# Northeast Multispecies Fishery; Final Rule DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A94-4610

## Record

- **Collection:** Federal Register
- **Document type:** Uncategorized Document
- **Published:** March 1, 1994

## Text

SUMMARY: NMFS issues this final rule to implement Amendment 5 to the
Fishery Management Plan for the Northeast Multispecies Fishery (FMP).
Amendment 5 implements conservation measures to eliminate the
overfished condition of the multispecies finfish (groundfish) stocks.
This final rule implements the Amendment by imposing a moratorium with
exceptions for certain vessels fishing in the fishery, an effort
control system to reduce fishing effort over 5 to 7 years, monitoring
requirements to track fishing effort, and new permitting and reporting
requirements. In addition, the rule increases minimum mesh size
requirements for several different areas and expands the area where
mesh size is regulated.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 1, 1994, except for Sec. 651.32(a), which is
effective April 15, 1994. Section 651.9(a) (11) and (12), Sec. 651.9(e)
(33) and (34), and Sec. 651.27(b) expire at 2400 hours, April 2, 1994.

ADDRESSES: Copies of Amendment 5, its regulatory impact review (RIR)
and the initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) contained within
the RIR, and the final supplemental environmental impact statement
(FSEIS) are available from Douglas Marshall, Executive Director, New
England Fishery Management Council, Suntaug Office Park, 5 Broadway
(U.S. Rte. 1), Saugus, MA 01906-1097. Comments regarding burden-hour
estimates for collection-of-information requirements contained in this
final rule should be sent to Richard B. Roe, Northeast Regional
Director, Northeast Regional Office, National Marine Fisheries Service,
One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930, and the Office of Management
and Budget (Attention NOAA Desk Officer), Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan A. Murphy, Fishery Policy
Analyst, 508-281-9252 or E. Martin Jaffe, Fishery Policy Analyst, 508-
281-9272.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) approved at
its June 1993 meeting a package of measures for inclusion in Amendment
5 to the FMP. The FMP has been in effect since 1986, and has been
amended four times. The two main objectives of Amendment 5 are to
eliminate the overfished condition of the principal groundfish stocks
(cod, haddock, and yellowtail flounder) by reducing the rate at which
fish are caught by 50 percent over the next 5 to 7 years, and to reduce
the bycatch of harbor porpoise in the sink gillnet fishery.
Two measures contained in Amendment 5, as originally submitted,
were disapproved by the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) on September
30, 1993, and were not contained in the proposed rule to implement the
amendment published on October 27, 1993 (58 FR 57774). Reasons for
disapproval of those measures were given in the proposed rule and are
not repeated here.
Amendment 5, less the two measures disapproved on September 30,
1993, was approved on January 3, 1994, after consideration of the
comments received during the public comment period. This rule
implements measures in Amendment 5 that are expected to reduce the
fishing mortality rate to such a level as to eliminate overfishing.
Since development began on the amendment, the condition of the
multispecies finfish stocks continued to decline to record low levels.
It is essential that fishing mortality levels be reduced as soon as
possible because only then can rebuilding of stocks occur, especially
for haddock, cod, and yellowtail flounder.
In approving the amendment, the Director, Northeast Region, NMFS,
(Regional Director) notified the Council of several concerns that had
been raised during Secretarial review, including that the Council needs
to develop specific rebuilding goals, the annual mortality reduction
may be set too low in the early years of the amendment, the effort
exemption for vessels 45 ft (13.7 m) or less in length may be too
permissive, that the overfishing definition for pollock may need to be
adjusted, and the sink gillnet measures to reduce harbor porpoise take
may not be sufficient. Also, the Council's objective to eliminate
overfishing for cod and yellowtail flounder, while certainly a
necessary first step, fails to offer specific rebuilding objectives for
these species and the Council has been notified that it should begin
formulating such objectives as soon as possible.

Incorporation of Emergency Measures Into the Final Rule

On January 3, 1994, NMFS published an emergency rule, at 59 FR 26,
effective January 3, 1994, through April 2, 1994, to protect the
seriously depleted stocks of haddock. The emergency rule established a
500-lb (226.8-kg) possession limit for haddock; began the closure of an
expanded Closed Area II on January 3, 1994, rather than February 1,
1994; and implemented several other measures to protect haddock. This
final rule implementing Amendment 5 permanently implements several
measures that were contained in both the emergency rule and in the
proposed rule for Amendment 5. Other measures in the emergency rule
that were not contained in the proposed rule for Amendment 5 are
continued in effect by this final rule, but will expire on April 2,
1994, as provided by the emergency rule, unless extended through
further rulemaking. A description of these measures follows.
Definitions for ``bottom-tending gillnet or sink gillnet'',
``dredge or dredge gear'', ``offload'', ``pair trawl or pair
trawling'', ``scallop dredge vessel'', ``standard box'', ``standard
tote'', and ``transfer'', which were temporarily added by the emergency
rule, are permanently added to Sec. 651.2 by this final rule.
Prohibitions on pair trawling in the groundfish fishery, temporarily
added at Sec. 651.7(a) (5) and (6) by the emergency rule, are
permanently added at Sec. 651.9(e)(27) by this final rule. A
prohibition on transfer of multispecies finfish at sea, temporarily
added at Sec. 651.7(a)(7) by the emergency rule, is permanently added
at Sec. 651.9(e)(3) by this final rule. Prohibitions concerning haddock
possession, temporarily added at Sec. 651.7(a) (3) and (4) by the
emergency rule, are permanently added at Sec. 651.9(a) (11) and (12) by
this final rule. A prohibition concerning sink gillnets, temporarily
added at Sec. 651.7(b)(15) by the emergency rule, is permanently added
at Sec. 651.9(e)(31) by this final rule. A prohibition concerning entry
into Closed Area II of Georges Bank during a specified period of time,
temporarily added at Sec. 651.7(b)(16) by the emergency rule, is
permanently added at Sec. 651.9(e)(20) by this final rule. A
prohibition concerning haddock possession on sea scallop dredge
vessels, temporarily added at Sec. 651.7(b)(17), and a prohibition
concerning a haddock possession limit temporarily added at
Sec. 651.7(b)(18) by the emergency rule, are added at Sec. 651.9(e)
(33) and (34), respectively, effective through April 2, 1994, by this
final rule. Prohibitions concerning possession of multispecies finfish
harvested by pair trawling, temporarily added at Sec. 651.7(b) (19) and
(20) by the emergency rule, are permanently added at Sec. 651.9(e)(27)
by this final rule. A prohibition concerning transfer of multispecies
finfish from one vessel to another, temporarily added at
Sec. 651.7(b)(21) by the emergency rule, is permanently added at
Sec. 651.9(e)(5) by this final rule. A prohibition on pair trawling for
multispecies finfish, temporarily added at Sec. 651.20(g) by the
emergency rule, is permanently added at Sec. 651.20(h)(3) by this final
rule. The closure of Closed Area I, temporarily added at
Sec. 651.21(c)(1) by the emergency rule, is permanently added at
Sec. 651.21(a) by this final rule. The closure of Closed Area II,
temporarily added at Sec. 651.21(c)(2) by the emergency rule, is
permanently added at Sec. 651.21(b) by this final rule, except that the
annual closure period for 1994 is February through May, rather than
January through May, as in the emergency rule. The haddock possession
limits, temporarily added at Sec. 651.28 by the emergency rule, are
added at Sec. 651.27(b), effective through April 2, 1994, by this final
rule. Transfer-at-sea measures, temporarily added at Sec. 651.29 by the
emergency rule, are permanently added at Sec. 651.30 by this final
rule. Closed areas illustrated in Figure 6 to part 651, temporarily
added by the emergency rule, are permanently incorporated into Figure 3
to part 651 by this final rule.

Amendment 5 Measures

Success of the amendment is largely dependent on meeting the annual
fishing mortality reduction targets. NMFS is concerned that the annual
targets may not be adequately protective, particularly during the first
years of the plan, although it is recognized that the Council chose to
minimize first year restrictions for valid socio-economic concerns.
Therefore, it is more critical that the Council responds in a timely
way to problems through the framework measure to ensure achievement of
the amendment's objectives.
The Council has been requested to make it a priority to reexamine
the exemption from effort control for vessels 45 ft (13.7 m) and less.
The 45-ft (13.7-m) limit exempts a large number of vessels from effort
control measures, thereby creating the possibility that the vessels may
significantly reduce any gains from controls on larger vessels.
Moreover, establishing a 45-ft (13.7-m) limit for vessels may create
more inequities between vessels in the same port than if the minimum
had been a smaller size. The Council was asked to consider measures
that would prevent modification of vessels longer than 45 ft (13.7 m)
to a size that would allow them to be exempt if the Council chose not
to reduce the size of vessels being exempted.
The remaining overfishing definitions have been approved, but the
definition for pollock needs to be reevaluated. Since the public
hearings of May 1993, an assessment on pollock was reviewed and
approved by the Stock Assessment and Review Committee of the NMFS
Northeast Fisheries Science Center. The assessment indicates that a 25%
maximum spawning potential (MSP) level is more appropriate than the 20%
MSP obtained by analogy to similar species. Current (1992) fishing
mortality for pollock is estimated to be 0.72, while the fishing
mortality rate that would produce a spawning stock abundance amount
which is 20% of the maximum spawning potential (F20) is
0.65 and a fishing mortality rate that would produce a spawning stock
abundance of 25% of the maximum spawning potential (F25)
is 0.47. Consequently, under either definition, pollock are overfished.
Although the measures contained in Amendment 5 will have a collateral
benefit on pollock, the Council was requested to reconsider this
definition in developing Amendment 6.
The Council and the gillnet fishermen have expressed concern over
the default harbor porpoise protection measure. The Council requested,
at its February meeting, that implementation of the 4-day blocks out
per month for gillnet gear be delayed until April 15, 1994, because it
appears unlikely that harbor porpoise will be present in significant
numbers until then. Others commented that when significant numbers of
porpoises are present, the 4-days out of the fishery per month
requirement may not be adequate to protect the porpoises. The final
rule makes the 4-day out provision effective April 15, 1994. The
Council is requested to take swift action under the harbor porpoise
framework measure to ensure the protection of porpoise through the
continued examination of the time and area of the gear-out requirement,
and if necessary to protect porpoise, to change the provision.
The permit moratorium contained in Amendment 5 continues to be
contentious. It becomes even more so as other fisheries establish
control dates that some perceive as limiting the options available to
fishermen. The Council was asked to work closely with the Mid-Atlantic
Fishery Management Council to insure that fishermen continue to have
alternatives available, such as the mackerel fishery, which is
underexploited and can withstand additional effort. The control date
established for the Atlantic mackerel, squid and butterfish fisheries
may prevent this fishery being an option for groundfish vessels and the
Mid-Atlantic Council was asked to consider this and work with the
Council before developing final measures.
This final rule implements: A moratorium on most new entrants into
the multispecies finfish fishery; limitations on upgrading of vessel
size and engine horsepower; exceptions to the moratorium for vessels
using fewer than 4,500 rigged hooks or fishing under a possession
limit; an effort-reduction program where vessels fish using a
combination of blocks of time out of the fishery and time spent at the
dock (Fleet Days-At-Sea(DAS)), unless they elect to take an allocation
of actual Individual DAS that vessels may fish for multispecies
finfish; exceptions to the effort-reduction program for vessels 45 ft
(13.7 m) and less in length, vessels fishing fewer than 4,500 hooks,
vessels fishing sink gillnet gear, and vessels at sea for less than a
day; a possession limit for scallop dredge vessels; a requirement to
purchase and install a Vessel Tracking System (VTS) unit for vessels
fishing Individual DAS and vessels that have historically fished with a
scallop dredge and otter trawl; a call-in system for other vessels in
the Fleet DAS reduction program; a minimum mesh size of 5 and 1/2
inches (13.97 cm) in the Southern New England/Mid-Atlantic area; an
increase in the minimum mesh size in the Gulf of Maine/Georges Bank
area from 5 and 1/2 (13.97 cm) to 6 inches (15.24 cm); exceptions to
the mesh-size regulations for vessels possessing less than the
possession limit, and for vessels fishing with purse seine or midwater
trawl gear; minimum fish sizes; a prohibition on pair trawling;
seasonal mesh requirements in the Stellwagen Bank/Jeffreys Ledge area;
a suspension of the closure of Area I except for fixed gear; a
modification of Closed Area II in area and time; a closure of an area
in the vicinity of the Nantucket Lightship when a research trawl survey
index is reached; a requirement that vessels fishing for northern
shrimp use a finfish excluder device; permit requirements for vessel
operators and dealers; mandatory reporting for permitted vessels and
dealers; mandatory observer requirements for vessels if required by the
Regional Director; and framework measures to adjust the effort-control
program and other measures.

Permit Changes and Applicable Dates

This rule substantially changes the fishing vessel permit
application process. Vessel owners must now choose from several
different permit categories. This choice will have implications on the
future activity of a vessel. The permit category requirements and
restrictions are complex and the applicants acting in anticipation of
the final rule have been reluctant to choose a permit category, until
they have discussed the implications with NMFS. Because of the volume
of calls and requests for assistance received from the industry, NMFS
has been unable to provide assistance to all those requesting it. To
allow additional time for applicants to complete their vessel permit
applications, the vessel permit requirement, and related measures, such
as effort control measures and possession limits, become applicable on
May 1, 1994. To be ensured of having a vessel permit by May 1, 1994,
completed vessel permit applications must be received by NMFS by March
31, 1994. Applications received after March 31, 1994, cannot be
guaranteed to be processed before May 1, 1994. Until these provisions
of the regulations become applicable, vessels holding 1993 multispecies
permits can fish for, possess or land multispecies in or from the EEZ.
This change will allow NMFS to continue to provide assistance to
the industry so that the industry can make informed choices in a timely
way on these important decisions. To further assist the industry, the
Regional Director intends to allow vessel owners who believe they
mistakenly chose a permit category based on incomplete information, to
change permit categories within 30 days of receipt of their 1994
Federal multispecies permit. This change must be requested in writing
and is in addition to the one change in category allowed under
Sec. 651.4(f)(2)(iv).
The Regional Director has determined that monitoring of vessels in
the Fleet DAS reduction program will be accomplished initially through
the call-in system. NMFS has reviewed several card monitoring systems
to determine their appropriateness for this application. NMFS found
that while these systems may serve the need, their cost, reliability,
level of sophistication, and the relative newness of the technology
make implementation difficult. The Regional Director does not believe
that such a system could be made operational by the time of
implementation and therefore has reserved the card monitoring system.
In addition, the Regional Director has authorized, pursuant to
Sec. 651.29(c), the use of the alternative call-in system as the sole
method of notification for the DAS program. Until the Regional Director
determines that the VTS is operable and he has provided adequate
notification to permit holders, vessels participating in the DAS
program must use the call-in system to provide notification of when
they are leaving for and returning from fishing trips.

Comments and Responses

Written comments were submitted by Alliance for Community
Education, Associated Fisheries of Maine, Center for Marine
Conservation, City of Gloucester Mayor-elect Bruce H. Tobey, Commercial
Fisheries News, Conservation Law Foundation, East Coast Fisheries
Foundation, Inc., Gloucester Fishermen's Wives Association, Gloucester
United, Maine Fishermen's Cooperative Association, Maine Gillnetters
Association, Marine Mammal Commission, National Italian American
Foundation, New England Fishery Management Council, North Shore Chamber
of Commerce, Inc., Portland Fish Exchange, Senator George Mitchell,
U.S. Coast Guard, and 18 individuals. In addition, letters containing
461 signatures were submitted in support of the Gloucester United
comments.
Four VTS vendors provided comment on the proposed monitoring
requirements under which they would be certified.
Comment 1: Three associations and four individuals stated that the
amendment should be approved.
Response: The comments have been noted and the amendment has been
approved.
Comment 2: One association expressed its support for an overall
catch quota to ensure populations are not overfished in case measures
to limit days at sea are not successful in reducing the amount of fish
caught.
Response: The Council did not include overall quotas out of
concerns that include possible market disruptions that could result
when a quota is caught, small boats and large boats having to compete
against each other for available quota, and the difficulty in
monitoring quotas among different areas. Instead of an absolute quota,
the Council chose the annual harvest targets to be used to gauge
progress towards attaining the interim mortality reduction targets.
NMFS and the Council are required to perform an annual review to
determine what the actual mortality rate is compared to the harvest
targets. Rather than quotas, the Council will then be able to modify
the other measures contained within the amendment by using the
framework to ensure that the targets are not exceeded in future years.
Comment 3: One association expressed concern about NMFS' ability to
administer and enforce the amendment and recommended that NMFS enlist
the advice of the Council and experienced members of the fishing
industry.
Response: Most of the planning for implementation of the amendment
and its administration and enforcement has already been done. NMFS will
continue to work with the Council to address problems as they arise and
will solicit industry advice when appropriate.
Comment 4: One association commented that Amendment 5 will provide
further restrictions on small-and medium-sized vessels that are already
limited by weather. Vessels will be forced to fish in bad weather and
lives will be lost.
Response: The Council, in deliberating the amendment, made a
conscious decision to reduce the impacts on small vessels. The
possession limit exemption and hook exemption from the permit
moratorium, and the 45-foot and day-trip exemptions from effort control
were designed with the small and medium sized vessels in mind. Vessels
outside these categories will be affected by the combined measures.
Whether these vessels will decide to fish in bad weather is unknown,
but the Council believes that other factors such as declining stock
abundance and the competition for scarce catches are more likely to
influence such a decision. NMFS, in approving this amendment, agrees
with the Council's conclusions.
Comment 5: One association commented that Amendment 5 measures urge
fishermen to go into alternative fisheries. This will be difficult
because it costs money to get into a new fishery and banks and lending
institutions are hesitant to lend money. Larger vessels that use up
their groundfish days will have to resort to small-mesh fisheries to
survive.
Response: The declining state of the groundfish resource makes it
increasingly difficult to make a successful trip. Vessel owners facing
such a decline would normally consider alternatives to groundfish,
which the amendment's measures support. A switch to a new fishery may
mean a capital investment in new gear. The amendment makes no
distinction regarding which vessels may be able to switch to other
fisheries and it imposes a consistent possession limit on all vessel
size classes when small-mesh gear is used to lessen the impact on
groundfish. Using the framework measure of subpart C, the Council may
adjust these measures if it determines that there is a problem.
Comment 6: Six associations and seven individuals recommended that
the Secretary enter into negotiated rulemaking under the Negotiated
Rulemaking Act of 1990 instead of implementing the moratorium, DAS, and
target quotas.
Response: The responses to the recommendation to disapprove the
moratorium, the DAS provisions, and target quotas are provided under
Comments 7, 35, and 36. Development of fishery management plans and
amendments must adhere to procedures provided for in the Magnuson
Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson Act), which
established fishery management councils and the development of fishery
management plans to ensure public participation by the affected public
in the process, similar to the intent of the Negotiated Rulemaking Act.
The Magnuson Act development process for Amendment 5 involved active
public participation throughout. At its Multispecies Committee and
Council meetings, the Council provided ample opportunity and encouraged
the public's development of alternative management measures. At the two
rounds of public hearings, which were well attended by the fishing
industry, several alternative management plans were proposed. Most were
analyzed against the Council's objectives and many of the measures
proposed were adopted by the Council. Several of these had to be
adjusted to ensure that they would meet the amendment's objectives.
Because of the public process that has already occurred, and the
many opportunities for comment, there was no need for a negotiated
rulemaking. The Council may not have decided on measures favored by all
in the fishing industry, but it is the Council's responsibility to
exercise its best judgement on what is necessary and appropriate for
the fishery under its jurisdiction.

Vessel Permits/Limited Entry Permits

Comment 7: Six associations and eight individuals recommended that
the moratorium on vessel permits be disapproved. The commenters stated
that the moratorium is not based upon conservation, will change the
character of the industry leading to corporate ownership, is
irreversible, and was rejected by the fishing industry at public
hearings.
Response: A moratorium is important to the effort reduction program
because it enhances the predictability of the effect of effort
reductions on total mortality and it reduces the impact of the effort
reductions on individual participants. To insure some control on the
predictability of the effort reduction program, a finite number of
units of effort, i.e., fishing vessels, is necessary. Otherwise, the
size of the reduction in fishing mortality could not be predicted and
would not be known until after the effect of the new vessels that had
entered the fishery could be measured. Consequently, the Council would
always be playing catch-up with little likelihood of success.
A moratorium is important to controlling the magnitude of the
impact of effort reductions on individual participants in the fishery.
Without a moratorium, new vessels could continue to enter the fishery.
If this occurred, individual vessel time at sea would have to be
reduced to compensate for the increase in total time at sea. During the
rebuilding program, this would increase the magnitude of the individual
reductions in effort proposed and, as the resource improves, even more
vessels would be encouraged to enter and any individual gains
associated with the improvement in the resource would be dissipated.
The unpredictability of future individual reductions would contribute
to economic instability in the fleet and the inability of participants
to plan for the long term.
The Council proposed the moratorium to ensure long-term gains for
those individuals being forced to make short-term sacrifices in the
form of effort controls. As the effort control measures achieve fishing
mortality reductions and the resource starts to rebuild, new entrants
into the fishery would likely harvest the surplus in the absence of a
moratorium. Thus, there would be no promise of a ``return on
investment'' for the vessels that are making the sacrifices in the
early years of the plan. Moreover, a moratorium provides an incentive
to participants to protect their long-term interests. This translates
into increased protection for the resource. Effort control measures
without a moratorium are less likely to provide conservation benefits
because an important restriction on the expansion of total effort would
have been eliminated.
It is unknown whether the moratorium will change the character of
the industry. It is difficult, if not impossible, to predict the
individual vessel's decisions and the circumstances leading to those
decisions that would be made to allow such a wholesale change.
The Council allowed for some new entry to the fishery through the
use of the 4,500 hook and possession limit exemptions. In providing
these exemptions, the Council determined that these activities would
not have a significant impact on attaining the goals and objectives of
the amendment. These exemptions and the moratorium itself can be
reviewed and modified in future years if the Council determines that
there is need and that the amendment's objectives could still be met.
The Council has also stated its intention that the moratorium be
effective only for the duration of the effort reduction program
established by this amendment.
While there was some support for the moratorium at the public
hearings, the primary rationale for approval is its relationship to the
effort reduction program. Absolute acceptance by the industry for a
measure, though desired, is not the sole criteria on whether a given
measure should be approved.
Comment 8: One association commented that, in Sec. 651.4, the
eligibility criteria for a limited entry permit and conditions for
upgrading are very similar to those promulgated in the original Fishery
Management Plan for the Atlantic Surf Clam and Ocean Quahog Fisheries.
With that plan, all the participants agreed that the tendency of the
standards was to encourage an ``arms race,'' which consumed capital and
complicated effort reduction objectives for years. This should be
avoided if possible.
Response: Some of the language and requirements for moratorium
permits are similar to those contained in fishery management plan for
the Mid-Atlantic surf clam fishery. The Council was aware of the
problems experienced in that fishery, because it was consulted and
involved in the development of the plan for that fishery. Many of the
conditions that occurred in the Mid-Atlantic surf clam fishery after
implementation of the moratorium have already occurred in the
multispecies fishery. In the multispecies fishery, similar to what
happened in the surf clam fishery, there has been a rapid rise in
fishing effort brought about by several factors, including longer
trips, shorter turnaround time between trips, and increased technology
making fishermen more efficient. The Council, therefore, attempted to
minimize problems in Amendment 5 by allowing some flexibility in
limitations on size and horsepower and by adopting a framework measure
to facilitate adjustments to measures.
Comment 9: One association commented that, in Sec. 651.4(q) of the
vessel permit requirements, the provision that a limited access permit
is forfeited if not annually renewed is likely to cause fishermen to
lose their license permanently because of a technicality. Either an
annual renewal notice or other flexibility should be incorporated to
avoid serious hardship claims.
Response: Since the inception of annual permit renewals in 1986,
NMFS has sent annual permit renewal applications to those issued
permits in the previous year. This practice will not change with the
implementation of this amendment. However, it will continue to be the
vessel owner's responsibility to have a valid Federal Fisheries Permit,
maintained on board the vessel, before engaging in fishing for
multispecies finfish.
Comment 10: One association questioned whether the restriction on
issuance of limited access permits, contained in Sec. 651.4(s) of the
vessel permit requirements, meant that a vessel in this fishery could
not enter other fisheries. If this is the case, then the commenter
stated it would be a clear violation of national standard 6.
Response: Vessels may enter, and are encouraged to enter, other
fisheries, so long as they meet the criteria for entry to those
fisheries. The section cited does not limit a vessel from entering
other fisheries; rather, Sec. 651.4(s) specifies that the permit or
fishing history of one vessel may not be used to qualify another vessel
at the same time in some other fishery. This means that if the vessel
had permits for several fisheries in the past and was still qualified
for those fisheries, the permit or history could not be used to qualify
a different vessel for another limited entry fishery, and at the same
time qualify for a limited access multispecies permit.
Comment 11: One individual expressed support for the hook exemption
and requested adoption of a similar exemption for fish traps. The
commenter stated that both conserve the stock and fish habitat, and
reduce fuel consumption.
Response: A specific exemption for fish traps was not considered by
the Council for inclusion in the amendment. This comment is being
forwarded to the Council for possible inclusion of a fish trap
exemption in a future amendment.
Comment 12: One association supported the moratorium, but opposed
the issuance of new permits after only 3 years.
Response: After 3 years, the Council may adjust the criteria for
limited entry permits after taking into consideration the fishing
mortality goals and objectives of the amendment and conditions in the
fishery. This would be accomplished through the framework measures
contained in subpart C, which include opportunity for public comment.
Comment 13: One association objected to the requirement for a
vessel permit in Sec. 651.4(f)(1), which requires that the names and
addresses of shareholders holding more than 25% ownership be provided.
The commenter believed that this is an invasion of privacy, is not
required by other government agencies, and that the officers of a
corporation are a matter of record.
Response: By receiving this information, NMFS will be able to
determine who the true owner of a vessel is. It gives a more complete
picture that is not available when a vessel owner provides just the
corporation name. This is particularly important when determining who
is responsible if a violation of a regulation occurs. Without this
information, determining whether a particular owner is a repeat
violator would also be difficult. To seek this information from other
sources would require systematic searches of state records, requiring
NMFS to expend an extensive amount of time. It is not an unlawful
invasion of privacy because it is only required of vessel owners that
voluntarily submit themselves to the highly regulated industry of
fishing as a condition to obtaining the privilege to fish with a
Federal permit in Federal waters.

Operator Permits

Comment 14: One association commented that, in Sec. 651.5(d) of the
operator permit requirements, the requirement for passport photos to be
submitted with an application for an operator permit probably adds
several hours to the information burden calculation for each applicant
under this program, which is not accounted for in the analysis.
Response: The requirement is not for passport photos, but rather
passport-size photos, which makes the requirement substantially easier
to meet. Regardless, the analysis did take this into account and
allowed for 1 hour for response instead of 5 minutes, for example, as
specified for applying for a dealer permit. In determining burden
estimates, an average is taken.
Some individuals will already have a passport-size photo or have
easy access and their burden will be minimal. Other individuals may
have to travel to have this service performed. The burden is further
reduced by NMFS' intention to allow the operator permit to be valid for
multiple years, rather than just 1 year. In any event, the estimate of
time does not pose any time constraints on applicants. NMFS will
monitor whether the time estimate is correct.
Comment 15: The U.S. Coast Guard commented that the wording under
Sec. 651.5(c) in the operator permit requirements, which prohibits
operators who have had their operator permit suspended or revoked from
being on board a vessel, in any capacity, issued a Federal Fisheries
Permit is unenforceable unless all crew members are permitted.
Response: NMFS disagrees that the measure is unenforceable. The
intent of this measure is to improve compliance with the measures by
those who are most directly able to control the actions of the vessel
and crew. The number of operators having their permits suspended or
revoked is expected to be relatively few. Information on these
individuals, including their picture, can be distributed to the U.S.
Coast Guard and other enforcement officials and used during boardings.
To require all crew members to obtain a permit would impose too great
of an administrative burden on NMFS and crew members for which there
would be insufficient improvement in the ability to enforce such a
measure. Further, a change such as this is beyond the scope of
Amendment 5.
Comment 16: The U.S. Coast Guard commented that Sec. 651.5(d)
should require proof of U.S. citizenship to obtain an operator permit.
Response: The Magnuson Act requires that all vessels of the United
States that are larger than 5 net tons be documented by the U.S. Coast
Guard. Federal law requires that the masters of U.S. documented vessels
be U.S. citizens or U.S. nationals. As applied to vessels larger than 5
tons, the Coast Guard's suggestion is duplicative of existing law. As
applied to vessels smaller than 5 tons, the adoption of a U.S.
citizenship requirement would prevent aliens lawfully admitted to
permanent residence in the United States from continuing to serve as
masters of small vessels as they endeavor to qualify for U.S.
citizenship. For these reasons, NOAA has not adopted the U.S. Coast
Guard recommendation.
Comment 17: One association noted that the operator permit
requirements in Secs. 651.5 and 651.9 are inconsistent with the
amendment by failing to exempt recreational vessels.
Response: The intent was to require operator permits for operators
of vessels required to obtain federal fishery permits. The final rule
provides that if a vessel is exempted from the vessel permit
requirements, then that vessel's operator is exempted from the permit
requirement as well.
Comment 18: One association objected to the operator permit
condition under Sec. 651.5(c), which prohibits vessel operators from
working on board a vessel issued a Federal Fisheries Permit, in any
capacity, if the operator permit has been revoked or suspended.
The commenter further stated that guilt should be determined first,
and the penalty determined by the Courts, rather than the penalty being
agreed to first.
Response: This penalty would be assessed against a vessel operator
only if the vessel operator is determined to have been involved in a
major violation or is a significant repeat offender of Federal fishing
regulations. In all cases, the vessel operator will have an opportunity
for a hearing before an administrative law judge. Further, the vessel
operator will always have the option of appealing the determination by
the agency to a Federal court. The language gives notice to the vessel
operator that his/her right and privilege to operate and serve on a
federally-permitted fishing vessel is subject to the condition, and
that the right may be suspended or revoked in certain circumstances.
Without the possibility of suspending or revoking an operator's right
to serve in any capacity on a federally-permitted vessel, the purpose
of requiring operator's permits would be meaningless. The language also
puts the operator on notice that he/she will be responsible for his/her
actions and will not be able to move to another vessel, should a
suspension occur. It is consistent with a vessel permit suspension,
which takes the vessel out of the fishery during the time of
suspension.

Reporting and Recordkeeping

Comment 19: One association commented that, in Sec. 651.7(b)(1) of
the reporting requirements, the requirement to provide ``any other
information required by the Regional Director'' is overbroad, a
standardless delegation, and potentially unconstitutional.
Response: This requirement provides NMFS the flexibility to obtain
the information necessary for management, and is not open-ended, since
the Regional Director must demonstrate that any additional data
requested is necessary to manage the fishery.
Comment 20: One individual stated that the requirements for
recordkeeping and reporting are impracticable, of little or no use, and
cannot be enforced due to limited resources.
Response: The recordkeeping and reporting requirements are in
direct response to the inability to collect complete information under
the existing voluntary system and were supported by the fishing
industry. The Council's previous attempts at management measures were
stymied by the lack of complete information on the fleet. For some
areas or classes of vessels, there was little coverage or incomplete
coverage. The information collected from the reporting requirements is
necessary to, and will be used to monitor, the effects of the various
measures being implemented by this rule. Implementation of this rule,
along with recent amendments to the Summer Flounder and Atlantic Sea
Scallop Fishery Management Plans, will provide for a comprehensive
collection of fishery information coastwide. Its requirements can be
enforced because of the ability to verify reporting compliance due to
the dual requirement that dealers and vessels must report. These
requirements have been shown to be enforceable in other fisheries in
the Northeast.
Comment 21: One association commented that the reporting burden
estimates for the vessel logbook report (5 minutes), dealer logbook
report (2 minutes) and operator permit (1 hour) are unrealistic and
that they fail to take into account time to read instructions, search
existing data sources, gather and maintain the data needed, and
complete and review the requirement.
Response: Initially, the time to complete the requirements will be
longer than that estimated. As fishermen and dealers become familiar
with the report form and requirements, the time to complete and submit
the information will decrease. The reporting time estimates for both
the vessel and dealer may seem low, but the estimates take into account
that most of the information is being collected during the normal
course of business and in many cases for dealers, on the same form that
is being adopted for the reporting requirement. The report estimates
also take into account that the reporting burden will vary between
areas and fisheries. Moreover, as stated above, the time estimate does
not impose time constraints on those required to report. NMFS will
continue to monitor this activity to determine if adjustments to the
associated burden time need to be made. NMFS encourages vessel
operators and dealers to submit information on the time needed to
comply with these reports as such individuals gain experience actually
completing logbooks and permit forms.

Vessel Identification

Comment 22: The U.S. Coast Guard commented that the wording under
Sec. 651.8(a) regarding vessel identification should be reworded to
require the name on each side of the bow and the name of the vessel and
homeport at or near the stern. The U.S. Coast Guard further commented
that term ``if possible'' be deleted to eliminate ambiguity.
Response: NMFS has proposed consolidating requirements common to
Northeast fisheries in 50 CFR part 622, Northeast Region General
Fisheries Permit and Reporting Procedures (58 FR 53172, October 14,
1993). Where this comment is common to requirements in other fisheries,
it will be considered in the context of part 622. A final rule
implementing consolidated permitting and reporting procedures will be
issued after this final rule implementing Amendment 5 is published.

Prohibitions

Comment 23: One association commented that, regarding the
prohibition specified in Sec. 651.9(a)(6), it is unreasonable to expect
fishermen to enforce the FMP by demanding to see dealer licenses, given
the locus of market power in sale transactions, and considering
fishermen often have no direct contact with their dealer (i.e., fish
are picked up by truck). It would be impossible for fishermen to make
the legal conclusion that the permit is ``valid.''
Response: It is reasonable to expect that fishermen know to whom
they are selling their fish, because this information is necessary to
know from whom to expect payment. Further, since fishermen must provide
this information on the vessel logbook submitted to NMFS, vessel owners
will have to make an effort to identify to whom they are selling fish.
NMFS will make an effort to identify those permitted dealers purchasing
multispecies finfish so that the likelihood of a fishermen selling to
an unpermitted dealer will be substantially reduced. If fish are sold
to a truck, the truck does not need to be permitted if the truck is
used for transportation only. If the truck driver acts as a purchaser,
a dealer permit would be needed.
Comment 24: Two associations commented that observer requirements
in Sec. 651.0(a)(10) were not disclosed at public hearings. Requiring
provision of food, etc., is an uncompensated taking in violation of the
Constitution.
Response: Observer requirements have been part of the FMP since
implementation of Amendment 4 and were discussed by the Council in
public meetings. In Amendment 4, vessels participating in the Exempted
Fisheries Program were required to take a sea sampler if requested by
the Regional Director. In the version of Amendment 5 taken to public
hearing, observer requirements were included under the midwater trawl
exemption. Once the public hearings had concluded, the Council
discussed in a public meeting and added the measure to provide
consistency with a measure in Amendment 4 to the Fishery Management
Plan for Atlantic Sea Scallops. By including the requirement in the
proposed rule, the public has been given additional opportunity to
comment.
This provision is needed to supplement, rather than replace, the
existing Domestic Sea Sampler Program. Several times in the past, when
management actions were contemplated, the reaction by some fishermen
has been to deny sea sampler's requests to be on board vessels. This
seriously hampers NMFS' ability to collect discard, bycatch, and other
biological information and as a consequence, management actions were
based upon incomplete, though best available, information. This
provision will allow the Regional Director to require vessels to carry
an observer, if vessels refuse to take sea samplers.
A mandatory observer program is necessary for the management
program to be effective. A taking occurs if a regulation denies an
owner economically viable use of his/her property. The regulations do
not dispossess fishermen or limit the use of their property. It is not
equivalent to a seizure of their property or a restraint on entry and
use, and therefore does not constitute an unlawful taking.
Comment 25: One association commented that, in Sec. 651.9(b)(2)(i),
the requirement for having a certified, operational and functioning VTS
unit on board the vessel at all times will force fishermen to have at
least two of these units on board the vessel at all times, at a cost of
$14,000. No provision has been made to enable fishermen to keep
information confidential from third parties with receivers. The VTS has
evolved into a complicated, prohibitively expensive, intrusive
violation of basic constitutional principles and an end to itself
instead of providing NMFS with bare-bones requirements to make the
management program work simply and effectively.
Response: The requirement is to have a functioning VTS unit on
board the vessel. If the vessel owner believes that the VTS unit is not
reliable enough to provide the service required, the vessel owner may
decide to purchase another VTS unit. The minimum VTS performance
criteria were developed with the rigors of at-sea conditions in mind.
The approved VTS vendors have stated that their units meet these
specifications. Many of the units are in use on board fishing vessels
already and have been found to be reliable and able to withstand
weather at sea.
Fishermen subject to the VTS requirement are expected to purchase
the units directly from approved vendors. In making such a purchase,
the vessel owner should decide whether to include in the purchase
contract items such as confidentiality of information, position
integrity, etc. NMFS does require that a vessel owner applying for a
limited access permit must provide NMFS, the U.S. Coast Guard, and
their authorized officers or designees access to the vessel's DAS and
location data. All information from the VTS units forwarded to NMFS
will be considered data submitted pursuant to 16 U.S.C. 1853(a)(5),
which is subject to the confidentiality requirements of 16 U.S.C.
1853(d).
NMFS disagrees with the last comment. The VTS was developed to
address the need to monitor effectively basic vessel activities at
substantial savings to NMFS. The VTS allows enforcement resources to be
deployed where most effective while at the same time monitoring is
maintained throughout the fishery. The VTS also provides greater
efficiency for vessel operators and greater safety for at-sea
operations. Further, the requirement to carry a VTS unit is a condition
to participate in a highly regulated industry operating in federally
regulated waters. There is no compensable taking of private property
under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.
Comment 26: One association commented that, in Sec. 651.9(b)(10),
the trip notice provision is cast without a negative and thus would
make all fishermen violators.
Response: This has been corrected in the final rule.
Comment 27: One association commented that the provision in
Sec. 651.9(e)(13) is far too broad and makes no allowance for the
rigors of the sea, the vagaries of atmospheric transmission, etc. The
fisherman becomes a guarantor of perfect airwaves, which is an
impossible burden.
Response: The prohibition refers to a willful act, rather than that
which would occur through weather or other Acts of God. The burden will
be on NMFS to show that such a willful act has occurred.
Comment 28: An industry association commented that, in
Sec. 651.9(e)(31), the requirement that any fisherman must remove from
the water sink gillnets is directly in conflict with Magnuson Act
prohibitions on hauling or tampering with gear of others.
Response: The final rule has been changed to clarify that a sink
gillnet fisherman is required to remove only his or her own gear.
Comment 29: One association commented that in Sec. 651.9(e)(23),
recreational vessels are allowed to possess regulated species smaller
than the minimum size, which is contrary to Council intention.
Response: The language of Sec. 651.9(e)(23) allows vessels exempted
under Sec. 651.9(e)(1)(ii) to be exempted from the requirement. Vessels
under this exemption are those fishing in state waters exclusively,
without Federal permits, where these regulations are not applicable
because of the Councils' and the Secretary's limited authority under
the Magnuson Act to regulate fishing activities that occur only in
state waters. The Magnuson Act was enacted pursuant to the
Constitution's grant of authority to Congress to pass laws that
regulate interstate and foreign commerce. The Act authorizes the
Secretary to issue such regulations as are necessary and appropriate to
implement the Act. The Secretary has determined that keeping track of
the location of fishing vessels is essential to conserve and manage the
multispecies fishery. A VTS allows the Secretary to ascertain the
vessel's location in a cost-effective manner.

Regulated Mesh Areas

Comment 30: One association supported the finfish excluder device
requirement contained in Sec. 651.20(a)(3)(ii).
Response: The comment is noted and the measure has been approved.
Comment 31: One association commented that it supported the
increase in minimum mesh size to 6 inches (15.24 cm), but that the area
should also include Southern New England.
Response: The Council specified different minimum mesh sizes, by
area, based upon the different historical fishing patterns that occur
there. Prior to this amendment, much of the Southern New England area
was not subject to mesh restrictions. Amendment 5 imposes a minimum
mesh size restriction throughout the area, thereby providing
substantial protection for undersized, immature groundfish. In year 2,
the mesh size increases to 6-inch (15.24-cm) square mesh or 5\1/2\-inch
(13.97-cm) diamond mesh. Also included in the measures applicable to
the Southern New England Area is an area closure triggered when there
is an incoming year class of yellowtail flounder that reaches a certain
level of abundance as determined by the annual spring bottom trawl
survey conducted by NMFS. If further restrictions are necessary, the
Council may use the framework measures contained in subpart C to effect
changes.
Comment 32: The U.S. Coast Guard commented that the area defined in
Sec. 651.20(c) for the Southern New England Regulated Mesh Area (RMA)
and its allowance of more than one mesh on board overlaps the
boundaries of the Nantucket Lightship Closed Area. The U.S. Coast Guard
stated that this creates an enforcement policy that is inconsistent
with conservation goals. It recommended that the Southern New England
RMA be redrawn to exclude the Nantucket Lightship Closed Area from the
more than one mesh on board provision.
Response: The Nantucket Lightship Closed Area closes only when a
survey index indicates a strong incoming year class of yellowtail
flounder. When such a closure occurs, vessels are prohibited from
fishing in the area unless specifically exempted, and the gear types
exempted (lobster pot gear, surf clam/ocean quahog dredge gear, hook
and line) do not include gear subject to the gear stowage requirement.
It is not necessary, therefore, to redraw this area such as was done
for the Nantucket Lightship Regulated Mesh Area.
Comment 33: One association commented that it is inappropriate to
allow mid-trawlers year-round, unsupervised access to the Gulf of
Maine.
Response: Midwater trawlers are subject to a possession limit when
fishing with small mesh and are required to fish with the net off the
bottom. If NMFS believes that a problem is occurring with this fishery,
observers could be deployed to gather information. The vessel reporting
requirements will also aid in determining whether this gear is
appropriate for use in this area.
Comment 34: One association recommended that the Nantucket
Lightship Regulated Mesh Area be disapproved because the area allows
smaller mesh size in an area that abounds with haddock, cod and
yellowtail flounder.
Response: NMFS is also concerned about this area and about the
confusion that can result because of the differences between the
adjoining regulated mesh areas and this area. If this requirement were
disapproved, however, it would leave this area with no regulated mesh
size or one mesh on board requirement. NMFS is requesting the Council
reexamine this area and determine whether it is appropriate to allow
the smaller minimum mesh size, given the low stock abundance of
regulated species occurring there.

Closed Areas

Comment 35: One association commented that, in Sec. 651.21(b)(4),
the exemption allowing safe haven in the vicinity of Closed Area II,
required for vessel safety, is virtually unattainable. It depends on
the National Weather Service (NWS) identifying adverse conditions far
out at sea, posting warnings, and the operator being able to contact a
U.S. Coast Guard unit in the area. Unless this provision is rational,
it will cost lives in transit.
Response: The exemption was requested by fishermen at a meeting of
the Council. The criteria for the exemption were developed to ensure
that it could not be used to circumvent the regulations. The intent is
that when there is a legitimate need, because of bad weather, to seek
shelter in deeper water, vessels can enter the closed area. The best
criterion for vessels to know when this is allowed is the storm
postings of the NWS, which has offshore monitoring capabilities. NMFS
is actively discussing with NWS and the National Ocean Survey, the
possibility of using the VTS units to collect weather information for
offshore areas. If vessels cannot contact a U.S. Coast Guard unit in
the area, notice should be provided to a U.S. Coast Guard shoreside
facility. NMFS believes these measures are reasonable and adequate to
provide vessels a safe route during bad weather. This exemption will be
monitored and, if adjustments are needed, they can be made through the
framework measures in subpart C.

Effort Control Program

Comment 36: Six associations and eight individuals recommended that
the effort control measures be disapproved, citing that this type of
management will not achieve conservation because vessels will fish
longer, fish closer to shore, target high value species, and the
program will be almost impossible to administer and enforce.
Response: The Council chose effort reduction measures rather than
relying solely on indirect measures (minimum mesh size, minimum fish
size) or other direct measures (vessel or total quotas). In doing so,
it believed that the effort control measures would provide greater
assurance in achieving the Council objectives, would be less disruptive
to the supply of groundfish, and would provide flexibility to vessel
operators, thereby balancing the need to prevent overfishing with
socio-economic concerns of the fishing industry.
With declining fish stocks, fishermen are already making longer
trips with fewer crew members and with less time at the dock between
trips. There have already been complaints over the last few years of
larger vessels displacing small vessels by working inshore areas. The
combination of annual reduction of days at sea allowed, regulated
layover time at the dock, and target quotas is designed to meet
eventually the objectives of the amendment. It is recognized that there
will be adjustments by the fleet in the first few years. Eventually
these adjustments will be overcome by the measures resulting in
reductions in fishing mortality.
NMFS believes that the effort reduction program can be administered
and enforced. Tracking of days at sea can be accomplished shoreside
rather than at sea and the VTS and call-in systems will enhance this
effort. The VTS system will identify when vessels leave port, when they
return to port, which port and where they are at sea. The exemptions
for hook vessels, possession limit vessels and vessels 45 ft (13.7 m)
and less will substantially reduce the enforcement and monitoring
burden.
Comment 37: Six associations and eight individuals recommended that
the target quotas be disapproved.
Response: To determine how effective the effort reduction program
and other measures are at attaining interim fishing mortality goals and
to provide the industry and the public with a quantifiable objective,
the Council included target quotas based upon the major groundfish
stocks. The target quotas will be determined annually and, if exceeded,
the Council will adjust fishing mortality reduction measures to help
assure that it does not occur again. If the target quotas had been
disapproved, NMFS the Council would have had little information on
which to judge the success of individual measures for a given year, and
little justification for adjusting management measures in future years.
Exceeding a target quota does not result in any automatic regulatory
measure.
Comment 38: The Council and one association commented that the
layover day requirement specified in Sec. 651.22(c)(1)(ii) should
reflect the Council's intent that vessels need to move between docks
within port.
Response: In order to monitor effectively vessel DAS activity, it
is necessary for NMFS to be able to track vessel movement. NMFS intends
to allow some reasonable movement within port through enforcement
discretion, so long as it does not compromise the accurate monitoring
of vessel DAS.
Comment 39: One association commented that the provision in
Amendment 5 exempting vessels 45 ft (13.7 m) or less, from the effort
reduction program, should be changed back to 30 ft (9.1 m), because the
longer length allows for too much additional fishing effort.
Response: An exemption length of 45 ft (13.7 m) exempts 1,554 more
vessels than would an exemption length of 30 ft (9.1 m). Still, if the
45-ft (13.7 m) exemption was disapproved, there would have been no
exemption for smaller vessels from the effort control program. A lack
of an exemption from the effort control program for smaller vessels,
may have serious negative economic effects on fishermen operating those
vessels without sufficient commensurate benefits to the groundfish
stocks to justify the lack of such an exemption. The Council has been
asked to reexamine the 45-ft exemption, and its effects will be closely
monitored. If a change is necessary, it could be implemented through
the framework provisions of subpart C.

Minimum Fish Sizes

Comment 40: The U.S. Coast Guard commented that, in
Sec. 651.23(d)(i), the minimum fish sizes are only enforceable if the
whole fish can be measured. The exception allowing 25 lbs (11.3 kg) of
fillets less than the minimum size should be deleted since enforcement
officers cannot verify that the fillets originated from legal-size
fish.
Response: The 25 lbs (11.3 kg) of fillets allowed per person cannot
be offered or intended for sale, trade, or barter. While NMFS agrees
that it will be difficult to enforce this requirement, the small amount
of fillets allowed and the intended use of the fillets should have a
minimal impact on the conservation goals of the FMP. This exemption
allows the traditional fishing practice of crew members filleting fish
for personal use to continue. If this exemption poses a problem in the
future, it may be modified using the framework provisions of subpart C.

Flexible Area Action System

Comment 41: One association commented that the FAAS described in
Sec. 651.26, is an overbroad, standardless delegation in violation of
the Administrative Procedure Act and the Constitution.
Response: The Flexible Area Action System described in Sec. 651.26
is not a new provision, rather it was implemented through the approval
of Amendment 3 to the FMP. The proposed rule republished the entire
part and not just the provisions changed or added by Amendment 5. This
was done to aid the reader. The commenter is invited to review
responses to comments published at the time this section was
promulgated.

Monitoring Requirements

Comment 42: One association commented that the presumption in
Sec. 651.28(a)(4) is unreasonable because the vessel operator may not
know the violation is occurring and thus may fail to collect the
evidence to rebut the presumption. A vessel could run through its whole
allocation without knowing it, if a battery shorts out.
Response: The VTS unit typically displays a signal when the unit is
in communication with an overhead satellite. The vessel operator should
be able to determine readily if the unit is functioning or at least
enter into agreement with the VTS unit vendor that he/she be notified
when the unit is not functioning properly. If the unit is not
functioning properly, the vessel operator should respond accordingly
and try to correct the problem, and if not able to, gather the evidence
necessary.
Comment 43: One association commented that, in Sec. 651.28(a)(7),
the definition for tampering must except unknowing activity and such
actions as rigging the vessel, raising fishery cones, sailing into fog
banks, etc., all of which could affect signal or position accuracy.
Response: Adverse weather typically does not distort the
information provided by a VTS unit. This only occurs if the antenna is
disrupted or there is an occurrence of extreme weather. Tampering
implies a knowing violation. Enforcement discretion will be used in
determining violations and whether an action was willful or not.
Comment 44: Four VTS vendors commented that the requirement for
polling is not essential for vessel monitoring objectives.
Response: NMFS believes that the polling requirement is an integral
component of a monitoring system employing a VTS. Polling will enhance
NMFS ability to insure adequacy of its DAS monitoring requirements.
Moreover, the use of a VTS will not be limited to just DAS monitoring,
but will also be used for closed area and Hague Line surveillance, and
other enforcement concerns. Polling will allow NMFS to change the
frequency of location reporting in support of specific enforcement
operations. This could occur for a given area, individual vessels or
groups of vessels. Polling can also be beneficial to search and rescue
operations by pinpointing location, speed of drift, etc.
Comment 45: Four VTS vendors commented that the requirement that
the VTS provide two-way network communication between the vessel and
shore is not essential for vessel monitoring objectives. The commenters
stated that vessels are already equipped with radios, telephone, telex,
or facsimile equipment.
Response: NMFS believes that two-way communication is necessary.
Under Sec. 651.7(b)(1), vessel operators may choose to provide catch
information through the VTS unit. Under Sec. 651.29(a)(1), vessels will
use the VTS to notify NMFS that they are leaving on a trip that will
not involve a groundfish DAS. Allowing reporting such as noted above
through the VTS, greatly enhances NMFS' ability to receive information
on a timely basis, 24 hours a day. Radios and telephones require
someone to be present to receive the call. Telex and facsimile
equipment could provide the information, but at greater expense to NMFS
through having to input the data to another system. NMFS believes that
the two-way communication capabilities will allow VTS to be used for
more applications, once established. Consequently, NMFS is not changing
the specifications.

Days-at-Sea Notification

Comment 46: One association commented that, in Sec. 651.29 (a) and
(b), if the primary system fails or malfunctions and the Regional
Director fails to authorize the use of a call-in system, then vessels
are not allowed to fish. The Regional Director should be required, not
just permitted, to fill the gap.
Response: NMFS recognizes that without a VTS requirement, as
written in the proposed rule, vessels would be unable to fish. The
final rule has been revised so that initially a call-in system will be
required by vessels that will later be subject to VTS requirements when
such a system is available. Also, the final rule has been revised so
that the Regional Director must authorize a call-in system if a VTS is
later shown to be ineffective for monitoring DAS.
Comment 47: One association commented that, in Sec. 651.29(c) (2)
and (4), requiring a confirmation by the Regional Director renders the
call-in and fax-in useless on nights and weekends (when most trips
start or finish). If the Regional Director fails to confirm the end of
the trip, the counting of DAS will run without the fisherman being able
to stop it. An alternate to confirmation must be provided.
Response: Confirmation will be automatic through the call-in system
or FAX. Neither system will require the vessel operator or owner to be
limited to NMFS work hours. The systems have been designed to handle
multiple calls and will have sufficient backup such that any
inconvenience will be minimized.

Observer Requirements

Comment 48: One association commented that, in Sec. 651.31(c), the
requirements applying to an owner or operator regarding at-sea observer
coverage represents an unlawful taking, unless compensated.
Response: See response to Comment 24.
Comment 49: One association expressed concern about the cost to the
vessel of the observer requirements under Sec. 651.31, citing the
expense of liability insurance.
Response: As has been done for the past several years, NMFS will
continue to place voluntary sea samplers on board vessels. Whether it
is a voluntary sea sampler or a mandatory observer, NMFS will be
responsible for the salary, but the vessel will be responsible for
adequate accommodations and food. NMFS is not required to provide
insurance to the vessel owner regarding liability to the observer. If
such insurance is desired by the vessel owner, it will be the owner's
responsibility to provide such insurance coverage for the time the
observer is on the vessel.
Comment 50: One association commented that the allowance for an
observer to inspect and copy communication logs may be an invasion of
privacy or an unauthorized disclosure of proprietary information. The
requirement to inspect and copy should be restricted to information
pertaining to catch and related data.
Response: The final rule requires that only information relating to
the catch and related data be provided to the observer.

Sink Gillnet Requirements

Comment 51: One association stated that the amendment does not
provide consistent, targeted controls to reduce incidental harbor
porpoise mortality and recommended that time and area closures be
implemented.
Response: In anticipation of the harbor porpoise framework measure
being approved, the Council has been evaluating the feasibility of
time/area closures. The measure and implementing rule requiring all
gillnets to be out of the water, is intended to serve as the default
harbor porpoise mitigation of take measure until such time as another
is implemented. It was designed to meet harbor porpoise protection
objectives over 5 years. Under the framework measure, the Council will
be able to recommend time/area closures for implementation once they
are determined to be appropriate.
Comment 52: The Marine Mammal Commission commented that the monthly
period of time when sink gillnets are required to be removed from the
water should be 16 days per month in year 1, rather than 4 days per
month. The 16 days per month should be put into effect pending an
assessment of its effect on reducing the incidental take level and/or
development of alternative management measures.
Response: Once a fishery management plan or amendment has been
formally submitted by a Council, NMFS has authority to approve or
disapprove provisions, but has little authority to modify a provision.
To disapprove this measure would have eliminated all protection for
harbor porpoise and groundfish afforded by this measure, at least in
the short term. Indeed, the Biological Opinion prepared for the
amendment recommends an accelerated schedule, by initially going to the
year 2 schedule of 8 days a month in the first year. As stated
previously, the Council's evaluation of time/area closures is being
conducted with the goal of implementing such a measure under the
framework as soon as possible. If the Council recommends such a measure
and it is approved for implementation, the necessary protection may be
provided.
Comment 53: The Marine Mammal Commission commented that the
proposed critical habitat areas for right whales (Cape Cod Bay and
Great South Channel) should be adopted as closed areas, instead of the
area designated as Closed Area I.
Response: Much of the proposed critical habitat is already included
in Closed Area I and the closure occurs at a time when right whales are
present in the area. The Biological Opinion prepared for this amendment
determined that Cape Cod Bay and the Great South Channel will not be
adversely affected by the Amendment 5 measures. If the proposed
critical habitat for right whales becomes final, it may be appropriate
at that time to consider such a change under the framework provisions,
in subpart C. The exception to this would be Cape Cod Bay, which is
under the Commonwealth of Massachusetts' jurisdiction.
Comment 54: The Marine Mammal Commission recommended that the
exemption for gillnets from the effort control measures be disapproved.
Response: The Council intends for the exemption to be in place only
until such time as it can determine the impact of the harbor porpoise
take reduction measures on fishing mortality. Rather than try to
reconcile the two measures, the Council chose to concentrate its
efforts on reduction of harbor porpoise mortality. It is likely that
these measures will reduce fishing mortality. Reducing the time when
gillnets are allowed in the water also reduces the time to catch
groundfish and take harbor porpoise incidentally. A reduction in time
will reduce fishing effort.

Framework Specifications

Comment 55: One individual stated that the framework measures are
illegal in that they override and assume the functions of NMFS. The
framework measures will not provide the quick reaction needed to
conserve small fish.
Response: The framework measures are consistent with the Magnuson
Act and other applicable law; NMFS authority is not diminished by this
measure or the Council. Measures proposed by the Council must be
analyzed and are subject to public comment. Once the Council recommends
measures, NMFS will make a determination on the appropriateness of the
measures with regard to the Magnuson Act and other applicable law.
The framework measure is not specifically designed to preserve
concentrations of small fish. Other permanent measures, such as the
increase in minimum mesh size, the Stellwagen Bank and Jeffreys Ledge
juvenile protection areas, Nantucket Lightship Closed Area and the
Flexible Area Action System are designed to provide protection to
juvenile fish. If other areas are determined to need protection or the
timing of protection needs to be changed, the framework measure can be
used to accomplish this.
Comment 56: One association expressed concern that the amendment's
measures may be insufficient to end overfishing and rebuild depleted
fish stocks. The commenter expressed hope that the framework measure of
subpart C would be followed and that it would allow for sufficient
adjustments, if necessary.
Response: NMFS is concerned about the continued decline of the
stocks and that it may be necessary to take further action through the
framework measure. NMFS, in approving the amendment, has sent the
Council a letter describing this concern and stating NMFS' expectation
that the framework provisions will be used to meet the goals and
objectives of the Amendment.

Other Comments

Comment 57: One individual raised several questions about the
process by which the proposed rule was promulgated, with regard to the
submitted amendment and the role of the Council and NMFS.
Response: The Magnuson Act, section 302(h), specifies the functions
of Regional Fishery Management Councils. One of these functions is to
prepare and submit to the Secretary fishery management plans and
amendments for those fisheries that require conservation and management
within its geographical area of authority. Under section 303(c), the
Magnuson Act specifies that ``proposed regulations which the Council
deems necessary and appropriate for purposes of carrying out a plan or
amendment to a plan shall be submitted to the Secretary simultaneously
with the plan or amendment for action by the Secretary under sections
304 and 305.'' The Secretary is then responsible for making any changes
necessary for implementation and publishing the proposed regulations.
Thus, the Council is responsible for proposing those measures necessary
for the conservation and management of the resource. If what a Council
proposes is consistent with the Magnuson Act and other applicable law,
the Secretary is responsible for the approval and implementation of the
proposed measures.
Comment 58: One individual disputed the statement in the
Supplementary Information section of the preamble of the proposed rule,
that ``the FMP has been in effect since 1986, and has been amended four
times * * *'' The commenter was not aware of any evidence that the FMP
had been approved or accepted by the Secretary prior to final
rulemaking.
Response: On August 20, 1986, an interim rule (51 FR 29642) was
issued, which indicated that the Secretary had partially disapproved
the FMP and that the remaining approved measures were implemented for a
period ending on September 30, 1987. On September 17, 1987, a final
rule (52 FR 35093) was published that implemented Amendment 1, which
responded to the deficiencies of the FMP. The approval of Amendment 1
was not conditional and its measures along with the approved FMP
measures remained in effect until amended by Amendment 2 (54 FR 4798,
January 31, 1989), Amendment 3 (54 FR 52803, December 22, 1989),
Amendment 4 (56 FR 24724, May 31, 1991) and now, Amendment 5.
With regard to Amendment 5, the Council, with assistance from NMFS,
U.S. Coast Guard, state fishery agencies, academia, and the Mid-
Atlantic Fishery Management Council, prepared the amendment and other
supporting documents. NMFS prepared the proposed rule, which was
reviewed by the Council for consistency with the amendment.
Other comments were received related to approval of the amendment
or other concerns, rather than on the proposed rule. These comments
included: Comments on the adequacy of the analysis performed by the
Council, recommendations for emergency action on haddock, additional
measures for yellowtail flounder, recommendations on the proposed
listing of harbor porpoise under the Endangered Species Act and action
under Marine Mammal Protection Act, recommendations for increased
observer coverage under the Marine Mammal Protection Act,
reauthorization of the Magnuson Act, the relationship between the
Magnuson Act and the Administrative Procedure Act. All comments
received were considered in the decision to approve the amendment.

Changes From the Proposed Rule

In Sec. 651.2, in the definition for a ``combination vessel'' the
phrase ``and the Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery Management Plan'' was
removed to make it clear that qualification for scallop DAS is not
required under this part.
In Sec. 651.2, the definition for ``DAS (Day(s)-at-sea)'' was
modified to clarify when a DAS occurs, and a definition for ``out of
the multispecies fishery or DAS program'' was added to distinguish
between when a vessel is subject to DAS and when it is not.
In Sec. 651.2, the definition for ``Dealer'' was modified to
include the phrase ``issued a valid Federal vessel permit under this
part'' to clarify that dealers are required to have a permit if they
purchase from vessels issued a Federal multispecies permit.
In Sec. 651.2, the phrase ``declared out of the multispecies
fishery'' was replaced with the phrase ``out of the multispecies
fishery or DAS program'' to reflect more accurately the requirements of
Sec. 651.22.
In Sec. 651.2, the definition for ``scallop dredge vessel'' was
made consistent with the regulatory requirements by adding a phrase to
clarify that a scallop dredge vessel must have been issued or applied
for a limited access scallop permit.
In Sec. 651.4, a phrase was added to the introductory text to
explain the changes made to the applicability date of this requirement.
In Sec. 651.4, the narrative within the introductory text was
modified by adding the word ``valid'' before the types of permits
listed, to provide further clarification.
In Secs. 651.4, 651.5 and 651.6, several editorial changes were
made to provide consistency between the administrative requirements
contained in these sections and similar sections contained in 50 CFR
part 650.
In Sec. 651.4(a)(1)(i)(B), the phrase ``on or prior to'' was
replaced with ``as of'' to reflect the language in Amendment 5 and to
clarify the requirement.
In Sec. 651.4, paragraph (a)(1)(i)(B) was modified by adding the
word ``written'' to clarify how this requirement can be met.
In Sec. 651.4, paragraph (a)(3) was modified by adding the word
``written'' to clarify how this requirement can be met.
In Sec. 651.4(a)(4)(ii), the sentence ``For undocumented vessels,
net tonnage does not apply'' was added to clarify further the
requirements for replacement vessels.
In Sec. 651.4(f)(2)(iii), the references to 1994 and 1995 were
removed to clarify that this election must be on the permit application
in all years.
Section 651.4(f)(2)(v) was rewritten to clarify options for
movement between the non-DAS program permit categories.
Section 651.5(a) was modified so that a vessel operator need only
carry the operator permit while on board the vessel rather than in
possession at all times.
Section 651.5(c) was modified to add the sentence ``Further, such
operators must agree as a condition of this permit that if the permit
is suspended or revoked pursuant to 15 CFR part 904, the operator
cannot be on board any fishing vessel issued a Federal Fisheries Permit
or any vessel subject to Federal fishing regulations while the vessel
is at sea or engaged in offloading.'' This sentence was included under
Sec. 651.5(n) in the proposed rule and is repeated in this section in
the final rule to increase awareness of this provision.
Section 651.9(b)(10) was modified to clarify what act was actually
prohibited.
In Sec. 651.9(c), the phrase ``while the vessel, and persons on the
vessel, are in possession of or landing more than 500 lbs (226.8 kg)
of, or fishing for regulated species'' was added to clarify this
requirement.
Section 651.9(e)(2)(ii) was divided into paragraphs (e)(2)(ii) and
(e)(2)(iii) to clarify the prohibitions.
In Sec. 651.20, paragraphs (a)(2), (b)(2), (c)(2) and (d)(2) have
been corrected to cross reference Sec. 651.20 (e) and (f), instead of
Sec. 651.20 (f) and (g).
In Sec. 651.20, paragraphs (a)(3)(i), (a)(4)(i)(A), (c)(3)(i),
(c)(3)(ii), (d)(3)(i), (d)(3)(ii), (e)(1)(iv), (f)(4), the phrase ``the
possession limit of regulated species specified under Sec. 651.27(a)''
is replaced with ``500 lbs (226.8 kg) of regulated species.'' This is
because Sec. 651.27(a) is not implemented until May 1, 1994, and the
bycatch requirement for the small mesh fisheries must be implemented on
March 1, 1994.
In Sec. 651.22, paragraph (b)(3)(iv), the requirement under
Sec. 651.22(c)(1)(i)(E) was added for consistency between an identical
requirement between the Fleet DAS and Individual DAS programs.
Section 651.22(d)(1)(i)(C) was revised to clarify what is required
to verify the length of a vessel.
Section 651.22(d)(1)(ii) was modified with the addition of the
phrase ``excepts gillnets and gear not intended to fish for
multispecies finfish such as lobster'', to provide consistency with the
Council's intent for this requirement.
Section 651.22(d)(2) was replaced with paragraphs (2)(i) through
(iii) to clarify that sink gillnet vessels greater than 45 ft (13.7 m)
in length are exempt from the DAS effort reduction program when using
sink gillnet gear exclusively, unless further effort reduction measures
are implemented; that when these vessels use other gear and intend to
fish for, possess or land, or do possess or land more than 500 lbs.
(226.9 kg) of regulated species, they shall be subject to the DAS
effort reduction program; and that sink gillnet vessels less than 45 ft
(13.7 m) in length are exempt from the DAS effort reduction program
unless further effort reduction measures are implemented. These changes
clarify what sink gillnet vessels are subject to with regard to the
effort reduction program and under which circumstances sink gillnet
vessels are exempted from its requirements.
In Sec. 651.22, paragraph (d)(2)(ii), a sentence was added to
clarify the requirements for vessel fishing in both the sink gillnet
fishery and a DAS program.
Section 651.22,(d)(3) was modified by adding the phrase ``except
for combination vessels'' to clarify that combination vessels are not
subject to this requirement.
In Sec. 651.27, paragraph (a)(1), the phrase ``vessels issued hook-
gear-only permits that are fishing with gear other than hook gear, sink
gillnet vessels greater than 45 ft (13.7 m) in length that are fishing
with gear other than gillnet gear'' was added to further clarify when
vessels using this type of gear are subject to the possession limit.
In Sec. 651.28, paragraph (a)(1), the heading and all subsequent
references have been revised from ``certification'' to ``approval'' to
better define the process by which will NMFS select VTS vendors.
In Sec. 651.28(a)(4), the phrase ``not participating in the
multispecies fishery'' was replaced by ``declared out of the
multispecies finfish fishery'' to provide consistency with other
sections of the regulations.
Section 651.28(c)(3) has been revised to read, ``If the owner of a
sink gillnet vessel greater than 45 ft (13.7 m) in length intends to
fish for regulated multispecies with gear other than sink gillnet gear
on a fishing trip'' in order to clarify when a sink gillnet vessel
owner is required to provide notice.
In Sec. 651.29, the information requirements under paragraphs
(c)(1) and (c)(2) were modified such that the caller's telephone number
is required, instead of the caller's address, in order to facilitate
administration of this requirement.
In Sec. 651.31(c)(5), the phrase ``the vessel's log, communications
logs,'' was deleted because it was determined to be inappropriate.
In Sec. 651.32(a)(1)(i), the phrase ``Vessel owners using sink
gillnet gear must remove all of their sink gillnet gear'' was added to
clarify that vessel owners must remove only their own sink gillnet
gear.
In Sec. 651.32(a)(2), the phrase ``upon issuance of the permit''
was deleted to allow the Regional Director more flexibility in form and
timing of notification.
In Sec. 651.32, paragraph (c) was corrected to be paragraph (b).
In Secs. 651.4 introductory text, 651.4(a), 651.4(b), 651.4(c),
651.9(e)(2) introductory text, 651.22(a), 651.22(b)(1)(i),
651.22(c)(1), 651.22(d)(1)(i), 651.22(e), 651.29(a)(1), 651.29(b),
introductory text, and 651.33 introductory text, wording was added to
implement these requirements on May 1, 1994, and to clarify that
vessels may fish using a valid 1993 multispecies vessel permit until
that time.
In Secs. 651.5(a), 651.9(a) introductory text, 651.9(e)(1)(i),
651.9(e)(6), 651.9(e)(8), 651.9(e)(9), 651.20 introductory text,
651.20(a)(2), 651.20(a)(3)(ii), and 651.20(c)(4), revisions were made
to clarify that all permit holders under this part are subject to these
requirements.

Classification

The Council prepared an FSEIS for Amendment 5, which was filed by
the Environmental Protection Agency with the Office of the Federal
Register. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, (AA)
determined, upon review of the FSEIS and public comments that the
preferred alternative of the Amendment is environmentally preferable to
the status quo. The FSEIS demonstrates that the preferred alternative
contains management measures to eliminate the overfished condition of
stocks of groundfish, especially haddock, cod, and yellowtail flounder;
provides economic and social benefits to the fishery in the long term;
and should provide better balance in the ecosystem in terms of the
groundfish resources.
NMFS notified the Small Business Administration during the proposed
rule stage that this action may have significant effects on a
substantial number of small entities based upon an IRFA prepared by the
Council. The IRFA now constitutes an FRFA based on public comments. The
FRFA determines that most active vessels that participate in the
fishery are considered small entities according to the criteria
established by the Small Business Administration. Amendment 5 excludes
the smaller vessels (i.e., boats 45 ft (13.7 m) and smaller in length)
from effort reduction measures. The regulations would probably not have
a significant impact on these vessels, which constitute about 64
percent of the qualified vessels and which landed approximately 15
percent of the groundfish in 1991. However, the proposed reduction in
effort may have considerable impacts on those vessels that are still
considered small entities which are longer than 45 ft (13.7 m). These
small entities constitute 36 percent of the qualified vessels, and
landed approximately 85 percent of the groundfish in 1991, and are
expected to incur significant short-term losses in revenue that will be
offset by long-term gains and greater stability in the fishery.
The rule contains eight new collection-of-information requirements
and revises seven existing requirements subject to the Paperwork
Reduction Act. These collection-of-information requirements have been
approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Nevertheless,
public comments are invited on the burden-hour estimates for the
collection-of-information requirements listed below.
The new reporting requirements are:
1. Dealer permits, (Sec. 651.6--OMB Approval #0648-0202) (5
minutes/response);
2. Operator permits, (Sec. 651.5--OMB Approval #0648-0202) (1 hour/
response);
3. Notice requirements for observer deployment, (Sec. 651.31--OMB
Approval #0648-0202) (2 minutes/response);
4. Proof of installation of vessel tracking system,
(Sec. 651.4(f)(vi)--OMB Approval #0648-0202) (2 minutes/response);
5. Automated vessel tracking system, (Sec. 651.29(a)--OMB Approval
#0648-0202) (0 minutes/response);
6. Vessel call-in or electronic card reporting requirement,
(Sec. 651.29(b)--OMB Approval #0648-0202) (2 minutes/response);
7. Notice of entry/exit of Closed Area II due to hazardous weather,
(Sec. 651.21(b)(iii)(D)--OMB Approval #0648-0202) (2 minutes/response);
8. Vessel logbooks, (Sec. 651.7(b)--OMB Approval #0648-0212) (5
minutes/response).
Revisions to the existing requirements are:
1. Three new vessel permit categories (limited access, hook-gear-
only permits, possession-limit-only permits) (Sec. 651.4(a), (b), and
(c)--OMB Approval #0648-0202) (no increase in burden above that
currently associated with vessel permits);
2. Limited access permit denial appeals, (Sec. 651.4(a)(8)--OMB
Approval #0648-0202) (0.5 hours/response);
3. Limited access permits, days at sea appeals (Sec. 651.22(a)(6)--
OMB Approval #0648-0202) (2 hours/response);
4. The Cultivator Shoals Exemption Program (Sec. 651.20(a)(4)(i)--
OMB Approval #0648-0202) (2 minutes/response);
5. The Midwater Trawl Exemption Program (Sec. 651.20(e)--OMB
Approval #0648-0202) (2 minutes/response);
6. Dealer purchase reports (Sec. 651.7(a)--OMB Approval #0648-0229)
(2 minutes/response);
7. Annual processed products reports (Sec. 651.7(a)(2)--OMB
Approval #0648-0018, will be mandatory (2 minutes/ response).
Send comments regarding these burden estimates or any other aspect
of these collections-of-information, including suggestions for reducing
the burdens, to Richard Roe, and to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (see ADDRESSES).
This rule is not subject to review under E.O. 12866.
The AA has determined that there is good cause to waive the 30-day
delay in effective date normally required by section 553(d) of the
Administrative Procedure Act because many of the provisions of this
rule must be effective by March 1, 1994 to begin eliminating the
overfished condition of some groundfish stocks. Some provisions of the
rule do not become applicable by their own terms until dates after
March 1, 1994, such as permit requirements described in Sec. 651.4, and
requirements for vessels having limited access permits which will be
fishing in the individual DAS program and combination vessels to use a
VTS as described in Sec. 651.29. A letter sent by the Regional Director
to all permit holders advises that the call-in notification procedure
described in Sec. 651.29 shall apply to all vessels holding limited
access permits until a VTS system is operational, sometime after 6
months after March 1, at which time vessels fishing under the
individual DAS program and combination vessel.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 651

Fisheries, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: February 24, 1994.
Rolland A. Schmitten,
Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries
Service.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 651 is
revised; with Sec. 651.9(a)(11) and (12), Sec. 651.9(e) (33) and (34),
and Sec. 651.27(b) expiring at 2400 hours, April 2, 1994; to read as
follows:

PART 651--NORTHEAST MULTISPECIES FISHERY

Subpart A--General Provisions

Sec.
651.1 Purpose and scope.
651.2 Definitions.
651.3 Relation to other laws.
651.4 Vessel permits.
651.5 Operator permits.
651.6 Dealer permits.
651.7 Recordkeeping and reporting.
651.8 Vessel identification.
651.9 Prohibitions.
651.10 Facilitation of enforcement.
651.11 Penalties.

Subpart B--Management Measures

651.20 Regulated mesh areas and restrictions on gear and methods of
fishing.
651.21 Closed areas.
651.22 Effort-control program for limited access vessels.
651.23 Minimum fish size.
651.24 Experimental fishing.
651.25 Gear-marking requirements.
651.26 Flexible Area Action System.
651.27 Possession limits.
651.28 Monitoring requirements.
651.29 DAS notification program.
651.30 Transfer-at-sea.
651.31 At-sea observer coverage.
651.32 Sink gillnet requirements to reduce harbor porpoise takes.
651.33 Hook-gear-only vessel requirements.

Subpart C--Framework Adjustments to Management Measures

651.40 Framework specifications.

Figure 1 to Part 651--Regulated mesh areas.
Figure 2 to Part 651--Nordmore grate.
Figure 3 to Part 651--Closed areas.

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

Subpart A--General Provisions

Sec. 651.1 Purpose and scope.

This part implements the Fishery Management Plan for the Northeast
Multispecies Fishery (FMP), as amended by the New England Fishery
Management Council in consultation with the Mid-Atlantic Fishery
Management Council. These regulations govern the conservation and
management of multispecies finfish.

Sec. 651.2 Definitions.

In addition to the definitions in the Magnuson Act and in
Sec. 620.2 of this chapter, the terms used in this part have the
following meanings:
Atlantic sea scallop or scallop means the species Placopecten
magellanicus throughout its range.
Bottom-tending gillnet or sink gillnet means any gillnet, anchored
or otherwise, that is designed to be, capable of being, or is fished on
or near the bottom in the lower third of the water column.
Butterfish means Peprilus triacanthus.
Chair means the Chair of the Multispecies (Groundfish) Oversight
Committee of the Council.
Charter and party boats means vessels carrying recreational fishing
persons or parties for a per capita fee or for a charter fee.
Codend means the terminal section of a trawl net in which captured
fish may accumulate.
COLREGS Demarcation Lines means the lines of demarcation
delineating those waters upon which mariners must comply with the
International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 (33
CFR part 80), and those waters upon which mariners shall comply with
the Inland Navigation Rules.
Combination vessel means a vessel that has fished in any one
calendar year with scallop dredge gear and otter trawl gear during the
period 1988 through 1990, and that is eligible for an allocation of DAS
under the FMP and has applied for or been issued a Federal limited
access scallop permit.
Committee means the Multispecies (Groundfish) Oversight Committee
of the Council.
Council means the New England Fishery Management Council.
DAS (Day(s)-at-sea) means the 24-hour periods of time during which
a fishing vessel is absent from port for purposes of multispecies
finfish fishing in which the vessel intends to possess or possesses
more than the possession limit of regulated multispecies.
Dealer means any person who receives multispecies finfish for a
commercial purpose from the owner or operator of a vessel issued a
valid Federal vessel permit under this part, other than exclusively for
transport on land.
Dredge or dredge gear means gear consisting of a mouth frame
attached to a holding bag constructed of metal rings, or any other
modification to this design, that can be or is used in the harvest of
Atlantic sea scallops.
Fishery Management Plan (FMP) means the Fishery Management Plan for
Northeast Multispecies Fishery, as amended.
Gillnet means fishing gear comprised of a net hung from a float-
line, with a lead-line on the bottom, such that it is designed to be or
is configured vertically in the water column to entangle passing fish.
Gross registered tonnage means the gross tonnage specified on the
U.S. Coast Guard documentation.
Harbor porpoise means Phocoena phocoena.
Harbor Porpoise Review Team (HPRT) means a team of scientific and
technical experts appointed by the Council to review, analyze, and
propose harbor porpoise take mitigation alternatives.
Herring means Atlantic herring, Clupea harengus harengus, or
blueback herring, Alosa aestivalis.
Hook gear means fishing gear that is comprised of a hook or hooks
attached to a line and includes, but is not limited to, longline,
setline, jigs, troll line, rod and reel, and line trawl.
Land means to enter port with fish on board, to begin offloading
fish, or to offload fish.
Longline gear means fishing gear that is or is designed to be set
horizontally, either anchored, floating, or attached to a vessel, and
that consists of a main or ground line with three or more gangions and
hooks.
Mackerel means Atlantic mackerel, Scomber scombrus.
Menhaden means Atlantic menhaden, Brevoortia tyrannus.
Midwater trawl gear means trawl gear that is designed to fish for,
capable of fishing for, or is being used to fish for pelagic species,
no portion of which is designed to be or is operated in contact with
the bottom at any time.
Multispecies finfish or finfish means the following finfish:

Gadus morhua--Atlantic cod.
Glyptocephalus cynoglossus--witch flounder.
Hippoglossoides platessoides--American plaice.
Limanda ferruginea--yellowtail flounder.
Macrozoarces americanus--ocean pout.
Melanogrammus aeglefinus--haddock.
Merluccius bilinearis--silver hake.
Pollachius virens--pollock.
Pseudopleuronectes americanus--winter flounder.
Scophthalmus aquosus--windowpane flounder.
Sebastes marinus--redfish.
Urophycis chuss--red hake.
Urophycis tenuis--white hake.

NEFSC means the Northeast Fisheries Science Center of NMFS, NOAA.
Northern shrimp means Pandalus borealis.
Offload means to begin to remove, to remove, to pass over the rail,
or otherwise take away fish from any vessel.
Operator means the master, captain, or other individual on board a
fishing vessel and in charge of that vessel's operations.
Out of the multispecies fishery or DAS program means the period of
time during which a vessel is absent from port for purposes of fishing
in which the vessel possesses no more than the possession limit of
regulated species.
Pair trawl or pair trawling means to tow a single net between two
vessels for the purpose of, or that is capable of, catching
multispecies finfish.
Postmark means independently verifiable evidence of date of
mailing, such as U.S. Postal Service postmark, United Parcel Service
(U.P.S.) or other private carrier postmark, certified mail receipt,
overnight mail receipt, or receipt received upon hand delivery to an
authorized representative of NMFS.
Purse seine gear means an encircling net with floats on the top
edge, weights and a purse line on the bottom edge, and associated gear,
or any net designed to be, or capable of being, used in such fashion.
Recreational fishing means fishing that is not intended to, nor
does it result, in the barter, trade, or sale of fish.
Recreational fishing vessel means any vessel from which no fishing
other than recreational fishing is conducted. Charter and party boats
are not considered recreational fishing vessels.
Regional Director means the Director, Northeast Region, NMFS, 1
Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930-2298, or a designee.
Regulated species means the subset of multispecies finfish that
includes Atlantic cod, witch flounder, American plaice, yellowtail
flounder, haddock, pollock, winter flounder, windowpane flounder,
redfish, and white hake.
Reporting month means the period of time beginning at 0001 hours
local time on the first day of each calendar month and ending at 2400
hours local time on the last day of each calendar month.
Reporting week means the period of time beginning at 0001 hours
local time on Sunday and ending at 2400 hours local time the following
Saturday.
Re-rig or re-rigged means physical alteration of the vessel or its
gear in order to transform the vessel into one capable of fishing
commercially for multispecies finfish.
Rigged hooks means hooks that are baited, or only need to be
baited, in order to be fished. Unsecured, unbaited hooks and gangions
are not considered to be rigged.
Scallop dredge vessel means any fishing vessel, other than a
combination vessel, that uses or is equipped to use dredge gear, and
that has been issued or has applied for a Federal limited access
scallop permit.
Squid means Loligo pealei or Illex illecebrosus.
Standard box means a box, typically constructed of wax-saturated
cardboard or wood, designed to hold 125 pounds (56.6 kg) of fish plus
ice, and that has a volume of not more than 5,100 cubic inches (2.95
cu. ft or 83.57 cm\3\).
Standard tote means a box typically constructed of plastic,
designed to hold 100 pounds (45.3 kg) of fish plus ice, and that has a
liquid capacity of 70 liters, or a volume of not more than 4320 cubic
inches (2.5 cubic feet or 70.79 cubic cm\3\).
Transfer means to begin to remove, to pass over the rail, or
otherwise take away fish from any vessel and move them to another
conveyance.
Trip is the period of time during which a fishing vessel is absent
from port, beginning when the vessel leaves port and ending when the
vessel returns to port.
Under agreement for construction or reconstruction means that the
keel has been laid and that there is a written agreement to construct a
fishing vessel.
Vessel Tracking System (VTS) means a vessel tracking system as set
forth in Sec. 651.28(a) and approved by NMFS for use by multispecies
finfish vessels as required by this part.
VTS unit means a device installed on board a vessel used for vessel
tracking and transmitting the tracked position as required by this
part.
Whiting means Merluccius bilinearis.

Sec. 651.3 Relation to other laws.

(a) The relation of this part to other laws is set forth in
Sec. 620.3 of this chapter and paragraphs (b), through (e) of this
section.
(b) Additional regulations governing domestic fishing for squid,
mackerel, and butterfish, which are affected by this part, are found at
50 CFR part 655.
(c) Additional regulations governing domestic fishing for summer
flounder, which are affected by this part, are found at 50 CFR part
625.
(d) Additional regulations governing domestic fishing for Atlantic
sea scallops, which are affected by this part, are found at 50 CFR part
650.
(e) Nothing in these regulations supersedes more restrictive state
management measures for multispecies finfish.

Sec. 651.4 Vessel permits.

Beginning on May 1, 1994, any vessel of the United States that
fishes for, possesses, or lands multispecies finfish, except vessels
that fish for multispecies finfish exclusively in state waters, and
recreational fishing vessels, must have been issued and carry on board
an authorizing letter issued under paragraph (a)(8)(v) of this section,
a valid limited access multispecies permit, a valid hook-gear-only
permit, or a valid possession-limit-only permit issued under this
section. Until May 1, 1994, vessels that have been issued 1993 Federal
multispecies permits, not otherwise subject to permit sanctions due to
enforcement proceedings, may fish for, possess, or land multispecies
finfish in or from the EEZ. Any other vessel of the United States may
obtain an interim letter of authorization to fish for, possess, or land
multispecies finfish until May 1, 1994, by submitting a 1993 permit
application.
(a) Limited access multispecies permits. Beginning on May 1, 1994,
any vessel of the United States that possesses or lands more than the
possession limit of regulated species specified under Sec. 651.27(a),
except vessels fishing with fewer than 4,500 hooks that have been
issued a hook-gear-only permit as specified in paragraph (b) of this
section, vessels fishing for regulated species exclusively in state
waters, and recreational fishing vessels, must have been issued and
carry on board a valid Federal limited access multispecies permit, or
an authorizing letter issued under paragraph (a)(8)(v) of this section.
Until May 1, 1994, vessels that have been issued 1993 Federal
multispecies permits, not otherwise subject to permit sanctions due to
enforcement proceedings, may fish for, possess, or land multispecies
finfish in or from the EEZ. Any other vessel of the United States may
obtain an interim letter of authorization to fish for, possess, or land
multispecies finfish until May 1, 1994, by submitting a 1993 permit
application. To qualify for a limited access multispecies permit, a
vessel must meet the following criteria, as applicable:
(1) Eligibility in 1994. (i) To be eligible to obtain a limited
access multispecies permit for 1994, a vessel must meet one of the
following criteria:
(A) The vessel had been issued a Federal multispecies permit as of
February 21, 1991, or renewed a Federal multispecies permit in 1991
that was issued before February 21, 1991, and the vessel landed
multispecies finfish on at least one trip completed between January 1,
1990, and February 21, 1991, inclusive; or
(B) The vessel was under written agreement for construction or re-
rigging, or was under written contract for purchase as of February 21,
1991, and the vessel was issued a Federal multispecies permit and
landed multispecies finfish on at least one trip between February 21,
1991, and February 21, 1992; or
(C) The vessel is replacing a vessel that meets any of the criteria
set forth in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) (A) or (B) of this section, and the
vessel meets the criteria described in paragraph (a)(4) of this
section.
(ii) No more than one vessel may qualify, at any one time, for a
limited access multispecies permit based on that or another vessel's
fishing and permit history, unless authorized by the Regional Director.
If more than one vessel owner claims eligibility for a limited access
multispecies permit, based on one vessel's fishing and permit history,
the Regional Director shall determine who is entitled to qualify for
the limited access multispecies permit and the DAS allocation according
to paragraph (a)(3) of this section.
(iii) A limited access multispecies permit for 1994 will not be
issued unless an application for such permit is received by the
Regional Director on or before December 31, 1994.
(2) Eligibility in 1995 and thereafter. To be eligible to renew or
apply for a limited access multispecies permit after 1994, a vessel
must have been issued a limited access multispecies permit for the
preceding year, or the vessel must be replacing a vessel that had been
issued a limited access multispecies permit for the preceding year,
and, if applicable, the vessel must meet the criteria set forth in
paragraph (a)(4) of this section. If more than one vessel owner claims
eligibility to apply for a limited access multispecies permit based on
one vessel's fishing and permit history after 1994, the Regional
Director shall determine who is entitled to qualify for the limited
access multispecies permit and the DAS allocation according to
paragraph (a)(3) of this section.
(3) Change in ownership. The fishing and permit history of a vessel
is presumed to transfer with the vessel whenever it is bought, sold, or
otherwise transferred, unless there is a written agreement, signed by
the transferor/seller and transferee/buyer, or other credible written
evidence, verifying that the transferor/seller is retaining the
vessel's fishing and permit history for purposes of replacing the
vessel.
(4) Replacement vessels. To be eligible for a limited access
permit, the replacement vessel must meet the following criteria:
(i) The replacement vessel's horsepower may not exceed by more than
20 percent the horsepower of the vessel it is replacing as of the date
the vessel it is replacing was initially issued a 1994 limited access
multispecies permit, as specified on a valid application for a permit
under this section; except that, the horsepower of the replacement
vessel may not exceed the horsepower of the vessel being replaced if
the horsepower of the vessel being replaced has been increased through
upgrade or vessel replacement from that specified when the vessel being
replaced initially applied for a 1994 limited access multispecies
permit; and
(ii) The replacement vessel's length, gross registered tonnage, and
net tonnage may not exceed by more than 10 percent the length, gross
registered tonnage, and net tonnage of the vessel being replaced, based
on specifications provided in the initial 1994 application for a
limited access multispecies permit; except that the length, gross
registered tonnage, and net tonnage of the replacement vessel may not
exceed the length, gross registered tonnage, and net tonnage of the
vessel initially issued a limited access multispecies permit if any or
all of these specifications have been increased through upgrade or
vessel replacement from that specified when the vessel being replaced
initially applied for a 1994 limited access multispecies permit. For
purposes of paragraph (a)(2), a vessel not required to be documented
under title 46, U.S.C. will be considered to be 5 gross registered
tons. For undocumented vessels, net tonnage does not apply.
(5) Upgraded vessel. To remain eligible to retain a valid limited
access multispecies permit, or to apply for or renew a limited access
multispecies permit, a vessel may be upgraded, whether through
refitting or replacement, only if the upgrade complies with the
following limitations:
(i) The vessel's horsepower may be increased, whether through
refitting or replacement, only once. Such an increase may not exceed 20
percent of the horsepower of the vessel initially issued a 1994 limited
access multispecies permit as specified in that vessel's permit
application for a 1994 limited access multispecies permit; and
(ii) The vessel's length, gross registered tonnage, and net tonnage
may be upgraded, whether through refitting or replacement, only once.
Such an increase shall not exceed 10 percent each of the length, gross
registered tonnage, and net tonnage of the vessel initially issued a
1994 limited access multispecies permit as specified in that vessel's
application for a 1994 limited access multispecies permit. This
limitation allows only one upgrade, at which time any or all three
specifications of vessel size may be increased. This type of upgrade
may be done separately from an engine horsepower upgrade.
(iii) A replacement of a vessel that does not result in increasing
horsepower, length, gross registered tonnage or net tonnage is not
considered an upgrade for purposes of this section.
(6) Notification of eligibility for 1994. (i) NMFS will attempt to
notify all owners of vessels for which NMFS has credible evidence that
they meet the criteria described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section,
that they qualify for a limited access multispecies permit if they meet
the requirements contained in paragraphs (d) through (h) of this
section.
(ii) If a vessel owner has not been notified that the vessel is
eligible to be issued a limited access multispecies permit, and the
vessel owner believes that there is credible evidence that the vessel
does qualify under the pertinent criteria, the vessel owner may apply
for a limited access multispecies permit by meeting the requirements
described under paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section and by
submitting the information described in paragraphs (a) (1) through (5)
of this section. In the event the application is denied, the applicant
may appeal as specified in paragraph (a)(8) of this section. If,
through either of these procedures, the Regional Director determines
that the vessel meets the eligibility criteria, a limited access
multispecies permit will be issued to the vessel.
(7) Consolidation restriction. Limited access multispecies permits
and DAS allocations may not be combined or consolidated.
(8) Appeal of denial of limited access multispecies permit.
(i) Any applicant denied a limited access multispecies permit may
appeal the denial to the Regional Director within 30 days of the notice
of denial. Any such appeal must be based on one or more of the
following grounds, must be in writing, and must state the grounds for
the appeal:
(A) The information used by the Regional Director was based on
mistaken or incorrect data;
(B) The applicant was prevented by circumstances beyond his/her
control from meeting relevant criteria; or
(C) The applicant has new or additional information.
(ii) The Regional Director will appoint a designee who will make
the initial decision on the appeal.
(iii) The appellant may request a review of the initial decision by
the Regional Director by so requesting in writing within 30 days of the
notice of the initial decision. If the appellant does not request a
review of the initial decision within 30 days, the initial decision
shall become the final administrative action of the Department of
Commerce.
(iv) Upon receiving the findings and a recommendation, the Regional
Director will issue a final decision on the appeal. The Regional
Director's decision is the final administrative action of the
Department of Commerce.
(v) Status of vessels pending appeal of a limited access
multispecies permit denial. A vessel for which an application has been
completed and an appeal has been initiated may fish under the Fleet DAS
program if it has appealed the denial, the appeal is pending, and the
vessel has on board a letter from the Regional Director, authorizing
the vessel to fish under the Fleet DAS. The Regional Director will
issue such a letter for the pendency of any appeal. Any such decision
is the final administrative action of the Department of Commerce on
allowable fishing activity pending a final decision on the appeal. The
authorizing letter must be carried on board the vessel while
participating in the DAS program. If the appeal is finally denied, the
Regional Director shall send a notice of final denial to the vessel
owner; the authorizing letter becomes invalid 5 days after receipt of
the notice of denial.
(9) Adjustments to limited access multispecies permits. In 1996 and
thereafter, the Council may adjust the criteria for issuance of a
limited access multispecies permit. In making the adjustment, the
Council shall take into consideration the fishing mortality goals and
the objectives of the FMP. Any such adjustment may be made following a
reappraisal and analysis under the framework provisions specified in
subpart C of this part.
(b) Hook-gear-only permit. Beginning on May 1, 1994, any vessel of
the United States that does not have on board a valid limited access
multispecies permit or a possession-limit-only permit, except vessels
that fish exclusively in state waters for multispecies finfish and
recreational fishing vessels, may possess and land multispecies finfish
if it never sets, per day, or possesses, more than 4,500 rigged hooks
as specified in Sec. 651.33, and has on board a valid hook-gear-only
permit. A hook-gear-only permit may be issued to a vessel regardless of
whether it qualifies for a limited access multispecies permit. Until
May 1, 1994, vessels that have been issued 1993 Federal multispecies
permits, not otherwise subject to permit sanctions due to enforcement
proceedings may fish for, possess, or land multispecies finfish in or
from the EEZ. Any other vessel of the United States may obtain an
interim letter of authorization to fish for, possess, or land
multispecies finfish until May 1, 1994, by submitting a 1993 permit
application.
(c) Possession-limit-only permit. Any vessel of the United States
that does not have on board a valid limited access multispecies permit
or hook-gear-only permit, and that possesses or lands no more than the
possession limit of multispecies finfish specified under
Sec. 651.27(a), except vessels that fish exclusively in state waters
for multispecies finfish and recreational fishing vessels, must have
aboard a valid possession-limit-only permit. Until May 1, 1994, vessels
that have been issued 1993 Federal multispecies permits, not otherwise
subject to permit sanctions due to enforcement proceedings may fish
for, possess, or land multispecies finfish in or from the EEZ. Any
other vessel of the United States may obtain an interim letter of
authorization to fish for, possess, or land multispecies finfish until
May 1, 1994, by submitting a 1993 permit application.
(d) Condition. Vessel owners who apply for a permit under this
section must agree as a condition of the permit that the vessel and
vessel's fishing, catch, and pertinent gear (without regard to whether
such fishing occurs in the EEZ or landward of the EEZ, and without
regard to where such fish or gear are possessed, taken, or landed), are
subject to all requirements of this part. The vessel and all such
fishing, catch, and gear shall remain subject to all applicable state
or local requirements. If a requirement of this part and a management
measure required by state or local law differ, any vessel owner
permitted to fish in the EEZ must comply with the more restrictive
requirement.
(e) Vessel permit application. Applicants for a permit under this
section must submit a completed application on an appropriate form
obtained from the Regional Director. The application must be signed by
the owner of the vessel, or the owner's authorized representative, and
be submitted to the Regional Director at least 30 days before the date
on which the applicant desires to have the permit made effective. The
Regional Director will notify the applicant of any deficiency in the
application pursuant to this section. Applicants for limited access
multispecies permits who have not been notified of eligibility by the
Regional Director shall provide information with the application
sufficient for the Regional Director to determine whether the vessel
meets the eligibility requirements specified under paragraph (a)(1) of
this section. Applications for 1994 limited access multispecies permits
under this section will not be accepted after December 31, 1994.
Acceptable forms of proof include, but are not limited to, state weigh-
out records, packout forms, settlement sheets, grocery receipts, fuel
receipts, and bridge logs.
(f) Information requirements. (1) In addition to applicable
information required to be provided by paragraph (e) of this section,
an application for either a limited access multispecies, hook-gear-
only, or possession-limit-only permit must contain at least the
following information, and any other information required by the
Regional Director: Vessel name; owner name, mailing address, and
telephone number; U.S. Coast Guard documentation number and a copy of
vessel's U.S. Coast Guard documentation or, if undocumented, state
registration number and a copy of the state registration; home port and
principal port of landing; length; gross tonnage; net tonnage; engine
horsepower; year the vessel was built; type of construction; type of
propulsion; approximate fish-hold capacity; type of fishing gear used
by the vessel; number of crew; permit category; if the owner is a
corporation, a copy of the Certificate of Incorporation, and the names
and addresses of all shareholders owning 25 percent or more of the
corporation's shares; if the owner is a partnership, a copy of the
Partnership Agreement and the names and addresses of all partners; if
there is more than one owner, names of all owners having owned more
than a 25-percent interest; and name and signature of the owner or the
owner's authorized representative.
(2) Applications for a limited access multispecies permit must also
contain the following information:
(i) The engine horsepower of the vessel as specified in the
vessel's most recent permit application for a Federal Fisheries Permit
before May 1, 1994. If the engine horsepower was changed or a contract
to change the engine horsepower had been entered into prior to May 1,
1994 such that it is different from that stated in the vessel's most
recent application for a Federal Fisheries Permit before May 1, 1994,
sufficient documentation to ascertain the different engine horsepower.
However, the engine replacement must be completed within 1-year of the
date of when the contract for the replacement engine was signed.
(ii) The length, gross tonnage, and net tonnage of the vessel as
specified in the vessel's most recent permit application for a Federal
Fisheries Permit before May 1, 1994. If the length, gross tonnage, or
net tonnage was changed or a contract to change the length, gross
tonnage or net tonnage had been entered into prior to May 1, 1994 such
that it is different from that stated in the vessel's most recent
application for a Federal Fisheries Permit, sufficient documentation to
ascertain the different length, gross tonnage or net tonnage. However,
the upgrade must be completed within 1 year of the date of when the
contract for the upgrade was signed.
(iii) If the vessel owner is applying to fish under the individual
DAS program specified in this section, the application must include
such election.
(iv) In 1995, if the vessel owner is applying to fish under a
different DAS program than was assigned for 1994, the application must
include such election and the vessel must fish only in that category
for the entire year.

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A94-4610. Public record. Not legal advice.