[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 101 (Wednesday, May 24, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 33486-33498]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12993]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 648

[Docket No. 000119014-0137-02; I.D. No. 112399C]
RIN 0648-AM48


Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Summer Flounder, 
Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fisheries; 2000 Specifications

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Final rule, final specifications, and commercial quota 
adjustment for the 2000 summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass 
fisheries; notification of commercial quota harvest.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: NMFS issues the final specifications for the 2000 summer 
flounder, scup, and black sea bass fisheries. The annual specifications 
for the scup fishery include a new provision to restrict fishing in 
certain areas during certain time periods to reduce discards of scup in 
small-mesh fisheries. This action contains preliminary adjustments to 
the 2000 commercial quotas for the summer flounder, scup, and black sea 
bass fisheries. This action also prohibits federally permitted 
commercial vessels from landing summer flounder in the State of 
Delaware for the year 2000. The intent of this document is to comply 
with implementing regulations for the Fishery Management Plan for the 
Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fisheries (FMP) that require 
NMFS to publish measures for the upcoming fishing year that will 
prevent overfishing of these fisheries.

DATES: Effective 0001 hours, May 24, 2000, through 2400 hours, December 
31, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the Environmental Assessment (EA)/Regulatory 
Impact Review (RIR)/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), 
including the Essential Fish Habitat Assessment are available from 
Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, Northeast Region, National 
Marine Fisheries Service, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930-
2298. The EA/RIR/IRFA is accessible via the Internet at http://www.nero.gov/ro/doc/nr.htm.
    Comments regarding the collection-of-information requirements 
contained in this final rule should be sent to the Regional 
Administrator and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Washington, DC 20503 (Attention: 
NOAA Desk Officer).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Regina L. Spallone, Fishery Policy 
Analyst, (978)281-9221, fax (978)281-9135, e-mail 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The FMP was developed jointly by the Atlantic States Marine 
Fisheries Commission (Commission) and the Mid-Atlantic Fishery 
Management Council (Council) in consultation with the New England and 
South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils. The management units 
specified in the FMP include summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus) in 
U.S. waters of the Atlantic Ocean from the southern border of North 
Carolina northward to the U.S./Canada border, and scup (Stenotomus 
chrysops) and black sea bass (Centropristis striata) in U.S. waters of 
the Atlantic Ocean from 35 deg.13.3' N. latitude (the latitude of Cape 
Hatteras Light, NC) northward to the U.S./Canada border. Implementing 
regulations for these fisheries are found at 50 CFR part 648, subparts 
A, G (summer flounder), H (scup), and I (black sea bass).
    Pursuant to Secs. 648.100 (summer flounder), 648.120 (scup), and 
648.140 (black sea bass), the Regional Administrator, Northeast Region, 
NMFS, (Regional Administrator) implements measures for the fishing year 
to assure that the target fishing mortality (F) or exploitation rate 
for each fishery, as specified in the FMP is not exceeded. The target F 
or exploitation rate and management measures are summarized below by 
species. Detailed background information regarding the development of 
the proposed specifications was provided in the proposed specifications 
for the 2000 summer flounder, scup and black sea bass fisheries (65 FR 
4547, January 28, 2000), and is not repeated here. NMFS will publish a 
proposed and final rule for the 2000 recreational management measures 
for these fisheries in the Federal Register at a later date.
    On April 25, 2000, during the last stages of review of this final 
rule, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 
Circuit (Court) issued an opinion on a challenge to the 1999 summer 
flounder specifications by a number of environmental groups. The Court 
noted that the 1999 quota, when adopted, had only an 18-percent 
likelihood of meeting the conservation goals of the Magnuson-Stevens 
Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). The 
Court invalidated the 1999 quota and remanded the case to NMFS for 
further proceedings. The Court set a minimum standard for harvest 
quotas to comply with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, namely that quotas must 
have at least a 50-percent probability of achieving the target fishing 
mortality rate.
    Given the timing of the opinion and the urgency of regulating the 
ongoing fishery that began in January, after careful consideration, 
NMFS has concluded that it must have some measures in place 
establishing quotas for these fisheries. Therefore, rather than leaving 
the fisheries unregulated while it addresses the Court's remand, NMFS 
is proceeding with publication of the rule as drafted at this time. In 
addition, the specifications for summer flounder are intimately linked 
to the specifications for the scup and black sea bass fisheries, which 
were not part of the litigation. All of these specifications must be in 
place immediately in order to manage effectively the recreational 
fishery, to monitor the state-by-state commercial quotas, and to 
restrict landings by Federal permit holders upon attainment of those 
quotas--measures necessary to control the overall mortality on the 
summer flounder stock.
    NMFS considers it a matter of the highest urgency to address the 
remand of the Court and will work with its

[[Page 33487]]

partners in the Council and the Commission. NMFS intends to revise the 
2000 summer flounder quota by August 1, 2000, to a level with at least 
a 50-percent chance of not exceeding the F target. State fisheries 
agencies and fishery participants are hereby notified that the 
specifications for the 2000 commercial and recreational summer flounder 
fisheries will be revised accordingly. Participants are also reminded 
that any quota overages in the 2000 commercial summer flounder fishery 
will be deducted from 2001 quotas, as provided under the FMP.

Summer Flounder

    The FMP for summer flounder specifies a target F for 2000 of the 
level of fishing that produces maximum yield per recruit 
(FMAX). Best available data indicate that FMAX is 
currently equal to 0.26. The total allowable landings (TAL) are 
allocated to the commercial (60 percent) and the recreational (40 
percent) sectors in the proportion required by the FMP. The commercial 
sector's quota is allocated to the coastal states based on percentage 
shares specified in the FMP, and those allocations are detailed in this 
document.
    A summer flounder stock assessment was completed by the Northeast 
Fisheries Science Center's (NEFSC) Southern Demersal Working Group in 
the Spring of 1999 and reviewed by the Council's Scientific and 
Statistical Committee in July 1999. This assessment is summarized in 
the EA/RIR/IRFA. The assessment was the basis of the Summer Flounder 
Monitoring Committee's (Monitoring Committee) recommendation of a TAL 
of 16.815 million lb (7.627 million kg). The Council and Commission 
(hereinafter, referred to as ``the Council'') reviewed this 
recommendation and did not adopt it. Instead, the Council recommended, 
and NMFS proposed, a 2000 TAL level of 18.518 million lb (8.4 million 
kg). Based on stochastic projection results, this TAL has a 25-percent 
probability of achieving (i.e., not exceeding) the target F of 0.26 in 
2000. NMFS notes that the Commission has measures in place to decrease 
discards of sublegal fish in the commercial fishery and reduce 
regulatory discards that occur as the result of landings limits in 
individual states. Specifically, the Commission has measures in place 
whereby 15 percent of each state's quota would be voluntarily set aside 
each year for vessels to land an incidental catch allowance (usually 
implemented as trip limits) after the directed fishery has closed. The 
intent of this voluntary incidental catch set-aside is to reduce 
discards by allowing fishermen to land a certain amount of summer 
flounder they catch incidentally after their state's fishery has 
closed, while trying to ensure that the state's overall quota is not 
exceeded. NMFS anticipates that these measures will improve the 
probability of not exceeding the target. Thus, this rule will implement 
the following summer flounder measures for 2000: (1) A TAL of 18.52 
million lb (8.40 million kg); (2) a coastwide commercial quota of 11.11 
million lb (5.039 million kg); and (3) a coastwide recreational harvest 
limit of 7.41 million lb (3.361 million kg).
    The preliminary final commercial quotas by state for 2000 are 
presented in Table 1; the total quotas are divided into the recommended 
allocation between directed and incidental catch fisheries for purposes 
of illustration. These preliminary quotas are subject to downward 
adjustment dependant upon overages of a state's 1999 quota.

                                        Table 1.--Preliminary Final 2000 Summer Flounder State Commercial Quotas
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Directed           Recommended 15 percent             Total
                                                      Percent   --------------------------    as incidental catch   -------------------------
                       State                           share                              --------------------------
                                                                      Lb         Kg \1\         Lb         Kg \1\         Lb         Kg \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maine.............................................      0.04756        4,492        2,037          793          360        5,284        2,397
New Hampshire.....................................      0.00046           43           20            8            3           51           23
Massachusetts.....................................      6.82046      644,159      292,186      113,675       51,562      757,834      343,748
Rhode Island......................................     15.68298    1,481,181      671,852      261,385      118,562    1,742,566       79,041
Connecticut.......................................      2.25708      213,170       96,692       37,618       17,063      250,788      113,756
New York..........................................      7.64699      722,221      327,594      127,451       57,811      849,672      385,405
New Jersey........................................     16.72499    1,579,594      716,492      278,752      126,440    1,858,346      842,931
Delaware..........................................      0.01779        1,680          762          297          134        1,977          897
Maryland..........................................      2.03910      192,583       87,354       33,985       15,514      226,568      102,770
Virginia..........................................     21.31676    2,013,264      913,201      355,282      161,153    2,368,546    1,074,354
North Carolina....................................     27.44584    2,592,126    1,175,768      457,434      207,489    3,049,560    1,383,257
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.........................................    100.00000    9,444,512    4,283,959    1,666,679      755,993   11,111,192   5,039,951
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Kilograms are as converted from pounds and do not add to the converted total due to rounding.

    Section 648.100(d)(2) provides that all landings for sale in a 
state shall be applied against that state's annual commercial quota. 
Any landings in excess of the state's quota must be deducted from that 
state's annual quota for the following year. This document contains: 
(1) Final specifications and (2) associated preliminary adjustments to 
each state's 2000 quotas as a result of known 1999 overages. The 
adjustment in this document is preliminary because it is likely that 
additional data will be received from the states that would alter the 
figures, including late landings reported from either federally 
permitted dealers or state statistical agencies reporting landings by 
non-federally permitted dealers. This document utilizes preliminary 
1999 landings data that have been provided to NMFS through December 31, 
1999.
    Based on dealer reports and other available information, NMFS has 
determined that the States of Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, 
Delaware, and Virginia exceeded their 1999 quotas. Thus far, the 
remaining States of New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, 
Maryland, and North Carolina are not known to have exceeded their 1999 
quotas. The preliminary 1999 landings and resulting overages for all 
states are given in Table 2. The resulting adjusted 2000 commercial 
quota for each state is given in Table 3. In Table 4, the adjustment 
has been made to illustrate the voluntary incidental catch component of 
the commercial quota at 15 percent of the total, as recommended.

[[Page 33488]]



                          Table 2.--Summer Flounder Preliminary 1999 Landings By State
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      1999 Quota \1\            Preliminary 1999             1999 Overage
                               ----------------------------         landings         ---------------------------
             State                                         --------------------------
                                     Lb          Kg \2\          Lb         Kg \2\         Lb          Kg \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maine.........................        4,450         2,018         5,778        2,621        1,328           602
New Hampshire.................           51            23             0            0  ............  ............
Massachusetts.................      757,842       343,751       804,964      365,126       47,122        21,374
Rhode Island..................    1,742,583       790,422     1,636,528      742,317  ............  ............
Connecticut...................      238,516       108,189       232,047      105,255  ............  ............
New York \3\..................      860,006       390,099       793,287      359,829  ............  ............
New Jersey....................    1,853,926       840,927     1,897,952      860,897       44,026        19,970
Delaware......................  \4\ (25,739)      (11,675)        7,976        3,618      (33,715)      (15,293)
Maryland......................      202,354        91,786       198,866       90,204  ............  ............
Virginia......................    2,120,696       961,932     2,130,553      966,403        9,857         4,471
North Carolina \3\............    2,974,589     1,349,274     2,800,749    1,270,398  ............  ............
                               ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total \5\.................   10,755,013     4,866,746    10,508,700    4,766,666  ............  ............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Reflects quotas as published on August 26, 1999 (64 FR 46596), except as noted.
\2\ Kilograms are as converted from pounds, and may not necessarily add due to rounding.
\3\ Reflects quota transfer (64 FR 71687, December 22, 1999).
\4\ Parentheses indicate a negative number.
\5\ Total quota is the sum of all states having allocation. A state with a negative number has an allocation of
  zero (0). Total quota and total landings do not equal overage because they reflect positive quota balances in
  several states.


                                 Table 3.--Summer Flounder Final Adjusted Quotas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               2000 Initial quota         2000 Adjusted quota
                           State                           -----------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Lb         Kg \1\         Lb          Kg \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maine.....................................................        5,284        2,397        3,956         1,794
New Hampshire.............................................           51           23           51            23
Massachusetts.............................................      757,834      343,748      710,712       322,374
Rhode Island..............................................    1,742,566      790,041    1,742,566       790,041
Connecticut...............................................      250,788      113,756      250,788       113,756
New York..................................................      849,672      385,405      849,672       385,405
New Jersey................................................    1,858,346      842,931    1,814,320       822,962
Delaware..................................................        1,977          897  \2\ (31,738)      (14,396)
Maryland..................................................      226,568      102,770      226,568       102,770
Virginia..................................................    2,368,546    1,074,354    2,358,689     1,069,883
North Carolina............................................    3,049,560    1,383,257    3,049,560     1,383,257
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
    Total \3\.............................................   11,109,214    5,039,055   11,006,882    4,992,638
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Kilograms are as converted from pounds, and may not necessarily add due to rounding.
\2\ Parentheses indicate a negative number.
\3\ Total quota is the sum of all states having allocation. A state with a negative number has an allocation of
  zero (0).


                        Table 4.--Final Summer Flounder 2000 State Commercial Quotas and Recommended Incidental Catch Allocations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  Directed           Recommended 15 percent              Total
                                                               Percent   --------------------------    as incidental catch   ---------------------------
                           State                                share                              --------------------------
                                                                               Lb         Kg \1\         Lb         Kg \1\         Lb          Kg \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maine......................................................      0.04756        3,363        1,525          593          269        3,956         1,794
New Hampshire..............................................      0.00046           43           19            8            4           51            23
Massachusetts..............................................      6.82046      604,105      274,017      106,607       48,356      710,712       322,374
Rhode Island...............................................     15.68298    1,481,181      671,852      261,385      118,562    1,742,566       790,041
Connecticut................................................      2.25708      213,170       96,692       37,618       17,063      250,788       113,756
New York...................................................      7.64699      722,221      327,594      127,451       57,811      849,672       385,405
New Jersey.................................................     16.72499    1,542,172      699,517      272,148      123,444    1,814,320       822,962
Delaware \2\...............................................      0.01779            0            0           00  ...........  \2\ (31,738)
                                                                                                                                  (14,396)
Maryland...................................................      2.03910      192,583       87,354       33,985       15,415      226,568       102,770
Virginia...................................................     21.31676    2,004,886      909,401      353,803      160,482    2,358,689     1,069,883
North Carolina.............................................     27.44584    2,592,126    1,175,769      457,434      207,489    3,049,560     1,383,257
                                                            --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total \3\..............................................    100.00000    9,355,850    4,243,742    1,651,032      748,896   11,006,882    4,992,638
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Kilograms are as converted from pounds and do not add to the converted total due to rounding.
\2\ A state with a negative number has an allocation of zero (0).
\3\ Total includes recommended directed and incidental catch allocations as calculated from the total, and may not add.


[[Page 33489]]

Delaware Closure

    In 1999, NMFS prohibited Federal permit holders from landing summer 
flounder in the State of Delaware in the light of deductions from the 
1999 quota for overages in 1998 (64 FR 5196, February 3, 1999). As a 
result of those deductions and further quota reductions published in 
the Federal Register on August 26, 1999 (64 FR 46596), the 1999 quota 
allocation to the State of Delaware was -25,739 lb (-11,675 kg). An 
additional 7,976 lb (3,618 kg) of summer flounder were landed in 
Delaware in 1999. The 2000 quota for Delaware is not sufficient to 
offset this negative 2000 allocation and the additional landings in 
1999. Consequently, Delaware has no commercial quota available for 
2000. The regulations at Sec. 648.4(b) provide that Federal permit 
holders agree, as a condition of their permit, not to land summer 
flounder in any state that the Regional Administrator has determined no 
longer has commercial quota available for harvest. Therefore, effective 
0001 hours, May 24, 2000, landings of summer flounder in Delaware by 
vessels holding commercial Federal fisheries permits are prohibited for 
the remainder of the 2000 calendar year, unless additional quota 
becomes available through a quota transfer and is announced in the 
Federal Register. Federally permitted dealers are also advised that 
they may not purchase summer flounder from federally permitted vessels 
that land in Delaware for the remainder of the 2000 calendar year, or 
until additional quota becomes available through a transfer. If 
additional landings were to be reported for 1999, the commercial quota 
for the State of Delaware will be re-adjusted pursuant to 
Sec. 648.100(d)(2).

Scup

    The FMP established a target exploitation rate for scup in 2000 of 
33 percent. The total allowable catch (TAC) associated with that rate 
is allocated 78 percent to the commercial sector and 22 percent to the 
recreational sector. Discard estimates are deducted from both TACs to 
establish TALs for both sectors. The commercial TAL is allocated to 
three different periods.
    Scup was most recently assessed at the 27th Northeast Regional 
Stock Assessment Workshop in June 1998 (SAW 27). This assessment 
indicates that scup are overexploited and at a record low biomass 
level. SAW 27 concluded that spawning stock biomass is less than one-
tenth of the biomass threshold--the maximum NEFSC indices of spawning 
stock biomass observed, or 2.77 kg/tow during 1977-1979. The assessment 
is summarized in the EA/RIR/IRFA.
    NMFS disapproved both the rebuilding schedule and the bycatch 
provision for scup in Amendment 12 to the FMP. Despite that, for the 
reasons explained in the proposed rule, these final specifications for 
fishing year 2000 are based on the current exploitation rate associated 
with the overfishing definition, pending submission and approval of a 
rebuilding schedule that complies with the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The 
disapproval of the bycatch provision is discussed in ``Gear Restricted 
Areas.'' Failure to take any action at all pending the submission of 
the revised rebuilding schedule could imperil the stock.
    The Monitoring Committee reviewed available data and assumed the 
1999 exploitation target of 47 percent would be achieved. The 
Monitoring Committee recommended that the TAC be reduced in proportion 
to the reduction in exploitation rates from 1999 to 2000, i.e., a 30-
percent reduction. As such, the Monitoring Committee recommended a TAC 
for 2000 of 4.15 million lb (1.88 million kg) resulting in a 3.243 
million-lb (1.47 million-kg) commercial TAC, and a 0.915 million-lb 
(0.415 million-kg) recreational TAC.
    The Monitoring Committee also noted the need to reduce discards in 
the commercial fishery. Specifically, SAW 27 noted that F should be 
reduced ``substantially and immediately'' and that, while estimates are 
uncertain, most mortality in recent years was ``clearly attributable to 
discards, particularly when incoming recruitment is strong.'' The 
report noted that reductions ``in discards from small-mesh fisheries'' 
would be particularly effective for this stock. Thus, the Monitoring 
Committee recommended that the Council implement regulations to close 
areas to fishing by trawl gear with codend mesh sizes less than 4.5 
inches (11.43 cm) to reduce discards of scup.
    In preparing data for the Monitoring Committee deliberations, 
Council staff cited data indicating that, based on the average biomass 
estimates for 1998 and 1999, the 1999 exploitation rate could be well 
below its target of 47 percent. Specifically, the staff felt that it 
was possible that exploitation in 1999 could be as low as 30 percent, 
provided certain assumptions were met regarding biomass estimates. A 
30-percent exploitation rate is equal to the target in 2000. Thus, the 
staff recommended maintaining the TAC as the status quo level.
    The Council reviewed the recommendations and adopted its staff's 
recommendation, a TAC of 5.922 million lb (2.686 million kg) for 2000. 
Discard estimates for the commercial and recreational sectors are 
subtracted from the commercial (4,619,160 lb (2,095,215 kg)) and 
recreational (1,302,840 lb (590,958 kg)) TACs, respectively, to derive 
the commercial quota and the recreational harvest limit for the year. 
Assuming the same proportion of discards to catch in 2000 as 1997 (45.1 
percent), the commercial discards would be 2.085 million lb (0.946 
million kg), and the quota would be 2.534 million lb (1.149 million 
kg). Based on the proportion of recreational discards to catch in 1997 
(4.96 percent), the recreational discards would be 0.065 million lb 
(0.029 million kg) and the harvest limit would be 1.238 million lb 
(0.562 million kg). The commercial allocation is shown in Table 5. As 
with summer flounder, these allocations are preliminary and are subject 
to a downward adjustment for any overages in a period's harvest in 
1999. Preliminary data indicate that the Winter I and Summer period 
allocations have been exceeded in 1999, which requires a corresponding 
reduction in those periods in 2000. The resulting adjusted 2000 
commercial quota for each period is given in Table 7.

                                                 Table 5.--Percent Allocations of Commercial Scup Quota
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                          Quota Allocation           Landing limits
                           Period                              Percent       TAC \1\    Discards \2\ ---------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                           Lb         Kg \3\         Lb           Kg
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Winter I...................................................        45.11    2,083,703       940,543     1,143,160      518,529    \4\10,000        4,536
                                                             ...........     (945,168)     (426,630)  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
Summer.....................................................        38.95    1,799,163       812,108       987,055      447,721         *n/a  ...........
                                                             ...........     (816,100)     (368,372)  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
Winter II..................................................        15.94      736,294       332,349       403,945      183,226        4,000        1,814

[[Page 33490]]

 
                                                             ...........     (333,983)     (150,754)  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
                                                            --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total\5\...............................................       100.00    4,619,160     2,085,000     2,534,160    1,149,476  ...........  ...........
                                                             ...........   (2,095,215)     (945,740)  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Total allowable catch, in pounds (kilograms in parentheses).
\2\ Discard estimates, in pounds (kilograms in parentheses).
\3\ Kilograms are as converted from pounds and may not add to converted total due to rounding.
\4\ The Winter I landing limit will drop to 1,000 pounds (454 kg) upon attainment of 85 percent of the seasonal allocation.
\5\ Totals subjects to rounding error.
 n/a--Not applicable.


                               Table 6.--Scup Preliminary 1999 Landings by Period
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           1999 Quota               1999 Landings             1999 Overages
              Period               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Lb         Kg \1\         Lb         Kg \1\         Lb         Kg \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Winter I..........................    1,143,160      518,529    1,249,234      566,643      106,174       48,114
Summer............................      987,055      447,721    1,288,482      584,446      301,427      136,725
Winter II.........................      403,945      183,226      700,907      317,926      296,962      134,700
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.........................    2,534,160    1,149,476    3,238,623    1,469,015  ...........  ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Kilograms are as converted from pounds and may not add to converted total due to rounding.


                                      Table 7.--Scup Final Adjusted Quotas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 2000 Initial quota      2000 Adjusted quota\1\
                           Period                            ---------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Lb         Kg \l\         Lb         Kg \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Winter I....................................................    1,143,160      518,529    1,037,986      470,369
Summer......................................................      987,055      447,721      685,628      310,996
Winter II...................................................      403,945      183,226      106,983       48,527
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
    Total...................................................    2,534,160    1,149,476    1,830,597     830,345
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Trip limits specified in Table 5 are unchanged.
\2\ Kilograms are as converted from pounds, and may not necessarily add due to rounding.

    To achieve the commercial quotas, the Council recommended a landing 
limit of 10,000 lb (4,536 kg), with a reduction to 1,000 lb (454 kg) 
when 85 percent of the quota allocation is harvested for Winter I 
(January-April). A 4,000-lb (1,814-kg) landing limit will be in place 
for the entire Winter II (November-December) period.

Gear Restricted Areas (GRAs)

    The Council noted NMFS's disapproval of the scup bycatch provision 
and rebuilding schedule in Amendment 12 to the FMP and heeded the 
advice of the Monitoring Committee and SAW 27 that scup discards must 
be decreased. To reduce discards of small scup, the Council voted to 
recommend seasonal GRAs in which commercial vessels would be prohibited 
from fishing with midwater trawl or other trawl gear with codend nets 
of mesh size less than 4.5 inches (11.3 cm), unless they were 
participating in an exempted fishery (identified by the Council to have 
less than a 10-percent bycatch of scup). The Council proposed GRAs that 
were identified by an ad hoc advisory panel consisting of Council and 
Commission members, industry advisors, and the public. The areas 
comprise a series of small restricted areas, each approximately 2-weeks 
in duration, within Northeast statistical areas 537, 539, 613, 616, and 
622.
    NMFS believes that the adoption of GRAs is a critical measure to 
ensure the attainment of the target exploitation rate and to 
rehabilitate the deficiencies in the FMP with respect to bycatch 
provisions as noted in the disapproval of Amendment 12. For the reasons 
noted in the proposed rule, NMFS did not support the areas and times 
identified in the Council's alternative. Instead, NMFS proposed an 
alternative analyzed by the Council that would have established larger 
GRAs that would remain closed to small-mesh fisheries for longer 
periods of time (see Alternative 6, as described in the EA/RIR/IRFA). 
This action would have established two GRAs, a Southern and a Northern 
GRA. The Southern GRA, defined as Federal waters off New Jersey and 
Delaware, would have restricted fishing with small mesh from January 1 
through April 30. The Northern Gear Restricted Area, defined as Federal 
waters off Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and New York, would have 
restricted fishing with small mesh from November 1 through December 31. 
In light of public comments received on the GRAs, the Southern area has 
been modified in this final rule. The area has been reduced by moving 
the Eastern (seaward) boundary inshore to approximate the 100-fathom 
line. The modified area better incorporates areas in which scup are 
generally found (depths of 40-100 fathoms), as noted in the FMP's 
Essential Fish Habitat Source Document (NOAA Technical Memorandum. In 
press, September, 1999). Specific public comments related to these, and 
other, measures, are responded to in the ``Comments and

[[Page 33491]]

Responses'' section of this final rule. Both of these areas encompass 
the areas proposed by the ad hoc advisory panel.
    During the time periods implementing both GRAs, midwater trawl and 
other trawl gear fishing vessels with nets on board that have a mesh 
size less than a 4.5-inch (11.3-cm) diamond mesh in the codend would be 
prohibited from fishing for, or possessing black sea bass, Loligo 
squid, mackerel, and silver hake when in the Southern GRA. The fishery 
for Atlantic herring has been determined to be exempt from both 
restricted areas. Copies of a chart depicting these areas are available 
in the EA/RIR/IRFA and from the Regional Administrator upon request 
(see ADDRESSES).
    The modification of the area will not substantially alter the 
impact on scup harvest or discards, because scup are not found outside 
the 100-fathom (183-m) curve to any great extent. However, this 
modification will substantially reduce the impact on other small-mesh 
fisheries that are prosecuted outside the 100-fathom (183-m) curve. 
Analyses indicate that this revision will reduce economic losses in 
exvessel revenue by an estimated 20-33 percent from the original 
proposed alternative. This change responds to public comments 
expressing concern about the size of the proposed GRA, and also 
incorporates the points on enforceability raised by the U.S. Coast 
Guard (USCG). The areas will be in place until revised by the Council.
    Lastly, vessels with exempted experimental fishing permits will be 
allowed to conduct experiments with small-mesh gear in the regulated 
areas. The Council is working with industry members to identify gear 
modifications that would reduce the catch of scup in small-mesh 
fisheries for squid. Once this experimental work is completed and an 
effective gear design is identified, NMFS may authorize its use in the 
regulated mesh areas, provided other experimental fishery requirements 
are met.

Black Sea Bass

    The FMP specifies a target exploitation rate of 48 percent for 
2000. This target is to be attained through specification of a TAL 
level that is allocated to the commercial (49 percent) and recreational 
(51 percent) fisheries. The commercial quota is specified on a 
coastwide basis, by quarter. The most recent assessment on black sea 
bass, SAW 27, indicates that black sea bass are over-exploited and at a 
low biomass level. Although data limitations make this estimate 
uncertain, F for 1998 may be equal to, or even less than, the target 
(48-percent exploitation). The NEFSC Spring Survey results for 1998 and 
1999 indicate that there may have been a significant increase in black 
sea bass biomass in 1999 (although the 1999 index is high mainly 
because of a single tow). This assessment is summarized in the EA/RIR/
FRFA.
    To achieve the goals for 2000, this final rule implements a black 
sea bass TAL equal to the 1999 level and reduces the quarterly trip 
limits as recommended by the Council. The commercial quota and 
corresponding trip limits are shown in Table 8. The Council had 
recommended that trip limits be reduced in an attempt to prevent 
overages in each of the quarters from reoccurring. Preliminary data 
indicate overages occurred in Quarters 2, 3, and 4 (See, Table 9), 
which requires a corresponding reduction in those quarters in 2000. The 
resulting adjusted 2000 commercial quota for each quarter is given in 
Table 10. Status quo is retained on other related management measures, 
such as the minimum fish size and possession limit.

          Table 8.--2000 Black Sea Bass Quarterly Coastwide Commercial Quotas and Quarterly Trip Limits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                               Trip limits
                    Quarter                        Percent         Lb         Kg \1\   -------------------------
                                                                                             Lb         Kg \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 (Jan-Mar)....................................        38.64    1,168,760      530,141        9,000        4,082
2 (Apr-Jun)....................................        29.26      885,040      401,447        3,000        1,361
3 (Jul-Sep)....................................        12.33      372,951      169,168        2,000          907
4 (Oct-Dec)....................................        19.77      597,991      271,244        3,000        1,361
                                                ----------------------------------------------------------------
    Total......................................       100.00    3,024,742    1,372,000  ...........  ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Subject to rounding error.


                          Table 9.--Black Sea Bass Preliminary 1999 Landings by Quarter
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         1999 quota \1\           Preliminary 1999            1999 overage
                                   --------------------------         landings         -------------------------
              Quarter                                        --------------------------
                                         Lb         Kg \2\         Lb         Kg \1\         Lb         Kg \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.................................    1,168,860      530,186      708,235      321,250  ...........  ...........
2.................................      885,115      401,481    1,031,318      467,798      146,203       66,317
3.................................      372,983      169,182      472,779      214,449       99,796       45,267
4.................................      598,043      271,268      655,864      297,495       57,821       26,227
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total \3\.....................    3,025,000    1,372,117    2,868,196    1,300,992  ...........  ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Reflects quotas as published on August 26, 1999 (64 FR 46596).
\2\ Kilograms are as converted from pounds, and may not necessarily add due to rounding
\3\ Total quota is the sum of all states having allocation. A state with a negative number has an allocation of
  zero (0). Total quota and total landings do not equal overage because they reflect positive quota balances in
  several states.


[[Page 33492]]


                                 Table 10.--Black Sea Bass Final Adjusted Quotas
                               [Trip limits specified in Table 8 are not changed.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 2000 Initial quota        2000 adjusted quota
                           Quarter                           ---------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Lb         Kg \1\         Lb         Kg \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...........................................................    1,168,760      530,141    1,168,760      530,141
2...........................................................      885,040      401,447      738,837      335,131
3...........................................................      372,951      169,168      273,155      123,901
4...........................................................      597,991      271,244      540,170      245,017
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
    Total \3\...............................................    3,024,742    1,372,000    2,720,922   1,234,189
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Kilograms are as converted from pounds, and may not necessarily add due to rounding.

Changes From the Proposed Rule

    In an Opinion and Order, dated June 24, 1998, the U.S. District 
Court for the District of Massachusetts voided the portion of the scup 
regulations found at Secs. 648.120 and 648.121 implementing a state-by-
state allocation of the commercial scup fishing quota during the summer 
period. NMFS is prohibited from enforcing the voided portion of the 
regulations, including the calculation of overages. While NMFS has 
complied with the order and has not enforced the regulations, the 
codified language has remained intact. To make clear that NMFS has, in 
fact, complied with the order, NMFS by this final rule suspends 
regulations relative to the state-by-state management of the scup 
summer quota period. As a result, language in Secs. 648.120 and 648.121 
has been removed. The summer period will continue to be managed under a 
coastwide quota until such time that new regulations are promulgated 
that are consistent with the order.
    In Sec. 648.122(a)(1), the parenthetical phrase regarding 
availability of a map of the Southern GRA is corrected to indicate that 
a chart of the area is available. In that same section, a typographical 
error indicating the latitude of point SGA2 is corrected, and the 
points describing the eastern boundary of the area are revised to 
reflect the modification as previously described in the preamble.
    In Sec. 648.122(b)(1), the parenthetical phrase regarding 
availability of a map of the Northern GRA is corrected to indicate that 
a chart of the area is available. In that same section, points NGA2 
through NGA6 are revised to reflect that Federal permit holders are 
bound by the northern GRA surrounding Block Island, RI, up to and 
including state waters. Subsequent points are renumbered, the 
northernmost latitude of the GRA is revised to read 41 deg.10' so that 
the northern boundary of the GRA lies south of Nantucket Island, MA.
    In Sec. 648.122(b)(2), Atlantic herring is removed from the list of 
non-exempt species. It was incorrectly placed on the list in the 
proposed rule. Historical sea sample data from the EA indicate that the 
herring fishery qualifies for exempted status under both the GRAs.
    In Sec. 648.122, paragraph (d) is redesignated as paragraph (e), 
and a new paragraph (d) is added. The new paragraph includes the 
process by which additional fisheries could be made exempt from the 
GRAs, which was inadvertently omitted from the proposed rule.

Comments and Responses

    Twelve comments were received on the proposed specifications from 
the public during the comment period that ended on February 28, 2000. 
Specific comments related to the proposed annual specifications and the 
EA/RIR/IRFA for the 2000 summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass 
fisheries are discussed and responded to as follows.
Scup GRAs (GRAs)
    Comment 1: Three commenters do not support the scup GRAs because of 
the negative impact the areas would have on industry, the contention 
that the underlying data are outdated, and the belief that current data 
indicate that there is no need to reduce incidental catch of scup in 
small-mesh fisheries. Two of these commenters feel NMFS ``callously 
rejected'' and ``discarded'' the advice of industry. One questions the 
rationale for the areas.
    Response 1: NMFS values the hard work of industry in developing 
advice for the Council's recommendation. The advice of the ad hoc 
working group that developed those areas is clearly reflected in the 
adopted GRAs, particularly where industry members noted the prevalence 
of Loligo and scup interactions in Northeast Statistical area 537 
(south of Nantucket and Martha's Vineyard Islands, MA). In addition, 
NMFS acknowledges the impacts that these areas may have on industry and 
has taken action to mitigate these impacts by modifying the southern 
GRA to resemble more closely the working group's recommendations. To 
the extent practicable and consistent with the goals of the GRAs, the 
revisions modify the seaward border of the Southern GRA to better 
approximate the 100-fathom (183-m) line. These modifications should 
minimize impacts on industry by affording industry more areas in which 
to conduct fisheries. The northern GRA has also been revised slightly 
to increase enforceability as discussed in the preamble. NMFS 
anticipates that these revisions will better comply with the guidance 
of national standard 9, as well as incorporate important enforcement 
concerns. In light of the disapproval of the scup rebuilding and 
bycatch provisions in Amendment 12 to the FMP, it is incumbent upon 
NMFS to meet its statutory requirements to reduce discards and to 
rebuild the fishery. NMFS cannot ignore its obligations to both the FMP 
and the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
    In reviewing the latest scientific information, the Monitoring 
Committee recommended that the Council implement a scup discard rate of 
90 percent in 2000, unless some other measures, such as time and area 
closures for the scup fishery, were implemented. The discard rate would 
be applied to the commercial TAC in setting the TAL (that is, 90 
percent of the commercial TAC would be allocated to discards, and the 
remaining 10 percent would be available as landings). The Council 
rejected the 90-percent estimate and passed a motion to accept the 
recommendation as GRAs beginning in the year 2000, with the inclusion 
of the development of an exempted fishery program to allow fisheries to 
continue that do not exceed a 10-percent scup bycatch. Adoption of 
these GRAs allowed the Council to estimate discards at 45 percent. In 
developing alternatives to the recommendation, the Council analyzed the 
best available data, 1997 and 1998 vessel trip report (VTR) data

[[Page 33493]]

and January 1989-April 1999 NMFS sea sample data. The limitations of 
these data were thoroughly described in the EA. If additional data are 
made available that would revise the need for, or the specific 
boundaries of, the GRAs (either spatially or temporally) the Council 
may implement such changes by way of the annual specifications or 
framework adjustment processes.
    Comment 2: Two commenters, although not specifically supporting or 
opposing the GRAs, questioned the data used, specifically the data that 
did not exempt the Loligo fishery. One commenter stated that recent 
data show there is no scup discard problem in the Loligo fishery, and 
another commenter wished to have these data incorporated into the 
development of the areas.
    Response 2: The Loligo fishery has long been identified as a 
primary source of scup discards. However, the magnitude of the discards 
is unknown. Assuming that the areas and times in which scup and Loligo 
are caught together are probably also the areas and times in which scup 
discards occur, the Council examined 1997 VTR data to determine 
possible times and locations for scup/Loligo overlap. The Council 
further analyzed NMFS sea sample data from January 1989 through April 
1999 to assess the level of scup discarding in other small-mesh 
fisheries. These best available data indicate that the scup discards in 
the November through December Loligo fishery were 48 percent, by 
weight, of total catch, and in the January through April period were 78 
percent. Consequently, the Loligo fishery does not qualify for exempted 
status in these areas and time periods. An exemption for Loligo may be 
added in the future if sufficient data or new information become 
available to result in an estimation that the amount of scup bycatch is 
less than 10 percent, by weight, of the total catch, and if the 
Regional Administrator, after consultation with the Council, determines 
that the percentage of scup caught as bycatch is, or can be reduced to, 
less than 10 percent, by weight, of total catch and that such exemption 
will not jeopardize fishing mortality objectives. NMFS recommends that 
the commenters work with the Council to exempt this fishery through the 
existing mechanisms in the regulations.
    Comment 3: Two commenters support the GRAs, believing that the 
areas will greatly reduce scup discards, thereby reducing scup 
mortality. One of these commenters did not support any modification to 
the areas.
    Response 3: NMFS agrees that these areas will greatly reduce scup 
discards. The need for measures in the FMP to reduce discards in the 
scup fishery was stressed in the disapproval of the bycatch provision 
in Amendment 12 to the FMP. Current measures in the FMP do not 
adequately reduce bycatch (including discards, as stated in the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act) or minimize bycatch mortality. Consequently, 
measures such as these GRAs will begin to rehabilitate the deficiencies 
in the FMP and will encourage the Council to address this issue in a 
more comprehensive way, e.g., either through closed/restricted areas or 
gear modifications. The rationale for modifications to the GRAs 
described in the proposed rule is further explained in the response to 
Comment 1.
    Comment 4: One commenter questioned the process and use of the 
proposed rule and specifications as a vehicle for implementation of 
such measures as GRAs.
    Response 4: NMFS is confident that these specifications are an 
appropriate vehicle to implement these measures. The regulations 
implementing the FMP contemplates a broad range of action for annual 
specifications. The regulations at Sec. 648.120(b) specifically provide 
that the Council may recommend the following measures for the 
commercial fishery to assure that the specified exploitation rate will 
not be exceeded: (1) A commercial quota allocated into three periods, 
(2) landing limits for the Winter I and Winter II periods, (3) the 
percent of landings attained at which the landing limit for the Winter 
I period will be reduced, (4) commercial minimum fish size, (5) minimum 
mesh size, (6) restrictions on gear, and (7) season and area closures 
in the commercial fishery. The regulations also contemplate a range of 
opportunities to receive public input on the proposed measures.
    Comment 5: Two commenters had questions related to the 10-percent 
threshold used to exempt fisheries from the GRA regulations. 
Specifically, the commenters wanted to know how the threshold is 
determined (i.e., how a fishery is to be exempted, by one trip or 
many), why a 5-percent threshold was not used as in the case in the 
Northeast Multispecies FMP, and what would be the observer coverage. An 
additional commenter supported the 10 percent exemption threshold and 
wanted to know why the threshold was not proposed by NMFS.
    Response 5: The threshold to exempt fisheries was determined by a 
Council motion to include a process for exempting fisheries within the 
GRAs. The exempted fishery program will allow fisheries to continue 
that do not exceed a 10 percent, by weight, of total catch as long as 
such exemptions will not jeopardize fishing mortality objectives. An 
exemption based on a 10-percent bycatch criteria was selected because 
that percentage threshold is the one used in the summer flounder small-
mesh exemption program. This precedent, then, exists in the FMP for the 
establishment of that percentage for exempting a fishery. The exemption 
is based on the all available data. No observer coverage is required, 
although it is strongly encouraged and supported by NMFS. This 
exemption program was included in the proposed rule. However, the 
process by which the Council could add or eliminate exemptions was 
inadvertently omitted from the proposed regulatory language. This 
oversight is corrected in this final rule.
    Comment 6: Three commenters noted that, based on data presented in 
the EA/RIR/IRFA, the Atlantic herring fishery should be exempt from the 
GRAs for both periods and in both areas.
    Response 6: NMFS agrees. NMFS proposed to exempt Atlantic herring 
from the Southern GRA. An error in the interpretation of the data 
presented in the EA/RIR/IRFA resulted in the herring fishery being 
added to the list of non-exempt species for the Northern GRA. Based on 
public comments and a reexamination of sea sample data, NMFS notes that 
the herring fishery does qualify for an exemption under both GRAs. The 
regulations in Sec. 648.122(b)(2) have been revised to account for that 
correction.
    Comment 7: Two commenters supported exempting Atlantic mackerel 
from the GRAs as data become available.
    Response 7: NMFS agrees that, if data become available to support 
such an exemption, Atlantic mackerel could be listed as exempt from 
these GRAs following the procedures outlined in the regulations.
    Comment 8: The Council recommended that NMFS postpone 
implementation of any GRAs to work on perfecting the modified areas 
that the Council included as part of its comment. This comment was 
supported by one other commenter. However, two other commenters did not 
support the modified areas and instead indicated that such a change 
should be considered under a separate rulemaking.
    Response 8: NMFS feels that implementation of the GRAs is 
consistent with the mandate of national standard 9 to reduce discards. 
In addition, since the Council's proposal is not perfected and does not 
have widespread industry support and input, it is better dealt with in 
a separate rulemaking. NMFS encourages such action. Note that 
implementation of the

[[Page 33494]]

Council's alternative differs from the action taken by NMFS to modify 
the proposed GRAs in this final rule. This modification represents a 
revision to the proposed measure based, in part, on public comments. 
The modified GRAs proposed by the Council represent substantially 
different areas and times, which require further public examination and 
analysis. Further, since the GRAs were proposed by the Council as part 
of the 2000 specifications for scup, and given the conservation 
imperative to effect needed reductions in scup discard, NMFS feels it 
would be inappropriate to delay implementation. NMFS notes that the 
decision to deny a petition for rulemaking to implement measures to 
reduce scup discard was based on the inclusion of these provisions in 
the 2000 specifications for summer flounder, scup and black sea bass 
(65 FR 4546, January 28, 2000).
    Comment 9: One commenter questioned why the possession of Loligo is 
prohibited in GRAs, even if harvested with 4.5-inch (11.4-cm) mesh.
    Response 9: The regulations prohibit permit holders to fish for, 
possess, or land Loligo squid, silver hake, black sea bass or Atlantic 
mackerel in or from the GRAs during the appropriate time periods when 
in possession of midwater trawl or other trawl nets or netting that do 
not meet the minimum mesh restrictions. However, a vessel may fish for, 
possess, or land those species in or from the GRAs when in possession 
of nets that do meet the minimum mesh requirements. These vessels may 
have nets or nettings on board that do not meet the minimum size, if 
those nets or netting are stowed in accordance with the regulations. 
Harvest Levels
    Comment 10: One commenter did not support the summer flounder TAL 
and instead recommended that the Summer Flounder Monitoring Committee's 
recommendation of 16.815 million lb (7.627 million kg) be implemented. 
The commenter stated that this lower TAL has a higher probability of 
achieving the target (50 percent, versus the 25-percent estimate of the 
adopted TAL) and that NMFS should set a TAL that has ``a 50/50 chance 
of meeting the target.'' The commenter also believes that the stock 
rebuilding schedule is inadequate, because the 1999 stock assessment 
indicates the stock won't rebuild until 2017.
    Response 10: NMFS approved the Council recommendation that the 2000 
TAL be 18.518 million lb (8.4 million kg). Based on stochastic 
projection results, this TAL has a 25-percent probability of achieving 
the target F of 0.26 in 2000 and a 50-percent probability of achieving 
F = 0.29. These same stochastic projections indicate that the current 
rebuilding plan is on target, and this rebuilding plan was approved by 
NMFS under Amendment 12 to the FMP. NMFS also notes that the Commission 
has recommended that states implement measures to reduce incidental 
catch and regulatory discards that occur as the result of commercial 
landings limits in individual states. Specifically, the Commission has 
instituted voluntary management measures whereby 15 percent of each 
state's quota would be set aside each year for vessels to land an 
incidental catch allowance (usually implemented as trip limits) after 
the directed fishery has closed. The intent of this incidental catch 
set-aside is to reduce discards by allowing fishermen to land a certain 
amount of summer flounder they catch incidentally after their state's 
fishery has closed, while trying to ensure that the state's overall 
quota is not exceeded. It is anticipated that these measures will 
improve the probability of achieving the target. This measure is also 
consistent with a state-by-state quota system which allows states the 
flexibility to manage their individual allocations to best reflect 
their industry. This allows the states to more tightly control their 
fishery and prevent overfishing. Consequently, it may be expected that 
individual states would implement slightly different programs.
    The recent assessment for summer flounder notes that ``[b]ecause 
the effects of density dependence, future environmental conditions, and 
expansion of stock age structure on growth and recruitment at higher 
stock sizes are unknown, these projected levels of stock biomass and 
landings should be considered with caution.'' If recent low levels of 
recruitment persist, the projections may be optimistic. Conversely, if 
recruitment is underestimated or improves, the projections may be 
conservative. These projections are updated with the best scientific 
information available each time the an assessment is made on the 
fishery.
    In addition, the BMSY target noted is subject to revision based on 
changes in the input data that change the partial recruitment pattern 
for the fishery. That is to say, the rebuilding target is BMSY, not 
necessarily 106,000 mt. Such changes to the partial recruitment would 
be influenced by changes in future management action, including minimum 
sizes and seasonal landing patterns in the fishery.
    Comment 11: Two commenters did not support the scup harvest levels. 
One supported a reduction of the discard estimate to eliminate overages 
and increase the commercial quota, and the other expressed concern that 
the proposed TAC is too high in light of the record low biomass level.
    Response 11: In making its recommendation to NMFS, the Council 
considered a recommendation by the Monitoring Committee to use a 90-
percent discard-to-landings ratio in establishing the TAL. The 
Committee noted that the discard-to-landings ratio had doubled in 
recent years (1998 versus 1997), based on the limited data available, 
including survey, VTR, and sea sampling. Such a recommendation, if 
adopted, would have, for all intents and purposes, eliminated the 
commercial fishery for 2000, particularly after deduction for overages 
in the 1999 quota periods. The Council, however, assumed the same 
proportion of discards to catch in 2000 as 1997 (45.1 percent), and 
recommended a lower discard estimate--coupled with the GRAs. Such a 
measure would achieve the goals of the FMP while maintaining some 
economic opportunity for the industry participants. NMFS agrees with 
this approach.
    Comment 12: One commenter did not support the black sea bass trip 
limits, and specifically requested an 11,000-pound (4,990-kg) trip 
limit in Quarter 1 (Jan-Mar).
    Response 12: The reduced trip limits are an attempt to prevent 
overages in each of the quarters from occurring or reoccurring. These 
reductions are particularly relevant in light of the fact that 
deductions are made for 1999 overages in this final rule, thus reducing 
the overall quota per quarter.
    Comment 13: One commenter objected to the late publication date of 
the proposed rule, saying it rendered portions of the 2000 
specifications ``meaningless.'' The commenter questioned whether NMFS 
provided meaningful opportunity to comment on the proposed regulations, 
as they would already be ``in effect on the water.''
    Response 13: NMFS agrees that the late publication of this final 
rule is problematic. This delay will prevent several regulatory 
provisions from being implemented. However, since this is a joint FMP, 
states have already implemented several provisions of the 
recommendations under compliance criteria specified in the Commission's 
FMP. That fact, of course, did not preclude due consideration of public 
comments on the proposed measures. In fact, several changes have been 
made in direct response to comments. In addition, since certain 
provisions of the specifications are regulatory in nature (such as the 
reduction of future quotas

[[Page 33495]]

due to overages), states must implement any changes to the quotas 
identified in this final rule. States routinely make such changes in 
response to quota adjustments which, because of the publication delay, 
are presented in this final rule. In previous years, this adjustment 
had been published as a separate action. EA/RIR/IRFA
    Comment 14: One commenter felt that the EA for summer flounder 
falls short of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements in 
that it does not provide adequate discussion of impacts, there are no 
long-term or cumulative impacts (of continued summer flounder 
overfishing) examined, and no explanation of why any of the 
alternatives were accepted or rejected.
    Response 14: NMFS determined that the EA fully and adequately 
analyzes impacts of the alternatives considered. Still, NMFS realizes 
that there may be cumulative impacts as a result of annual 
specifications. Although overall impacts of the management programs 
were examined in detail as part of the environmental impact statements 
(EISs) prepared for each of the three fisheries (Amendment 2 for summer 
flounder (1992), Amendment 8 for scup (1996), and Amendment 9 for black 
sea bass (1997)), NMFS revised the EA for the 2000 specifications to 
more fully discuss potential cumulative impacts of the annual 
specifications.
    Comment 15: One commenter felt that the EA/RIR/IRFA is ``flawed'' 
due to the failure to consider the full range of economic benefits and 
costs associated with the summer flounder quota specifications. The 
commenter stated that the ``errors in the analysis * * * incorrectly 
bias the analysis in favor of higher quotas at the expense of 
rebuilding * * *''
    Response 15: NMFS disagrees. The economic analysis conducted for 
this action responded to the requirements of the National Environmental 
Policy Act, E.O. 12866, and the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The 
economic analysis performed used the best scientific information 
available in describing the expected economic impacts for each quota 
specification option as required by law.
    Comment 16: One commenter felt that the IRFA fails to consider 
economic benefits to scup fishermen from reduced discards in small-mesh 
fisheries, and resultant stock recovery; and does not analyze costs 
saved for trips not taken in the GRAs.
    Response 16: NMFS feels that the IRFA addresses adequately the 
economic impacts of the scup specifications. The economic benefits of 
reduced discards and resultant stock recovery are addressed in the EIS 
for Amendment 8 to the FMP, which implemented management measures for 
scup. As these specifications are not expected to result in the 
immediate recovery of the stock, it would be inappropriate for this 
final rule to analyze such impacts. Ultimately, a recovered stock would 
have obvious benefits to industry in a more balanced age structure of 
the scup stock, increased spawning stock, and increased yield as fish 
are allowed to grow larger before harvest.
    Comment 17: One commenter felt that the use of a relative 
performance index (RPI) misleads one to believe that the proposed GRA 
alternative is least efficient. The commenter felt that the analysis 
should instead take the difference between the benefits and costs 
(rather than divide, as the RPI did) to determine net benefits. Under 
that calculation, the proposed alternative would have the greatest net 
benefits.
    Response 17: The RPI provides a relative comparison among the 
various proposed alternatives and is used as a mechanism to rank them. 
The commenter appears to have incorrectly characterized the RPI as a 
benefit/cost ratio. The index was never intended to be, nor was it 
purported to be, a measure of benefits and costs. The RPI simply 
provides a ranking mechanism to show how the various proposed 
alternatives compare in terms of percent reduction in scup discards to 
reduction in gross revenues.
    Comment 18: One commenter stated that the revenue reductions in the 
scup GRA analysis failed to account for the proposed significant 
reductions in the 2000 Loligo quota. The commenter felt that reductions 
in revenues in the Loligo fishery, therefore, were not solely 
associated with the GRAs.
    Response 18: NMFS notes that impacts associated with the Loligo 
reductions were fully and adequately considered in the specifications 
for that fishery. An analysis of that action (See proposed initial 
specifications for the Atlantic mackerel, squid and butterfish 
fisheries, 65 FR 431, January 5, 2000) indicated that the Loligo quota 
represents an 18-percent reduction in landings compared to the average 
last 3 (1996-98) years, and may result in a 5-to 10-percent revenue 
reduction (all species combined) for 121 of 443 vessels that reported 
landing Loligo in 1997. The remaining vessels (322) are expected to 
experience a reduction of less than 5 percent. Since trimester 
management of the Loligo specifications is newly implemented in 2000, 
the EA/RIR/IRFA for scup, then, examines to the extent practicable, 
estimated impacts of the GRAs based on historical performance of the 
Loligo fleet, and assumes that the Loligo quota would not have been 
fully harvested and would continue unrestrained by other actions. Such 
assumptions in the document are credible. If the Loligo quota were 
harvested, of course, then actual impacts may vary significantly from 
the estimated--either towards greater impacts, or lesser. A closure may 
result in those vessels ceasing fishing, eliminating impacts of the 
GRAs on their activity.
    Comment 19: Three commenters noted that, based on data presented in 
the EA/RIR/IRFA, the Atlantic herring fishery should be exempt from the 
GRAs for both periods, and in both areas.
    Response 19: This comment was addressed in the response to Comment 
6.
Enforceability
    Comment 20: The USCG submitted a comment expressing its preference 
for closed areas with no exemptions, as opposed to GRAs, which require 
boardings for compliance checks. The USCG feels GRAs are ``an 
enforcement compromise.'' The USCG agreed with NMFS's contention that 
the Council's preferred areas were too small and too short in duration, 
but notes that the NMFS proposed areas were large and equally 
burdensome to enforce, since they allow entry by exempted vessels. The 
USCG recommended that, for law enforcement purposes only, areas be 
restricted for a minimum of 60 days, and be plainly shaped squares or 
rectangles whose sides conform to a minimum 30 minutes of latitude or 
longitude on a side. The USCG also supports the national vessel 
monitoring systems for all vessels within the GRAs to help the USCG 
locate them to see if they are complying with the regulations.
    Response 20: NMFS understands the USCG comments. Partially in 
response to this comment, these areas have been modified in shape. The 
areas conform to the USCG request in that they are restricted for a 
minimum of 60 days and have plainly shaped sides. At its narrowest 
points, the Southern area is approximately 20 nautical miles wide and 
the Northern area 15 nautical miles wide. Both of these sections of 
area are narrower than ideal for enforcement purposes. However, given 
the expected interaction of scup with small-mesh species (including 
Loligo, Atlantic mackerel, whiting, and black sea bass) in the vicinity 
of those areas at those times, and given industry testimony to that 
effect, these areas are, to the extent practicable, the most workable 
compromise.

[[Page 33496]]

Classification

    This action is authorized by 50 CFR part 648.
    These specifications have been determined to be not significant for 
purposes of E.O. 12866.
    Because Secs. 648.120 and 648.121 pertaining to the scup summer 
period state-by-state quota allocation are contravened by judicial 
order, providing prior notice and opportunity for public comment on 
their removal from the regulations would serve no useful purpose and is 
therefore unnecessary. Accordingly, the Assistant Administrator for 
Fisheries, NOAA (AA) finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to waive 
the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public 
comment. Likewise, providing a 30-day delay in effective date would be 
inconsistent with the intent of the judicial order and is unnecessary. 
The AA finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to waive the 30-day 
delayed effectiveness period.
    This action establishes annual quotas and related management 
measures for the summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass fisheries 
which are used to control harvest of these fisheries and to restrict 
landings when their quotas are harvested. Action to restrict landings 
must be taken immediately upon attainment of the quota to conserve 
fishery resources. The State of Delaware's summer flounder allocation 
has been harvested. It would be contrary to the public interest to 
provide prior notice to implement these restrictions, since the 
allocations have already been harvested and the regulations require the 
publication of this action. Failure to implement this provision would 
result in overfishing. Therefore, the AA finds good cause under 5 
U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and 
opportunity for public comment. Likewise, because the remaining quota 
provisions reduce overfishing of the summer flounder, scup, and black 
sea bass resources in the remaining states and periods, it would be 
impracticable and contrary to the public interest to delay 
implementation of the remaining quota provisions. Therefore, the AA 
finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to waive the 30-day delayed 
effectiveness period for both the quotas and related management 
measures, including the landings restrictions.
    This final rule contains a collection-of-information requirement 
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The request for an 
experimental fishing exemption has been approved by the Office of 
Management and Budget under Control Number 0648-0309. Public reporting 
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 
hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, 
searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data 
needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. 
Comments regarding this burden estimate, or any other aspect of this 
data collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, must be 
sent to NMFS and OMB (see ADDRESSES).
    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is 
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty 
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the 
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays 
a currently valid OMB control number.
    NMFS completed a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) that 
contains the items specified in 5 U.S.C. 604(a) as follows:

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for Summer Flounder, Scup, 
and Black Sea Bass 2000 Specifications

Need for and Objectives of the Rule

    This final rule is necessary to establish annual specifications for 
the summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass fisheries. The intent of 
this final rule is to comply with the regulations for summer flounder, 
scup, and black sea bass that require NMFS to publish specifications 
for each fishing year to conserve and manage the resources in 
compliance with the regulations, the fishery management plan (FMP), and 
the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.

Public Comments

    There were three (3) public comments submitted in response to the 
initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA). NMFS responded to these 
comments in the Comments and Responses section to this final rule. No 
comments were submitted specifically on the Item of Particular Concern 
noted in the proposed rule. As a result of these comments, changes were 
made to the rule regarding the exemption for the herring fishery from 
requirements of the gear restricted areas (GRAs), the size and location 
of the GRAs, and methods for exempting species from the GRA 
restrictions. These changes are noted in the responses to comments as 
well as in the preamble to this final rule.

Number of Small Entities

    In 1998, a total of 1056 permitted vessels landed summer flounder, 
scup, and/or black sea bass and would be impacted by the quota 
specifications. Those most likely to be impacted by the GRAs would be 
those vessels permitted under several different FMPs, including the 
Northeast Multispecies FMP (whiting), the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid and 
Butterfish FMP (Loligo squid, Atlantic mackerel), and the Summer 
Flounder, Scup and Black Sea Bass FMP (black sea bass), and fishing 
with trawl gear with codend mesh less than 4.5 inches (11.3 cm) in the 
GRAs. An analysis of these areas indicates that 59 vessels used small 
mesh gear that would be restricted in the northern GRA. The total 
prohibited trips were valued at $0.8 million. In the southern GRA, 116 
vessel would be impacted by the GRAs. The total value of these 
restricted trips were valued at $9.7 million. All of these vessels 
readily fall within the definition of a small business.

Cost of Compliance

    No additional costs of compliance including those associated with 
recordkeeping and reporting would result from the implementation of 
this final rule.

Minimizing Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities

    An analysis of the harvest level alternatives indicated that the 
levels adopted in this final rule minimized significant economic 
impacts while achieving the stated objectives of the FMP. No other 
alternative considered met the objectives while minimizing significant 
economic impacts on small entities. Although one alternative resulted 
in less impact on small entities, the harvest level proposed under it 
was found inconsistent with the requirements to end overfishing and 
rebuild the stocks. Other alternatives had higher probabilities of 
achieving the rebuilding goals of the FMP.
    A review of the impacts of the proposed GRA alternative, as well as 
the comments received, indicated that impacts could be minimized while 
still accomplishing the stated objectives of the measures. 
Consequently, NMFS modified the proposed GRAs by reducing the size of 
the Southern GRA. This modification will (1) Provide for increase 
fishing opportunities for vessels otherwise restricted under the 
proposed alternative, (2) better accommodate seasonal variations in the 
migrations of scup, (3) reflect information on areas of noted scup/
Loligo interaction, and (4) maintain or increase enforceability. The 
other significant alternatives to the GRAs were rejected as each did 
not provide for enforceable conservation benefits.

[[Page 33497]]

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648

    Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: May 18, 2000.
Bruce C. Morehead,
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 Sec. 648.14, paragraphs (a)(122) and (a)(123) are added to 
read as follows:


Sec. 648.14  Prohibitions.

    (a) * * *
    (122) Fish for, possess or land Loligo squid, silver hake, black 
sea bass or Atlantic mackerel in or from the area, and during the time 
period, described in Sec. 648.122(a) while in possession of midwater 
trawl or other trawl nets or netting that do not meet the minimum mesh 
restrictions or that are modified, obstructed or constricted, if 
subject to the minimum mesh requirements specified in Sec. 648.122 and 
Sec. 648.123(a), unless the nets or netting are stowed in accordance 
with Sec. 648.23(b).
    (123) Fish for, possess or land Loligo squid, silver hake, black 
sea bass, or Atlantic mackerel in or from the area, and during the time 
period, described in Sec. 648.122(b), while in possession of midwater 
trawl or other trawl nets or netting that do not meet the minimum mesh 
restrictions or that are modified, obstructed or constricted, if 
subject to the minimum mesh requirements specified in Sec. 648.122 and 
Sec. 648.123(a), unless the nets or netting are stowed in accordance 
with Sec. 648.23(b).
* * * * *

    3. In Sec. 648.120, paragraphs (d)(2), (d)(4) and (d)(6) are 
revised to read as follows, paragraph (d)(3) is removed and reserved, 
and paragraphs (d)(7) and (e) are removed.


Sec. 648.120  Catch quotas and other restrictions.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (2) The commercial quotas for each period will each be distributed 
to the coastal states from Maine through North Carolina on a coastwide 
basis.
    (3) [Reserved]
    (4) All scup landed for sale in any state during a quota period 
shall be applied against the coastwide commercial quota for that 
period, regardless of where the scup were harvested.
* * * * *
    (6) Any overages of the commercial quota landed during the Summer 
period will be deducted from that period's allocation for the following 
year. Any overages of the commercial quota landed in any Winter period 
will be subtracted from the period's allocation for the following year.

    4. In Sec. 648.121, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows, 
and paragraph (b) is removed and reserved.


Sec. 648.121  Closures.

    (a) Period closures. The Regional Administrator will monitor the 
harvest of commercial quota for each quota period based on dealer 
reports, state data, and other available information and shall 
determine the date when the commercial quota for a period will be 
harvested. NMFS shall close the EEZ to fishing for scup by commercial 
vessels for the remainder of the indicated period by publishing 
notification in the Federal Register advising that, effective upon a 
specific date, the commercial quota for that period has been harvested, 
and notifying vessel and dealer permit holders that no commercial quota 
is available for landing scup for the remainder of the period.
    (b) [Reserved]

    5. Section 648.122 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 648.122  Season and area restrictions.

    (a) Southern Gear Restricted Area. (1) From January 1 through April 
30, all trawl vessels in the Southern Gear Restricted Area that fish 
for or possess non-exempt species as specified in paragraph (a)(2) of 
this section, must fish with nets that have a minimum mesh size of 4.5 
inches (11.43 cm) diamond mesh, applied throughout the codend for at 
least 75 continuous meshes forward of the terminus of the net, or for 
codends with fewer than 75 meshes, the minimum-mesh-size codend must be 
a minimum of one-third of the net, measured from the terminus of the 
codend to the head rope, excluding any turtle excluder device 
extension, unless otherwise specified in this section. The Southern 
Gear Restricted Area is an area bounded by straight lines connecting 
the following points in the order stated (copies of a chart depicting 
the area are available from the Regional Administrator upon request):

                      Southern Gear Restricted Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Point                         N. Lat.    W. Long.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SGA1............................................  38 deg.00'  74 deg.20'
SGA2............................................  38 deg.40'  74 deg.00'
SGA3............................................  40 deg.00'  72 deg.30'
SGA4............................................  40 deg.00'  71 deg.20'
SGA5............................................  39 deg.10'  72 deg.47'
SGA6............................................  38 deg.00'  73 deg.55'
SGA7............................................  38 deg.00'  74 deg.20'
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) Non-exempt species. Unless otherwise specified in paragraph (c) 
of this section, the restrictions specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this 
section apply to vessels in the Southern Gear Restricted Area that are 
fishing for or in possession of the following non-exempt species: Black 
sea bass, Loligo squid, Atlantic mackerel, and silver hake (whiting). 
Vessels fishing for or in possession of all other species of fish and 
shellfish are exempt from these restrictions.
    (b) Northern Gear Restricted Area. (1) From November 1 through 
December 31, all trawl vessels in the Northern Gear Restricted Area 
that fish for or possess non-exempt species as specified in paragraph 
(b)(2) of this section must fish with nets that have a minimum mesh 
size of 4.5 inches (11.43 cm) diamond mesh, applied throughout the 
codend for at least 75 continuous meshes forward of the terminus of the 
net, or for codends with fewer than 75 meshes, the minimum-mesh-size 
codend must be a minimum of one-third of the net, measured from the 
terminus of the codend to the head rope, excluding any turtle excluder 
device extension, unless otherwise specified in this section. The 
Northern Gear Restricted Area is an area bounded by straight lines 
connecting the following points in the order stated (copies of a chart 
depicting the area are available from the Regional Administrator upon 
request):

                      Northern Gear Restricted Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Point                         N. Lat.    W. Long.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NGA1............................................  40 deg.00'  72 deg.50'
NGA2............................................  41 deg.10'  71 deg.40'
NGA3............................................  41 deg.10'  70 deg.00'
NGA4............................................  41 deg.00'  70 deg.00'
NGA5............................................  41 deg.00'  70 deg.40'
NGA6............................................  40 deg.00'  71 deg.30'
NGA7............................................  40 deg.00'  72 deg.50'
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) Non-exempt species. Unless otherwise specified in paragraphs 
(c) of this section, the restrictions specified in paragraph (b)(1) of 
this section apply to vessels in the Northern Gear Restricted Area that 
are fishing for, or in possession of, the following non-exempt species: 
Black sea bass, Loligo squid, Atlantic mackerel, and silver hake 
(whiting). Vessels fishing for or in

[[Page 33498]]

possession of all other species of fish and shellfish are exempt from 
these restrictions.
    (c) Transiting. Vessels that are subject to the provisions of the 
Southern and Northern GRAs, as specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of 
this section, respectively, may transit these areas provided that trawl 
net codends on board of mesh size less than that specified in 
paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section are not available for immediate 
use and are stowed in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 648.23(b).
    (d) Addition or deletion of exemptions. (1) An exemption may be 
added in an existing fishery for which there is sufficient information 
to ascertain the amount of scup bycatch, if the Regional Administrator, 
after consultation with the MAFMC, determines that the percentage of 
scup caught as bycatch is, or can be reduced to, less than 10 percent, 
by weight, of total catch and that such exemption will not jeopardize 
fishing mortality objectives. In determining whether exempting a 
fishery may jeopardize meeting fishing mortality objectives for scup, 
the Regional Administrator may take into consideration factors such as, 
but not limited to, juvenile mortality. A fishery may be restricted or 
exempted by area, gear, season, or other means determined to be 
appropriate to reduce bycatch of scup. An existing exemption may be 
deleted or modified if the Regional Administrator determines that the 
catch of scup is equal to or greater than 10 percent, by weight, of 
total catch, or that continuing the exemption may jeopardize meeting 
fishing mortality objectives. Notification of additions, deletions or 
modifications will be made through issuance of a rule in the Federal 
Register.
    (2) The MAFMC may recommend to the Regional Administrator, through 
the framework procedure specified in Sec. 648.108(a), additions or 
deletions to exemptions for fisheries other than scup.
    (e) Exempted experimental fishing. The Regional Administrator may 
issue an exempted experimental fishing permit (EFP) under the 
provisions of Sec. 600.745(b), consistent with paragraph (d)(2) of this 
section, to allow any vessel participating in a scup discard mitigation 
research project to engage in any of the following activities: Fish in 
the applicable gear restriction area, use fishing gear that does not 
conform to the regulations, possess non-exempt species specified in 
paragraphs (a)(2) and (b)(2) of this section, or engage in any other 
activity necessary to project operations for which an exemption from 
regulatory provision is required. Vessels issued an EFP must comply 
with all conditions and restrictions specified in the EFP.
    (1) A vessel participating in an exempted experimental fishery in 
the Scup Gear Restriction Area(s) must carry an EFP authorizing the 
activity and any required Federal fishery permit on board.
    (2) The Regional Administrator may not issue an EFP unless s/he 
determines that issuance is consistent with the objectives of the FMP, 
the provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law 
and will not:
    (i) Have a detrimental effect on the scup resource and fishery;
    (ii) Cause the quotas for any species of fish for any quota period 
to be exceeded;
    (iii) Create significant enforcement problems; or
    (iv) Have a detrimental effect on the scup discard mitigation 
research project.

    6. In Sec. 648.123, the first sentence of paragraph (a)(3), 
paragraph (a)(4), and the first sentence of paragraph (a)(5) are 
revised to read as follows:


Sec. 648.123  Gear restrictions.

    (a) * * *
    (3) Net modification. The owner or operator of a fishing vessel 
subject to the minimum mesh requirements in Sec. 648.122 and paragraph 
(a)(1) of this section shall not use any device, gear, or material, 
including, but not limited to, nets, net strengtheners, ropes, lines, 
or chafing gear, on the top of the regulated portion of a trawl net.* * 
*
    (4) Mesh obstruction or constriction. (i) The owner or operator of 
a fishing vessel subject to the minimum mesh restrictions in 
Sec. 648.122 and in paragraph (a)(1) of this section shall not use any 
mesh construction, mesh configuration, or other means on, in, or 
attached to the top of the regulated portion of the net, as defined in 
paragraph (a)(3) of this section, if it obstructs or constricts the 
meshes of the net in any manner.
    (ii) The owner or operator of a fishing vessel subject to the 
minimum mesh requirements in Sec. 648.122 and in paragraph (a)(1) of 
this section may not use a net capable of catching scup if the bars 
entering or exiting the knots twist around each other.
    (5) Stowage of nets. The owner or operator of an otter trawl vessel 
retaining 4,000 lb or more (1,814 kg or more) of scup and subject to 
the minimum mesh requirement in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, and 
the owner or operator of a midwater trawl or other trawl vessel subject 
to the minimum mesh requirement in Sec. 648.122, may not have available 
for immediate use any net, or any piece of net, not meeting the minimum 
mesh size requirement, or mesh that is rigged in a manner that is 
inconsistent with the minimum mesh size. * * *
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 00-12993 Filed 5-23-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P