or seasonal

quotas for the managed species to be

used for the sole purpose of closing the

fishery when the quotas are reached and

does not establish any requirements for

which a regulatory entity must come

into compliance, it is unnecessary to

delay for 30 days the effective date of

this final rule. Therefore, the Assistant

Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA,

under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), finds good

cause not to delay the effective date of

this final rule.

NMFS determined that this final rule

will be implemented in a manner that

is consistent, to the maximum extent

practicable, with the approved coastal

management programs of Maine, New

Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode

Island, Connecticut, New York, New

Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware,

Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina,

South Carolina, Georgia and Florida.

Concurrence in consistency was

submitted by the responsible state

agencies of Massachusetts, Rhode

Island, Connecticut, New Jersey (Loligo

squid, Illex squid, and butterfish),

Pennsylvania, Delaware, Virginia, North

13028 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 42 / Friday, March 2, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia.

Because no response was received from

Maine, New Hampshire, New York,

Maryland, and Florida, state

concurrence in consistency is inferred.

New Jersey disagreed with this

determination and advocated that the

specification of Atlantic mackerel

TALFF is inconsistent with the

economic protection provisions of its

coastal management program relative to

employment and financial opportunities

for commercial, charter, and party

vessels. NMFS and the Council disagree

with New Jersey’s determination.

Allowing a very small level (<1 percent

of the ABC) of foreign fishing to take

place, primarily to move incrementally

toward achieving OY and to provide

opportunity to utilize U.S. harvesting

capacity by stimulating JV activity, will

have a positive impact on the

development of the U.S. Atlantic

mackerel fishery and will not compete

with mackerel harvested by U.S. vessels.

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 final 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: February 26, 2001.

William T. Hogarth,

Acting Assistant Administrator for Fisheries,

National Marine Fisheries Service.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is 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 § 648.21, paragraph (e) is revised

to read as follows:

§ 648.21 Procedures for determining initial

annual amounts.

(e) Distribution of annual Loligo squid

commercial quota. (1) Beginning

January 1, 2001, a commercial quota

will be allocated annually for Loligo

squid into quarterly periods, based on

the following percentages:

Quarter Percent

I–January–March ............................ 33.23

II–April–June ................................... 17.61

III–July–September ......................... 17.30

IV–October–December ................... 31.86

(2) Beginning January 1, 2001, any

overages of commercial quota landed

from Quarter I will be subtracted from

Quarter III and any overages of

commercial quota landed from Quarter

II will be subtracted from Quarter IV.

3. In § 648.22, paragraph (a) is revised

to read as follows:

§ 648.22 Closure of the fishery.

(a) General. NMFS shall close the

directed mackerel fishery in the EEZ

when U.S. fishermen have harvested 80

percent of the DAH of that fishery if

such closure is necessary to prevent the

DAH from being exceeded. The closure

shall remain in effect for the remainder

of the fishing year, with incidental

catches allowed as specified in

paragraph (c) of this section, until the

entire DAH is attained. When the

Regional Administrator projects that

DAH will be attained for mackerel,

NMFS will close the mackerel fishery in

the EEZ, and the incidental catches

specified for mackerel in paragraph (c)

of this section will be prohibited. NMFS

will close the directed fishery in the

EEZ for Loligo when 80 percent is

harvested in Quarters I, II and III, and

when 95 percent of the total annual

DAH has been harvested. The closure of

the directed fishery will be in effect for

the remainder of the fishing year, with

incidental catches allowed as specified

in paragraph (c) of this section. NMFS

will close the directed fishery in the

EEZ for Illex or butterfish when 95

percent of the DAH has been harvested.

The closure of the directed fishery will

be in effect for the remainder of the

fishing year, with incidental catches

allowed as specified in paragraph (c) of

this section.

[FR Doc. 01–5133 Filed 3–1–01; 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.

022701B]

Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic

Zone Off Alaska; Pacific Cod by

Vessels Catching Pacific Cod for

Processing by the Inshore Component

in the Western Regulatory Area of 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 vessels

catching Pacific cod for processing by

the inshore component in the Western

Regulatory Area of the Gulf of Alaska

(GOA). This action is necessary to

prevent exceeding the A season amount

of the Pacific cod total allowable catch

(TAC) apportioned to vessels catching

Pacific cod for processing by the inshore

component of the Western Regulatory

Area of the GOA.

DATES: Effective 1200 hrs, Alaska local

time (A.l.t.), February 27, 2001, until

1200 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 inshore

component in the Western Regulatory

Area of the GOA is 9,882 metric tons

(mt) as established by the Final 2001

Harvest Specifications and Associated

Management Measures for the

Groundfish Fisheries Off Alaska (66 FR

7276, January 22, 2001).

In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(i),

the Administrator, Alaska Region,

NMFS (Regional Administrator), has

determined that the A season amount of

the Pacific cod TAC apportioned to

vessels catching Pacific cod for