[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 41 (Thursday, March 1, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 12902-12912]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-4973]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 648

[Docket No. 001121328-1041-02; I.D. 111500C]
RIN 0648-AN71


Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Scup and Black Sea 
Bass Fisheries; 2001 Specifications; Commercial Quota Harvested for 
Winter I Scup Period; Commercial Quota Harvested for Black Sea Bass 
Quarter I Period

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

ACTION: Final rule, final 2001 specifications, and commercial quota 
adjustment; notification of commercial quota harvest for Winter I scup 
period; notification of commercial quota harvest for Quarter I black 
sea bass period.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS issues final specifications for the 2001 scup and black 
sea bass fisheries and makes preliminary adjustments to the 2001 
commercial quotas for these fisheries. The annual specifications for 
the scup fishery modify the Gear Restricted Areas (GRAs) that were 
established in the Mid-Atlantic Bight to reduce scup bycatch in small-
mesh fisheries. The trip limit provisions in the scup and black sea 
bass fisheries are modified to be possession limits, and these limits 
are further specified to be the maximum amount allowed to be landed 
within a 24-hour period (calendar day). NMFS also announces that the 
scup commercial quota available in the Winter I period and the black 
sea bass commercial quota available in the Quarter 1 period to the 
coastal states from Maine through North Carolina has been harvested. 
Federally permitted commercial vessels may not land scup in these 
states for the remainder of the 2001 Winter I quota period (through 
April 30, 2001). Federally permitted commercial vessels may not land 
black sea bass in these states for the remainder of the 2001 Quarter I 
quota period (through March 31, 2001). Regulations governing the scup 
and black sea bass fisheries require publication of this notification 
to advise the coastal states from Maine through North Carolina that 
these quotas have been harvested and to advise Federal vessel permit 
holders and Federal dealer permit holders that no commercial quota is 
available for landing scup in these states, and for landing black sea 
bass in these states north of 35 deg.15.3' N. lat. The intent of this 
action is to comply with implementing regulations for the Fishery 
Management Plan for the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass 
Fisheries (FMP), which require NMFS to publish measures for the 
upcoming fishing year that will prevent overfishing of these fisheries. 
The specifications for the 2001 summer flounder fishery will be 
published in the Federal Register at a later date.

DATES: 1. The 2001 final specifications for scup and black sea bass are 
effective March 1, 2001, through December 31, 2001.
     2. Sections 648.14(a)(84), 648.123(a)(1) and 648.123(a)(5) are 
effective March 1, 2001.
     3. The prohibition on landings of scup in the coastal states from 
Maine through North Carolina by Federal permit holders is effective 
0001 hours, March 1, 2001, through 2400 hours, April 30, 2001.
     4. The prohibition on landings of black sea bass in the coastal 
states from Maine through North Carolina north of 35 deg.15.3' N. lat. 
by Federal permit holders is effective 0001 hours, March 7, 2001, 
through 2400 hours, March 31, 2001.
     5. Sections 648.14(a)(92), 648.14(a)(122), 648.14(u)(9), 
648.120(b)(2), 648.122(a) through (c), 648.140(b)(2), the removal and 
reservation of 648.122(d), and the removal of 648.14(a)(123) are 
effective April 2, 2001.

ADDRESSES:  Send comments on any ambiguity or unnecessary complexity 
arising from the language used in this final rule to Patricia A. 
Kurkul, Regional Administrator, Northeast Region, National Marine 
Fisheries Service, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930-2298.
    Copies of supporting documents used by the Scup and Black Sea Bass 
Monitoring Committees, the Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), the Final 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) contained within the RIR, and 
the Environmental Assessment (EA) are available from the Northeast 
Regional Office at the same address. The EA/RIR/FRFA contains an 
analysis of the final scup and black sea bass measures and includes a 
draft analysis of summer flounder measures. The EA/RIR/FRFA is also 
accessible via the Internet at http://www.nero.nmfs.gov/ro/doc/nr.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard A. Pearson, Fishery Policy 
Analyst, (978)281-9279, 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 scup (Stenotomus chrysops) and black sea 
bass (Centropristis striata) in U.S. waters of the Atlantic Ocean from 
35 deg.13.3' N. lat. (the latitude of Cape Hatteras Light, NC) 
northward to the U.S./Canadian border. Implementing regulations for 
these fisheries are found at 50 CFR part 648, subparts A, H (scup), and 
I (black sea bass).
    Pursuant to Secs.  648.120 (scup) and 648.140 (black sea bass), the 
Administrator, Northeast Region, NMFS, (Regional Administrator) 
implements measures for the fishing year to assure that the target 
fishing mortality rate (F) or exploitation rate for each fishery, as 
specified in the FMP, is not exceeded. The target F or exploitation 
rate and management measures (e.g., mesh requirements, minimum fish 
sizes, seasons, and area

[[Page 12903]]

restrictions) are summarized here, by species. Detailed background 
information regarding the status of these stocks and the development of 
the proposed specifications was provided in the proposed specifications 
for the 2001 summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass fisheries (65 FR 
71042, November 28, 2000) and is not repeated here. In addition to 
establishing the annual measures, this action modifies the trip limit 
provisions in the scup and black sea bass fisheries so that they are 
possession limits, to enhance at-sea enforcement. For black sea bass 
and scup, this action also specifies that the possession limit is the 
maximum amount that can be landed in a calendar day. NMFS will publish 
a proposed and final rule for the 2001 recreational management measures 
for these fisheries in the Federal Register at a later date.

Scup

    The FMP established a target exploitation rate for scup in 2001 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 by the FMP. Scup discard estimates are deducted 
from both TACs to establish total allowable landings (TAL) for both 
sectors (TAC - discards = TAL). The commercial TAL is then allocated 
with differing percentages to three quota periods: Winter I (January-
April)-45.11 percent; Summer (May-October)-30.95 percent; and Winter II 
(Nov-December)-15.94 percent.
    In 2000, NMFS implemented GRAs, a management tool recommended by 
the Council, to reduce discards of scup in small-mesh fisheries. The 
GRAs are seasonally closed to specified small-mesh fisheries using 
trawl gear with codend mesh sizes less than 4.5 inches (11 cm). GRAs 
initially went into effect on November 1, 2000, with an exemption for 
the Atlantic herring small-mesh fishery (65 FR 33486, May 24, 2000). 
They were later modified in size, effective December 23, 2000, (65 FR 
81761, December 27, 2000), and a temporary exemption for the Loligo 
squid fishery and a permanent exemption for the Atlantic mackerel 
small-mesh fishery were implemented.
    In the proposed rule for this action, NMFS noted the continued 
importance of reducing scup discards in small-mesh fisheries. NMFS also 
noted that it recognized that GRAs are not the only way to address scup 
discard mortality. Therefore, NMFS sought comments on four options to 
meet the regulatory requirement at 50 CFR 648.120 that the Regional 
Administrator implement measures to ensure that the target exploitation 
rate would not be exceeded. The four options varied in terms of the TAC 
level, the discard deduction made to calculate TALs, the size and 
location of the GRAs, and the fisheries to be exempted from the GRAs. 
In general, if GRAs were used to reduce scup bycatch, the discard 
deduction made in establishing the TAL would be lower than it would 
have been without GRAs, and the resultant quotas would be higher. The 
options are outlined here.
    Option I: (1) The Council's proposed quota for scup (a TAC of 8.37 
million lb (3.80 million kg), a discard deduction of 2.15 million lb 
(0.97 million kg), and a TAL of 6.22 million lb (2.82 million kg)); (2) 
the GRAs currently in effect (as recommended by the Council); and (3) 
exemptions for Atlantic herring, Atlantic mackerel and Loligo squid 
small-mesh fisheries.
    Under this option, the commercial TAC would be 6.53 million lb 
(2.96 million kg) minus discards of 2.08 million lb (0.94 million kg), 
resulting in a commercial quota of 4.45 million lb (2.02 million kg). 
The recreational TAC would be 1.84 million lb (0.83 million kg) minus 
discards of 0.07 million lb (0.03 million kg), resulting in a 
recreational harvest limit of 1.77 million lb (0.80 million kg).
    Option II: (1) The Scup Monitoring Committee's quota recommendation 
for 2001 (a TAC of 7.85 million lb (3.56 million kg), a discard 
deduction of 2.85 million lb (1.29 million kg), and a TAL of 5.0 
million lb (2.27 million kg)); (2) the GRAs currently in effect (as 
recommended by the Council); and (3) exemptions for the Atlantic 
herring and Atlantic mackerel small-mesh fisheries.
    Under this option, the commercial TAC would be 6.12 million lb 
(2.78 million kg) minus discards of 2.76 million lb (1.25 million kg), 
resulting in a commercial quota of 3.36 million lb (1.52 million kg). 
The recreational TAC would be 1.73 million lb (0.78 million kg) minus 
discards of 0.09 million lb (0.04 million kg), resulting in a 
recreational harvest limit of 1.64 million lb (0.74 million kg).
    Option III: (1) The temporary suspension of GRA restrictions for 
2001; and (2) a TAL established at a level that is consistent with the 
stock assessment's conclusion that commercial discards are 
approximately equal to commercial landings (a TAC of 7.85 million lb 
(3.56 million kg), a discard deduction of 3.15 million lb (1.43 million 
kg), and a TAL of 4.70 million lb (2.13 million kg)).
    Under this option, the commercial TAC would be 6.12 million lb 
(2.78 million kg) minus discards of 3.06 million lb (1.39 million kg), 
resulting in a commercial quota of 3.06 million lb (1.39 million kg). 
The recreational TAC would be 1.73 million lb (0.78 million kg) minus 
discards of 0.09 million lb (0.04 million kg), resulting in a 
recreational harvest limit of 1.64 million lb (0.74 million kg).
    Option IV: (1) Modified GRAs that are shorter in duration and that 
exclude the Hudson Canyon area, but incorporate other areas of high 
scup concentration and small-mesh fishing activities during the winter 
months; (2) the Monitoring Committee's quota recommendation for 2001 (a 
TAC of 7.85 million lb (3.56 million kg), a discard deduction of 2.85 
million lb (1.29 million kg), and a TAL of 5.0 million lb (2.27 million 
kg)); and (3) exemptions for the Atlantic herring and Atlantic mackerel 
small-mesh fisheries.
    Under this option, the commercial TAC would be 6.12 million lb 
(2.78 million kg) minus discards of 2.76 million lb (1.25 million kg), 
resulting in a commercial quota of 3.36 million lb (1.52 million kg). 
The recreational TAC would be 1.73 million lb (0.78 million kg) minus 
discards of 0.09 million lb (0.04 million kg), resulting in a 
recreational harvest limit of 1.64 million lb (0.74 million kg).

Final 2001 Scup Specifications

    Based on the comments received on the proposed specifications and 
the requirements of the FMP, NMFS is implementing for 2001 the 
Council's recommended TAC of 8.37 million lb (3.80 million kg) and 
associated TAL of 6.22 million lb (2.82 million kg), as described in 
Option I. This final rule also establishes the modified GRAs and 
exemptions described in Option IV (exempts Atlantic mackerel and 
Atlantic herring fisheries), which will remain in effect until modified 
by a subsequent action.
    The TAC implemented by this final rule results in a consistent scup 
quota throughout the management unit, because it is the same as that 
adopted by the Commission for 2001. This prevents the confusion and 
inequities that would occur if different TALs were applicable to state-
permitted and federally permitted vessels. In that situation, federally 
permitted vessels would be precluded from fishing for scup during a 
Federal closure, even though state-permitted vessels could continue to 
fish in state waters. Furthermore, because the Commission adopted a 
6.22 million lb (282-million kg) scup quota, landings of 6.22 million 
lb (2.82 million kg) would likely occur in 2001 even if a lower Federal 
quota of 5.0 million lb (2.27 million kg) were

[[Page 12904]]

adopted, because fishing by state-permitted vessels would continue in 
state waters even after Federal waters were closed to scup fishing.
    In the proposed rule for this action, NMFS indicated concern 
regarding the scup quota recommended by the Council and the underlying 
assumption that scup biomass would be greater in 2001 than in 2000. 
However, during the comment period, the New York Department of 
Environmental Conservation presented new information indicating very 
strong recent scup year classes, particularly the 1999 year class, 
providing evidence that scup are rebuilding and that the biomass will 
increase in 2001. State fisheries managers from Rhode Island and 
Connecticut also indicated during the December 2000, Council meeting 
that their states' inshore surveys indicated strong recent scup year 
classes. These states have provided preliminary information to NMFS 
showing a strong 1999 year class and also potentially strong 1998 and 
2000 year classes. NMFS recognizes that these data are preliminary. 
Nevertheless, the information indicates at least one very strong scup 
year class. If protected from excessive discard mortality, the 1999 
year class, and possibly others, should contribute significantly to 
rebuilding the resource.
    Because of these potentially strong recent year classes, the 
harvest level recommended by the Council and adopted in this final rule 
can be reasonably expected to attain the target exploitation rate. 
However, these strong year classes also mean that GRAs remain necessary 
to protect juvenile scup from discard mortality and to allow rebuilding 
to take place. The GRAs described in Option IV and implemented through 
this final rule will extend farther south than the existing GRAs to 
include areas of high winter scup abundance and coincidental Loligo 
squid fishing effort, as identified by the Northeast Fisheries Science 
Center (NEFSC) winter bottom trawl survey and in vessel logbook 
reports. Although quantitative estimates are not available, these GRAs 
are expected to reduce scup discards in the winter. These GRAs will 
also allow small-mesh fishing in the Hudson Canyon area, which has been 
identified by industry as a priority area for winter fishing activity 
in several small-mesh fisheries. NMFS believes that these GRAs will 
reduce scup discards with simultaneously fewer adverse impacts on 
small-mesh fisheries than the existing GRAs.
    The commercial allocation is shown in Table 1. These allocations 
are subject to a downward adjustment for any overages that occurred in 
a period's scup harvest in 2000, as is required by Sec.  648.120(d)(6). 
Scup preliminary landings data are listed in Table 2. Preliminary data 
indicate that the Winter I and Summer period allocations were exceeded 
in 2000. The resulting adjusted 2001 commercial quota for each period 
is given in Table 3.

                                                Table 1. Percent Allocations of 2001 Commercial Scup Quota
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                               Quota allocation           Possession
                             Period                               Percent        TAC\1\       Discards\2\ ----------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                lb         kg\3\         lb       kg\3\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Winter I                                                            45.11          2,945,502      940,543    2,004,959      909,434  10,000\4\     4,536
                                                                 ........        (1,336,057)    (426,623)  ...........  ...........  .........  ........
Summer                                                              38.95          2,543,280      812,108    1,731,172      785,246        N/A       N/A
                                                                 ........        (1,153,612)    (368,366)  ...........  ...........  .........  ........
Winter II                                                           15.94          1,040,818      332,349      708,469      321,356      2,000       907
                                                                 ........          (472,107)    (150,751)  ...........  ...........  .........  ........
ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½
                                                                 ........        (2,961,776)    (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 the converted total due to rounding.
\4\Possession limit will drop to 1,000 lb (453.6 kg) per trip when 75 percent of Winter I quota is reached.


                                                    Table 2. Scup Preliminary 2000 Landings by Period
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    2000 Quota\1\                         2000 Landings                         2000 Overage
                Period                 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                lb               kg\2\                lb               kg\2\                lb               kg\2\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Winter I                                        1,037,253            470,490          1,366,591            619,875            329,338            149,385
Summer                                            637,878            289,337          1,221,189            553,922            583,311            264,585
Winter II                                          70,356             31,913             34,939             15,848                  0                  0
Total                                           1,745,487            791,740          2,622,719          1,189,645            912,649            413,971
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Reflects quotas as published on August 18, 2000 (65 FR 50463).
\2\Kilograms are as converted from pounds and may not add to the converted total due to rounding.


                                    Table 3. Scup Final 2001 Adjusted Quotas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               2000 Initial Quota                  2000 Adjusted quota\1\
               Period                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              lb               kg\2\                lb               kg\2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Winter I                                      2,004,959            909,434          1,675,621            760,049
Summer                                        1,731,172            785,246          1,147,861            520,661
Winter II                                       708,469            321,356            708,469            321,356
Total                                         4,444,600          2,016,037          3,531,951          1,602,066
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Possession limits specified in Table 1.
\2\Kilograms are as converted from pounds and may not add to the converted total due to rounding.


[[Page 12905]]

    To enhance at-sea enforcement, this action changes the current scup 
trip limits to possession limits, with the additional provision that 
these quantities be the maximum allowed to be landed within a calendar 
day. This action implements a Winter I (January-April) possession limit 
of 10,000 lb (4,536 kg) with a reduction to 1,000 lb (454 kg) for the 
remainder of the period when 75 percent of the quota allocation is 
projected to have been harvested. The Winter II period (November-
December) possession limit is decreased from 4,000 lb (1,814 kg) to 
2,000 lb (907 kg).
    This action also increases the level of catch (threshold) that may 
be retained on board a vessel that is using mesh smaller than 4.5 
inches (11 cm) from 200 lb (91 kg) to 500 lb (227 kg) for the period 
November 1-April 30. The threshold remains at 100 lb (45 kg) for the 
period May 1-October 31. In order for a vessel to possess scup in 
excess of the threshold, mesh smaller than 4.5 inches (11 cm) must be 
stowed and unavailable for use. In the proposed rule, NMFS noted 
concern that increasing the threshold for the November-April period 
could potentially increase bycatch and subsequent discard of undersized 
scup. However, it was recognized that, if scup, which otherwise would 
have been discarded, were instead converted to landings due to the 
change in the mesh threshold without incurring additional discards when 
the 500-lb (227 kg) threshold was reached, as the Council and industry 
believed would occur, the change in threshold limit would be 
acceptable. After reviewing public comment, NMFS concluded that this 
belief cannot be tested definitively. Therefore, NMFS has decided to 
defer to the Council's judgement on this matter.

Scup Closure

    Section 648.121 requires the Regional Administrator to monitor the 
commercial scup quota for each quota period and, based upon dealer 
reports, state data, and other available information, to determine when 
the commercial quota for a period has been harvested. NMFS is required 
to publish a notification in the Federal Register advising and 
notifying commercial vessels and dealer permit holders that, effective 
upon a specific date, the scup commercial quota has been harvested and 
no commercial quota is available for landing scup for the remainder of 
the Winter I period. The Regional Administrator has determined, based 
upon dealer reports and other available information, that the scup 
commercial quota of 1,666,570 lb for the 2001 Winter I period has been 
harvested.
    Section 648.4(b) provides that Federal scup moratorium permit 
holders agree as a condition of the permit not to land scup in any 
state after NMFS has published a notification in the Federal Register 
stating that the commercial quota for the period has been harvested and 
that no commercial quota for scup is available. Therefore, effective 
0001 hours, March 1, 2001, further landings of scup by vessels holding 
Federal scup moratorium permits are prohibited through April 30, 2001. 
The Summer period for commercial scup harvest will open on May 1, 2001. 
Effective 0001 hours, March 1, 2001, federally permitted dealers are 
also advised that they may not purchase scup from federally permitted 
vessels that land in coastal states from Maine through North Carolina 
for the remainder of the Winter I period (through April 30, 2001).

Black Sea Bass

    The FMP specifies a target exploitation rate of 37 percent for 
2001. 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.
    To achieve the target exploitation rate for 2001, this action 
implements a black sea bass TAL equal to the 2000 level and reduces the 
possession limits in Quarters 2, 3, and 4. The reduction in the 
possession limits is intended to allow the fishery to remain open for 
the entire quarter. This action also changes the current trip limits 
for black sea bass to possession limits to enhance at-sea enforcement, 
with the provision that these quantities are the maximum allowed to be 
landed within a calendar day. The commercial quota and corresponding 
possession limits are shown in Table 4.
    Preliminary data indicate overages of the 2000 quota occurred in 
Quarters 2, 3, and 4 (Table 5), which requires a corresponding 
deduction from the 2001 allocations for those quarters. The resulting 
adjusted 2001 commercial quota for each quarter is given in Table 6. 
These allocations are preliminary and would be subject to a downward 
adjustment for any additional overages in a period's harvest in 2000, 
as provided in the FMP.

                           Table 4. 2001 Black Sea Bass Quarterly Coastwide Commercial Quotas and Quarterly Possession Limits
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                              Possession limits
                         Quarter                                Percent               lb               kg\1\       -------------------------------------
                                                                                                                            lb               kg\1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 (Jan-Mar)                                                            38.64          1,168,760            530,141               9000              4,082
2 (Apr-Jun)                                                            29.26            885,040            401,447               1500                680
3 (Jul-Sep)                                                            12.33            372,951            169,168               1000                454
4 (Oct-Dec)                                                            19.77            597,991            271,244               2000                907
Total                                                                 100.00          3,024,742          1,372,000  .................  .................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Kilograms are as converted from pounds and may not add to the converted total due to rounding.


                                               Table 5. Black Sea Bass Preliminary 2000 Landings by Quarter
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     2000 Quota                           2000 Landings                         2000 Overage
                Period                 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                lb               kg\1\                lb               kg\1\                lb               kg\1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1                                               1,168,760            530,141            848,018            384,654                  0                  0
2                                                 734,088            332,982            939,609            426,199            205,521             93,223
3                                                 238,795            108,317            334,871            151,895             96,076             43,579
4                                                 490,038            222,281            571,090            259,042             81,052             36,765
Total                                           2,631,681          1,193,721          2,693,588          1,221,791            382,649            173,567
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Kilograms are as converted from pounds and may not add to the converted total due to rounding.


[[Page 12906]]


                                Table 6. Black Sea Bass Final 2001 Adjusted Quotas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               2001 Initial quota                    2001 Adjusted quota
               Period                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              lb               kg\1\                lb               kg\1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1                                             1,168,760            530,141          1,168,760            530,141
2                                               885,040            401,447            679,519            308,225
3                                               372,951            169,168            276,875            125,588
4                                               597,991            271,244            516,939            234,480
Total                                         3,024,742          1,372,000          2,642,093          1,198,433
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Trip limits specified in Table 4.
\2\ Kilograms are as converted from pounds and may not add to the converted total due to rounding.

Black Sea Bass Closure

    Section 648.141 requires the Regional Administrator to monitor the 
commercial black sea bass quota for each quota period and, on the basis 
of dealer reports, state data, and other available information, to 
determine when the commercial quota has been harvested. NMFS is 
required to publish a notification in the Federal Register advising and 
notifying commercial vessels and dealer permit holders that, effective 
upon a specific date, the black sea bass commercial quota has been 
harvested and no commercial quota is available for landing black sea 
bass for the remainder of the quarter 1 period, north of 35 deg.15.3' 
N. lat. The Regional Administrator has determined, based upon dealer 
reports and other available information, that the black sea bass 
commercial quota of 1,168,760 lb (530,141 kg) for the 2001 quarter 1 
period has been harvested.
    The regulations at Sec.  648.4(b) provide that Federal black sea 
bass moratorium permit holders agree as a condition of the permit not 
to land black sea bass in any state after NMFS has published a 
notification in the Federal Register stating that the commercial quota 
for the period has been harvested and that no commercial quota for the 
black sea bass is available. The Regional Administrator has determined 
that the quarter 1 period for black sea bass no longer has commercial 
quota available. Therefore, effective 0001 hrs local time, March 7, 
2001, further landings of black sea bass in coastal states from Maine 
through North Carolina, north of 35 deg.15.3' N. lat., by vessels 
holding commercial Federal fisheries permits are prohibited through 
March 31, 2001. The 2001 quarter 2 period for commercial black sea bass 
harvest will open on April 1, 2001. Effective March 7, 2001, federally 
permitted dealers are also advised that they may not purchase black sea 
bass from federally permitted black sea bass moratorium permit holders 
who land in coastal states from Maine through North Carolina, north of 
35 deg.15.3' N. lat., for the remainder of the quarter 1 period 
(through March 31, 2001).
    The regulations at Sec.  648.4(b) also provide that, if the 
commercial black sea bass quota for a period is harvested and the coast 
is closed to the possession of black sea bass north of 35 deg.15.3' N. 
lat., any vessel owners who hold valid commercial permits for both the 
black sea bass and the NMFS Southeast Region Snapper-Grouper fisheries 
may surrender their black sea bass moratorium permit by certified mail 
addressed to the Regional Administrator (see ADDRESSES) and fish 
pursuant to their Snapper-Grouper permit, as long as fishing is 
conducted exclusively in waters, and landings are made, south of 
35 deg.15.3' N. lat. A moratorium permit for the black sea bass fishery 
that is voluntarily relinquished or surrendered will be reissued upon 
the receipt of the vessel owner's written request after a minimum 
period of 6 months from the date of cancellation.

Comments and Responses

    A total of 30 comments on the proposed rule were received in 
reference to the scup and black sea bass specifications, primarily from 
fishing industry participants and organizations representing the 
commercial fishing industry. Other commenters included the 
Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries, the New York State 
Department of Environmental Conservation (NYDEC), a university 
professor, and several environmental organizations, which submitted one 
co-signed comment. All comments received prior to the close of the 
comment period that directly related to the measures in the proposed 
rule were considered in developing the measures contained in this final 
rule. Several commenters made points that went beyond the scope of the 
proposed action; those points are not responded to here.
    Comment 1: Twenty commenters questioned the scientific information 
underlying the proposed 2001 scup specifications. In addition, eight 
commenters stated that recently available state survey data indicate 
that scup abundance is higher than was indicated by the data used in 
developing the scup specifications, and that the 2001 allowed harvest 
level should be the level recommended by the Council in scup Option I. 
Conversely, one commenter felt that adopting a higher scup TAL would 
violate the overfishing, rebuilding, and bycatch reduction requirements 
of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 
(Magnuson-Stevens Act), its implementing regulations, and the FMP.
    Response: As noted in the preamble, the most recent stock 
assessment was conducted in June 2000 (SARC 31) and incorporated the 
best scientific information available at that time. Several state 
fishery managers presented more recent information at the December 
2000, meeting of the Council and the Commission. NYDEC data showed very 
strong recent scup year classes, particularly in 1999, and indicated 
that scup are rebuilding and that biomass will increase in 2001. State 
representatives from Rhode Island and Connecticut also noted at the 
meeting that their state surveys preliminarily show similar increases 
in recent year classes. These state survey data indicate that the 
biomass estimated for 2001 will likely be higher than the biomass 
estimated for 2000. This recent information indicating a scup biomass 
increase provided the basis for NMFS' decision to set the 2001 scup TAL 
at the level recommended by the Council and Board (reflected in scup 
Option I).
    SARC 31 also noted evidence of strong year classes in 1997 and 
1999, and an increase in spawning stock abundance since 1998. SARC 31 
concluded that fishing mortality should be reduced substantially and 
immediately, and that a reduction in fishing mortality from discards 
would have the most impact on rebuilding the stock. Therefore, in 
recognizing a likely increase in scup abundance, NMFS also recognizes 
the imperative to maintain GRAs to reduce discard mortality of

[[Page 12907]]

juvenile scup. GRAs are necessary to protect the strong recent year 
classes, which have not yet reached harvestable size. These year 
classes provide opportunities for future rebuilding of the scup stock. 
NMFS believes the GRAs contained in Option IV and implemented through 
this final rule will provide the requisite protection.
    Comment 2: One commenter felt that NMFS' failure to take action to 
lower the Winter I scup trip possession limit would violate the 
overfishing, rebuilding, and bycatch reduction requirements of the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act, its implementing regulations, and the FMP.
    Response: NMFS notes that, although Council staff recommended 
lowering the Winter I scup possession limit, the Scup Monitoring 
Committee did not support that recommendation. The allowable harvest 
limit is the primary measure to control mortality in the scup fishery, 
because the fishery is closed upon attainment of the harvest limit. 
Possession limits primarily serve to distribute the quota over the 
quota period. This final rule lowers the level at which the landing 
limit is reduced to 1,000 lb from 85 percent of the Winter I allocation 
to 75 percent of the Winter I allocation, based on the recommendations 
of the Council and the Scup Monitoring Committee. Lowering the trigger 
to 75 percent of the Winter I quota will reduce the trip limit earlier 
in the Winter I period, and better ensure that the Winter I period 
quota is not exceeded.
    Comment 3: Nineteen commenters stated that they disagreed with the 
scup discard statistics. Four of these commenters referred to an 
analysis of NMFS sea sampling (observer) data prepared by Dr. Eric 
Powell, Rutgers University, that concluded that the discard problem is 
primarily associated with fishing trips directing on scup, not trips 
directing on Loligo squid.
    Response: NMFS has consistently stated that it recognizes that it 
is difficult to make a precise determination of scup discards because 
of the limited information available. Sea sampling data for small-mesh 
fishery trips, which are the best available discard information, are 
not available for all areas and time periods of concern. However, SARC 
31 concluded that commercial discards may have equaled or exceeded 
commercial landings during 1989-1997. SARC 31 also noted that the 
limited sea sampling information suggests that discards are quite 
variable.
    Based on the available sea sampling data, the overall percent of 
discards in the Loligo squid fishery is relatively low, when calculated 
by comparing the weight of scup caught to the total weight of the 
catch. However, the percentage is affected by the fact that the total 
volume of fish caught by vessels fishing for Loligo squid is very high. 
A review of the sea sampling data shows that the total poundage of scup 
discarded in the Loligo fishery can be substantial. Therefore, NMFS 
cannot currently support an exemption from the GRAs for the Loligo 
fishery.
    NMFS notes that the analysis conducted by Dr. Powell has not yet 
been peer reviewed and that such a review is necessary in order to 
evaluate properly the results of the analysis.
    Comment 4: One commenter objected to exempting both the Loligo 
squid and the Atlantic mackerel small-mesh fisheries from the GRAs. 
This commenter stated that the Loligo fishery is considered the most 
significant source of scup discards. Conversely, several commenters 
showed support for exempting the Loligo squid fishery from GRA 
measures.
    Response: NMFS recognizes that overall scup discards as a percent 
of total Loligo landings are comparatively low. As stated in the 
response to comment 3, the main reason for this is that the overall 
volume of fish caught in the Loligo fishery is large. Available NMFS 
observer data show that occasional large scup discard events (as high 
as 28 percent) in the directed Loligo fishery do occur. These 
occasional large discard events are of concern. Therefore, NMFS has not 
exempted the Loligo fishery from the GRA requirements. Loligo was 
exempted from the modified Northern GRA implemented from December 23, 
2000, through December 31, 2000, because the Loligo quota had been 
harvested. Thus, no directed Loligo fishery was occurring during this 
time period, having minimal impacts on the scup resource.
    The highest percentage of scup bycatch for any directed mackerel 
trip, based on the limited sea-sampling data, was 6 percent. The Scup 
Monitoring Committee recommended that the Atlantic mackerel small-mesh 
fishery be exempt from the GRA requirements. Based of the available 
observer information and the Scup Monitoring Committee recommendation, 
NMFS believes that exempting the directed small-mesh mackerel fishery 
will not jeopardize the attainment of scup mortality reduction 
objectives.
    Comment 5: Two commenters supported scup Option I, which contains 
the GRAs implemented on December 23, 2000, with exemptions for the 
Loligo squid, Atlantic mackerel, and Atlantic herring small-mesh 
fisheries, and the Council's recommended scup TAL of 6.22 million lb 
(2.82-million kg).
    Response: Scup Option I would have retained GRAs, but would have 
exempted the Loligo squid fishery from the GRA restrictions. As 
explained in the responses to Comments 4 and 5, NMFS cannot currently 
support a Loligo squid small-mesh exemption because of concerns that 
the Loligo fishery is a significant source of scup discard mortality, 
despite the fact that the overall percentage of scup discarded relative 
to the Loligo catch may be low.
    Comment 6: Twenty-six commenters supported the temporary suspension 
of GRAs as proposed in scup Option III, with 11 of these commenters 
favoring an increase of the scup TAL to the level proposed in Option I. 
Many commenters stated that GRAs are not necessary because significant 
reductions in scup mortality are being achieved through other measures, 
including periodic fishery closures due to quota attainment, the 4.5-
inch (11.4-cm) scup minimum mesh size requirement, the minimum fish 
size requirement, and gear improvements adopted by industry that reduce 
scup discards.
    Response: The objective of the scup management measures is to 
ensure that scup mortality, both from discards in small-mesh fisheries 
and from the directed scup fishery, is controlled. Option III included 
a GRA suspension only in conjunction with a TAL established at a level 
consistent with the SARC 31 conclusion that commercial discards are 
approximately equal to commercial landings. As such, Option III would 
have reduced the allowable harvest level to compensate for suspension 
of the GRAs. Combining the GRA suspension with a higher harvest level 
would have defeated the objective of Option III.
    Comment 7: Two commenters supported scup Option III but stated 
that, if NMFS felt GRAs were necessary, they would support scup Option 
IV, which allows small-mesh fisheries in the Hudson Canyon area.
    Response: As discussed earlier, NMFS believes that GRAs are 
necessary, especially in consideration of the recent strong scup year 
classes that need protection to allow stock rebuilding. Therefore, NMFS 
is implementing the GRAs contained in scup Option IV. These GRAs will 
provide necessary protection to juvenile scup, yet allow small-mesh 
fishing activity in the Hudson Canyon, which has been identified by 
industry as a priority area for small-mesh fisheries.
    Comment 8: Some commenters expressed opinions and concerns about 
the areas encompassed by the GRAs

[[Page 12908]]

proposed in Option IV. Three commenters disagreed with the location of 
the proposed GRAs, and stated that these areas do not coincide with 
areas of scup abundance. Conversely, another commenter supported the 
proposal in scup Option IV to extend the boundary of the Southern GRA 
farther south, but opposed opening the Hudson Canyon area to small-mesh 
fishing. This commenter stated that the proposed rule provided no 
analysis to support opening the Hudson Canyon, and cited information in 
the EA indicating that the northern portion of the Hudson Canyon area 
is a source of significant scup discards.
    Response: On the basis of 1992-1998 NEFSC Winter Bottom Trawl 
Surveys, NMFS believes that extending the GRAs farther south and 
widening the GRAs to include more of the area surrounding the 100-
fathom contour will provide protection for abundant winter scup 
congregations and compensate, in terms of scup discards, for exempting 
the Hudson Canyon area. Initially, the southern area was not included 
in the GRAs because there were no sea-sampling trips conducted in the 
area. However, a comparison of Winter Bottom Trawl Survey information 
with vessel trip report data for the Loligo fishery, prepared in 
conjunction with the 2001 specifications, indicates this is a key area 
of scup abundance that coincides with numerous Loligo fishing trips. 
Although the anticipated reduction in discards is not quantifiable, the 
EA provides charts documenting that winter scup abundance coincides 
with significant Loligo squid fishing activity in the area.
    Comment 9: One commenter stated that NMFS Winter Bottom Trawl 
Surveys from 1992 to 1998 show lower scup abundance in the GRAs 
proposed in Options I, II and IV than in areas outside the GRAs.
    Response: GRAs were initially developed in the 2000 scup 
specifications based on sea-sampling data and industry input. The 
northern GRA in scup Option IV, and the three GRAs in Options I and II, 
were developed in this manner. There were no sea sampling data 
available for trips conducted south of 38 deg.N. lat. Therefore, NMFS 
considered other available information pertaining to the fishery south 
of that area. NMFS compared the distribution of scup, based on data 
from the 1992-98 Winter Bottom Trawl Survey, with fishing trips that 
landed Loligo squid, based on data reported by the industry in Fishing 
Vessel Trip Reports. The southern GRA included in scup Option IV 
includes areas where scup are abundant at the same time that small-mesh 
fishing occurs for Loligo squid. Although the two areas in Option IV 
were developed using different databases, NMFS believes that both GRAs 
are appropriately based on the best available scientific information.
    Comment 10: Two commenters stated that the analysis of the economic 
impact of GRAs is unrealistic. One commenter questioned the conclusion 
of the analysis, and instead restated the conclusion to be, ``that 
under 5 percent of 1158 boats will suffer a loss of more than 5 percent 
of revenue associated with small-mesh fisheries in this time period.'' 
Both commenters included information comparing selected vessel revenues 
from November 1999 to November 2000 to demonstrate revenue declines. 
Conversely, one commenter stated that NMFS failed to consider any 
economic benefits to scup fishermen resulting from reducing discards in 
small-mesh fisheries.
    Response: The NMFS integrated analysis in the EA/RIR/IRFA was 
conducted to assess the overall potential impacts of revising the GRAs 
in conjunction with the 2001 specifications being established for 
summer flounder, scup and black sea bass. The overall projected revenue 
impacts of the proposed 2001 GRA options and specifications were 
compared with the impacts of the status quo measures (2000 
specifications and GRAs). The commenters, on the other hand, presented 
revenue information showing decreases in revenue for selected vessels 
in November 2000 compared to November 1999, a year with no GRAs. Also, 
NMFS does not agree that all revenue changes in November 2000 were 
necessarily due to the imposition of GRAs. Revenue changes can occur 
for other reasons, including the fact that several important Mid-
Atlantic fisheries were closed in November 2000 due to quota 
attainment.
    The commenters may also have misinterpreted the assumptions 
underlying the impacts analysis in the EA/RIR/IRFA. The analysis 
considered the annual impacts on all 1,158 vessels that had landed 
summer flounder, scup or black sea bass, or that had fished with mobile 
gear with mesh sizes of less than 4.5 inches (11.4 cm). This was 
determined to be the affected universe for these specifications. The 
analysis did not only consider the impacts on revenues derived solely 
from small-mesh species for the time period of the GRAs. Rather, the 
analysis incorporated the impacts of the proposed TALs, trip limits, 
GRAs and other measures. Importantly, the analysis indicated that all 
vessels fishing with small-mesh gear, at least to some extent, also 
participated in the summer flounder, scup or black sea bass fisheries.
    NMFS recognizes the benefits to the scup resource resulting from 
the proposed GRA measures that are aimed at reducing scup discards in 
small-mesh fisheries. However, it is difficult to quantify these 
benefits, since stock abundance is dependent on several factors 
unrelated to fishing activity, making it difficult to determine a 
stock's response to a given management measure.
    Comment 11: One commenter stated that it would be a violation of 
the Magnuson-Stevens Act to suspend the GRAs because suspension would 
be contrary to national standard 9, which requires that management 
measures shall, to the extent practicable, minimize bycatch and, to the 
extent bycatch cannot be avoided, minimize the mortality of such 
bycatch.
    Response: NMFS is not suspending the GRAs.
    Comment 12: Three commenters questioned the enforceability of the 
GRA measures. One commenter felt that GRAs are generally unenforceable, 
while two commenters felt that the two specific GRA Options contained 
in the proposed rule for this action are unenforceable due to their 
small size.
    Response: The GRAs initially established in 2000 were modified 
effective December 23, 2000 (65 FR 81761, December 27, 2000). The 
configuration of the GRAs implemented through that rule were the same 
as the GRAs in scup Options I and II. The U.S. Coast Guard indicated, 
in reviewing the proposal to modify the GRAs, that the geographic 
configuration, size, and time periods of the GRAs contained in Options 
I and II are enforceable, and that they can provide adequate 
surveillance to detect the majority of fishing vessels operating in the 
GRAs. NMFS notes that the GRAs in Option IV, which are implemented 
through this final rule, are larger in area and more regularly shaped 
than the existing GRAs, and, therefore, should be more easily enforced 
than the current GRAs.
    Comment 13: One commenter was concerned that all of the scup 
options represent a retreat from regulations designed to maximize 
protection of juvenile scup. The commenter felt that the options reduce 
impacts on small-mesh fisheries at the expense of scup and other 
bycatch species. This commenter appeared to support the GRAs originally 
implemented in the 2000 specifications based on the belief that either 
of the revised GRA options contained in the proposed rule would weaken 
scup rebuilding.

[[Page 12909]]

    Response: As stated in the responses to comments 7 and 8, the GRAs 
in Option IV, and implemented through this final rule, will provide 
protection to the scup resource and allow it to rebuild, while 
mitigating to some extent the negative economic impacts on small-mesh 
fisheries.
    Comment 14: Three commenters favored raising the minimum mesh 
threshold for scup from 200 lb (90.7 kg) to 500 lb (226.8 kg) for the 
November 1 through April 30 period. These commenters stated that such a 
measure would help reduce regulatory discards in the scup fishery. One 
commenter opposed the measure and stated that it would violate the 
overfishing, rebuilding, and bycatch reduction requirements of the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act.
    Response: NMFS raised this issue in the proposed rule and 
specifically requested public comment. It is not possible to quantify 
the effect of increasing the minimum mesh size threshold on scup 
discards at this time. If discards are converted to landings due to the 
change in the mesh threshold, without additional discards occurring 
when the 500-lb (226.8-kg) threshold is reached, as assumed by the 
Council and industry, then the impact on scup mortality would be 
negligible. In the absence of information to the contrary, this final 
rule implements an increase in the threshold as recommended by the 
Council.
    Comment 15: One commenter supported an increase in the TAL for 
black sea bass to the least restrictive level (7.91 million lb (3.59 
million kg)) presented in the alternatives analyzed in the EA/RIR/IRFA.
    Response: The commenter is recommending a harvest level that was 
not formally considered by the Council, but was analyzed in the impacts 
analysis for purposes of comparison. This level was not recommended by 
the Council and is not implemented in this final rule. The harvest 
level recommended by the commenter would result in an exploitation rate 
that would exceed the black sea bass exploitation target for 2001, as 
described in the FMP.
    Comment 16: Two commenters supported the change in the black sea 
bass regulations that specify landing limits as possession limits. Five 
commenters generally supported changes to the specific possession 
limits, though they did not support all of the specific proposed 
changes. In general, the commenters were seeking lower possession 
limits that would enable fishermen to fish for the entire quarter.
    Response: This final rule implements the proposed changes to the 
black sea bass trip limits for 2001.

 Changes From the Proposed Rule

    In Sec.  648.14(a)(122), ``Loligo squid'' is added to the list of 
species that are not exempt from the GRA requirements and references to 
the GRAs are revised.
    In Sec.  648.122, paragraph (a) is revised to reflect the dates and 
coordinates of the newly revised Southern GRA. Also, in Sec.  648.122, 
paragraph (c) is revised to reflect the removal of Northern GRA II, and 
is replaced with the transiting provisions that were formerly contained 
in paragraph (d) and paragraph (d) is removed and reserved.
    In Sec.  648.123, paragraph (a)(5) is revised for consistency with 
other net stowage regulations.
    No other changes were made from the proposed rule.

Classification

    This final rule has been determined to be not significant for 
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
    This action establishes annual quotas and related management 
measures for the 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 Winter I scup allocation and the Quarter 1 black sea bass 
allocation have been harvested. It would be contrary to the public 
interest to provide prior notice of these restrictions, since the 
allocations have already been harvested and the regulations require the 
publication of this action. Failure to implement this provision without 
due expedition would result in overfishing. Therefore, 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 on the closure of the Winter I scup 
fishery in the coastal states from Maine through North Carolina and 
closure of the Quarter 1 black sea bass fishery in these states north 
of 35 deg.15.3' N. lat. Failure to implement this provision immediately 
would result in overfishing, so under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the AA also 
finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness of the 
closure of the Winter I scup fishery in the coastal states from Maine 
through North Carolina and closure of the Quarter 1 black sea bass 
fishery in these states north of 35 deg.15.3'N. lat. Likewise, it would 
be impracticable to delay implementation of the remaining quota 
provisions, because doing so would prevent the agency from carrying out 
its function of preventing overfishing of the scup, and black sea bass 
resources in the remaining periods. The fisheries covered by this 
action are already in progress and quota monitoring for the fishing 
years began on January 1, 2001. Therefore, the AA finds good cause 
under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to waive the 30-day delayed effectiveness 
period for the 2001 quotas and related management measures, including 
the landings restrictions. The provision in this final rule that 
increases the threshold possession limit for scup above which a vessel 
is required to use 4.5-inch (11.4-cm) minimum mesh from 200 lb (90.7 
kg) to 500 lb (226.8 kg) relieves a restriction and, under 5 U.S.C. 
553(d)(1), is not subject to a 30-day delay in effectiveness.
    NMFS determined that this rule will be implemented in a manner that 
is consistent, to the maximum extent practicable, with the approved 
coastal management programs of Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, 
Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, 
Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia 
and Florida. This determination was submitted for review by the 
responsible state agencies on October 24, 2000, under section 307 of 
the Coastal Zone Management Act. The following states submitted 
responses concurring with NMFS' determination: Massachusetts, Rhode 
Island, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, North Carolina 
and Georgia. Maine, New Hampshire, Maryland, South Carolina and Florida 
did not respond and, therefore, consistency is inferred. The State of 
Connecticut concurred with the determinations for all of the components 
of the proposed 2001 specifications except for the summer flounder TAL, 
which is not included in this action.
    The Council and NMFS prepared a final regulatory flexibility 
analysis (FRFA) for this action. The document contains an analysis of 
the final scup and black sea bass analysis and a draft analysis of the 
proposed summer flounder measures. A copy of this analysis is available 
from the Regional Administrator (see ADDRESSES). The preamble to the 
proposed rule included a detailed summary of the analyses contained in 
the IRFA, and that discussion is not repeated in its entirety here. A 
summary of the FRFA follows.
    A description of the reasons why action by the agency is being 
taken and the objectives of this final rule are explained in the 
preambles to the

[[Page 12910]]

proposed rule and final rule and are not repeated here. This action 
does not contain any collection-of- information, reporting, 
recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements.

Public Comments

    Thirty-four comments were received on the measures contained in the 
proposed rule. Four of the comments exclusively addressed the summer 
flounder measures, which are not implemented through this final rule. 
Two were submitted in response to the initial regulatory flexibility 
analysis (IRFA) of the expected impacts of these measures on small 
entities. NMFS has responded to these comments in the Comments and 
Responses section of this final rule (see response to Comment 10). 
Additional comments were received not specifically on the IRFA, but 
related to economic impacts (see responses to Comments 7 and 16). 
Changes were made to the measures outlined in the proposed rule 
regarding the scup TAL; the size, location, and season of the GRAs; and 
exemptions to the requirements of the GRAs. Although these changes were 
not directly related to the comments received on the IRFA, the intent 
of the changes was, in part, to minimize the economic effect on small 
entities. These changes and the reasons for them are discussed in the 
responses to Comments 1, 7, 8 and 13, as well as in the preamble to 
this final rule.

Number of Small Entities

    The measures established by this action potentially impact a total 
of 1,158 vessels that participated in at least one of the summer 
flounder, scup, and black sea bass fisheries or that had fished with 
mobile gear with less than 4.5-inch (11.43-cm) mesh inside at least one 
of the proposed GRAs.

Minimizing Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities

    In the FRFA, NMFS analyzed the measures being implemented in this 
action. Although summer flounder measures are not being implemented 
through this action, a summer flounder TAL of 17.91 million lb (8.12 
million kg) was assumed for comparing the impacts of the various 
options. The analysis compared the effects of the measures with both 
the 2000 adjusted quotas and with the actual 2000 landings when 
available. When not available, 1999 landings were used. In terms of 
overall impacts on revenues, the scup measures selected for 
implementation (Option V) have the second highest positive impact on 
revenues. Using the landings baseline proration method, Options I, III, 
and V are expected to yield total gross revenues higher than those 
yielded by the status quo measures by approximately $0.91 million, 
$0.40 million and $0.70 million respectively, whereas Options II and IV 
yielded total gross revenues lower than the status quo by approximately 
$0.16 million and $0.13 million, respectively. Option I is presumed to 
have produced the highest overall revenues because the Loligo fishery 
is exempted from the GRA restrictions. This Option was not selected for 
implementation in this action because, as explained in the preamble, 
available information does not justify an exemption of the Loligo 
fishery.
    The FRFA also analyzed revenue impacts on individual vessels, as 
summarized here:

            Percent of Vessels Experiencing Revenue Loss > 5%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Landings    Quota
                                                      Baseline  Baseline
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Option I                                                 2.1%      3.4%
Option II                                                3.2%      4.6%
Option III                                               2.8%      4.1%
Option IV                                                2.9%      4.7%
Option V                                                 2.9%      4.4%
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The measures selected for implementation (Option V) have slightly 
greater impacts than either Option I or Option III. As discussed 
earlier, Option I was not selected for implementation because the 
available information does not support an exemption for Loligo squid. 
The impact of Option III is presumed to be lower because there are no 
GRAs established. This alternative was not selected for implementation 
because, as explained in the preamble, NMFS believes that GRAs remain 
necessary for scup conservation. The specific GRAs implemented by this 
action were selected to moderate the economic impacts on small entities 
by extending GRAs further south and opening the Hudson Canyon area.
    For black sea bass, the harvest level adopted in this final rule 
minimizes significant economic impacts while achieving the stated 
objectives of the FMP. No other harvest level that was considered would 
meet this objective while minimizing significant economic impacts on 
small entities.
    Revision of the trip limits in the scup and black sea bass 
fisheries were recommended by the Council to allow these fisheries to 
remain open for a longer period of time, preferably for the entire 
quota period. This is expected to reduce the period of time that a 
fishery would be closed, and, thereby, provide for a more reliable 
stream of income for small entities.
    The President has directed Federal agencies to use plain language 
in their communications with the public, including regulations. To 
comply with this directive, we seek public comment on any ambiguity or 
unnecessary complexity arising from the language used in this proposed 
rule. Such comments should be sent to the Northeast Regional 
Administrator (see ADDRESSES).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648

    Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: February 22, 2001.
William T. Hogarth
Acting Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries 
Service.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is amended 
as follows:

PART 648--FISHERIES OF THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES

    1. The authority citation for part 648 continues to read as 
follows:

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

    2. In Sec.  648.14, paragraph (a)(123) is removed; and paragraphs 
(a)(84), (a)(92), (a)(122) and (u)(9) are revised to read as follows:


Sec.  648.14  Prohibitions.

    (a) * * *
    (84) Fish for, catch, possess, or retain scup in or from the EEZ 
north of 35 deg.15.3' N. lat. in excess of the amount specified in 
Sec.  648.123 (500 lb (226.8 kg) or more from November 1- April 30, or 
100 lb (45.4 kg) or more from May 1-October 31), unless the vessel 
meets the gear restrictions in Sec.  648.123.
* * * * *
    (92) Fish for, catch, possess, or retain 1,000 lb (453.4 kg) or 
more of black sea bass in or from the EEZ north of 35 deg.15.3' N. 
lat., the latitude of Cape Hatteras Light, NC, to the U.S. - Canadian 
border, unless the vessel meets the gear restrictions of Sec.  648.144.
* * * * *
    (122) Fish for, catch, possess, retain or land Loligo squid, silver 
hake or black sea bass in or from the areas and during the time periods 
described in Sec.  648.122(a) or (b) while in possession of any trawl 
nets or netting that do not meet the minimum mesh restrictions or that 
are modified, obstructed, or constricted, as specified in Sec.  648.122 
and Sec.  648.123(a), unless the nets or

[[Page 12911]]

netting are stowed in accordance with Sec.  648.23(b).
* * * * *
    (u) * * *
    (9) Possess, retain, or land black sea bass harvested in or from 
the EEZ in excess of the commercial possession limit established at 
Sec.  648.140.
* * * * *

    3. In Sec.  648.120, paragraph (b)(2) is revised to read as 
follows:


Sec.  648.120  Catch quotas and other restrictions.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) Possession limits for the Winter I and Winter II periods. The 
possession limit is the maximum quantity of scup that is allowed to be 
landed within a 24-hour period (calendar day).
* * * * *

     4. In Sec.  648.122, paragraph (d) is removed and reserved, and 
paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) are revised to read as follows:


Sec.  648.122   Season and area restrictions.

    (a) Southern Gear Restricted Area-(1) Restrictions. From January 1 
through March 15, 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. 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 headrope, 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                                             39 deg.20'   72 deg.50'
SGA2                                             39 deg.20'   72 deg.25'
SGA3                                             38 deg.00'   73 deg.55'
SGA4                                             37 deg.00'   74 deg.40'
SGA5                                             36 deg.30'   74 deg.40'
SGA6                                             36 deg.30'   75 deg.00'
SGA7                                             37 deg.00'   75 deg.00'
SGA8                                             38 deg.00'   74 deg.20'
SGA1                                             39 deg.20'   72 deg.50'
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) Non-exempt species. Unless otherwise specified in paragraph (d) 
of this section, the restrictions specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this 
section apply only to vessels in the Southern Gear Restricted Area that 
are fishing for or in possession of the following non-exempt species: 
Loligo squid, black sea bass and silver hake (whiting).
    (b) Northern Gear Restricted Area I-(1) Restrictions. From November 
1 through December 31, all trawl vessels in the Northern Gear 
Restricted Area I 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. 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 headrope, excluding any 
turtle excluder device extension, unless otherwise specified in this 
section. The Northern Gear Restricted Area I 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 I
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Point                        N. Lat.      W. Long.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NGA1                                             41 deg.00'   71 deg.00'
NGA2                                             41 deg.00'   71 deg.30'
SGA3                                             40 deg.00'   72 deg.40'
SGA4                                             40 deg.00'   72 deg.05'
NGA1                                             41 deg.00'   71 deg.00'
------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (2) Non-exempt species. Unless otherwise specified in paragraph 
(d) of this section, the restrictions specified in paragraph (b)(1) of 
this section apply only to vessels in the Northern Gear Restricted Area 
I that are fishing for, or in possession of, the following non-exempt 
species: Loligo squid, black sea bass and silver hake (whiting).
    (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) [Reserved]
* * * * *

    5. In Sec.  648.123, paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(5) are revised to 
read as follows:


Sec.  648.123  Gear restrictions.

    (a) * * *
    (1) Minimum mesh size. The owners or operators of otter trawlers 
who are issued a scup moratorium permit and who possess 500 lb (226.8 
kg) or more of scup from November 1 through April 30, or 100 lb (45.4 
kg) or more of scup from May 1 through October 31, 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. 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 headrope, excluding any 
turtle excluder device extension. Scup on board these vessels shall be 
stored separately and kept readily available for inspection.
* * * * *
    (5) Stowage of nets. The owner or operator of an otter trawl vessel 
retaining 500 lb (226.8 kg) or more of scup from November 1 through 
April 30, or 100 lb (45.4 kg) or more of scup from May 1 through 
October 31, and subject to the minimum mesh requirements in paragraph 
(a) (1) of this section, and the owner or operator of a mid water trawl 
or other trawl vessel subject to the minimum mesh size 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. A net that is stowed in conformance with one of the methods 
specified in Sec.  648.23 (b), and that can be shown not to have been 
in recent use, is considered to be not available for immediate use.
* * * * *

    6. In Sec. 648.140, paragraph (b) (2) is revised to read as 
follows:


Sec. 648.140  Catch quotas and other restrictions.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) A commercial possession limit for all moratorium vessels may be 
set from a range of zero to the maximum all owed to assure that the 
quarterly quota is not exceeded, with the provision that these 
quantities be the maximum

[[Page 12912]]

allowed to be landed within a 24-hour period (calendar day).
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 01-4973 Filed 2-26-01; 4:00 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S