Northeast Multispecies Fishery; Amendment 9 to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

15 CFR Part 902

50 CFR Part 648

[Docket No. 990226056-9213-02; I.D. 122498C]

RIN 0648-AL31

Northeast Multispecies Fishery; Amendment 9 to the Northeast

Multispecies Fishery Management Plan

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS issues this final rule to implement the approved portions

of Amendment 9 to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan

(FMP). This rule adds Atlantic halibut to the species managed under the

FMP, implements a 1-fish per vessel halibut possession limit with a

minimum size of 36 inches (66 cm); postpones implementation of the

Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) requirement; modifies the framework

process to allow for aquaculture projects and changes to the

overfishing definitions (OFDs); and prohibits brush-sweep trawl gear

when fishing for multispecies. The chief purpose of Amendment 9 is to

address requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and

Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), as amended by the Sustainable

Fisheries Act (SFA).

DATES: This rule is effective November 15, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Copies of Amendment 9, its Regulatory Impact Review, and the

Final Environmental Assessment are available from Paul J. Howard,

Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council, Suntaug

Office Park, 5 Broadway (U.S. Route 1), Saugus, MA 01906-1097.

Copies of the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) are

available from Patricia Kurkul, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Northeast

Regional Office, 1 Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930.

Comments regarding burden-hour estimates for the collection-of-

information requirements contained in this final rule should be sent to

the Regional Administrator and the Office of Information and Regulatory

Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503

(Attention: NOAA Desk Officer).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Regina L. Spallone, Fishery Policy

Analyst, 978-281-9221.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Amendment 9 was prepared by the New England Fishery Management

Council (Council) mainly to address requirements of the Magnuson-

Stevens Act, as amended by the SFA on October 11, 1996, eliminate

overfishing, and rebuild many of the groundfish stocks. Amendment 11 to

the FMP identifies and describes essential fish habitat (EFH) of

groundfish stocks as required by the SFA. NMFS approved Amendment 11 on

behalf of the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) on March 3, 1999.

Background concerning the development of Amendment 9 was provided in

the preamble of the notice of proposed rulemaking (64 FR 13952, March

23, 1999) and in the supplement to the proposed rule (64 FR 19111,

April 19, 1999), and is not repeated here. This final rule implements

approved measures contained in Amendment 9 to the FMP intended to

eliminate overfishing and rebuild many of the groundfish stocks.

Specifically, the measures establish new overfishing definitions (OFDs)

for various groundfish species and stocks, add Atlantic halibut to the

FMP's management unit to begin rebuilding this severely overfished

stock, and prohibit brush sweep gear until the Council better

understands its fishing efficiency given the overall short-term goal to

reduce fishing effort. Implementation of the VMS requirement is

postponed so the Council can address outstanding policy, equity, and

operations issues.

On behalf of the Secretary, NMFS disapproved on April 7, 1999, two

measures proposed in Amendment 9 after evaluation of the amendment, as

authorized in section 304(a)(3) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The

disapproved measures include an increase in the size limit for winter

flounder for both the commercial and recreational fisheries to 13

inches (33.0 cm) from its current 12 inches (30.5 cm), and the OFD for

the Gulf of Maine (GOM) winter flounder stock. Amendment 9 did not

provide an OFD for GOM winter flounder. Since none was provided, the

OFD does not meet the requirements of the SFA or the Magnuson-Stevens

Act. NMFS has notified the Council that it should revise the OFD at the

next available opportunity using the most recent assessment conducted

at the 28th Stock Assessment Workshop (SAW-28).

Amendment 9 Measures

This final rule revises the regulations implementing the Northeast

Multispecies FMP to add Atlantic halibut (Hippoglossus hippoglossus) to

the management unit of the FMP and to implement management measures for

that species. This rule implements a 1-fish halibut possession limit

with a minimum size of 36 inches (66 cm); postpones implementation of

the VMS requirement beyond May 1, 1999; modifies the framework process

to allow for aquaculture projects and changes to the OFDs; and

prohibits brush-sweep trawl gear when fishing for multispecies.

Comments and Responses

Eighteen written comments on Amendment 9 were received during the

comment period established by the notice of availability of the

amendment, which ended March 8, 1999. These comments were considered by

NMFS in its decision to partially approve Amendment 9 on April 7, 1999.

In addition, NMFS received two comments during the comment period

specified for the proposed rule, which ended on May 3, 1999. Comments

pertaining to both the amendment and the rule that were received during

the respective comment periods are addressed here.

Comment 1: Several comments were received that did not support the

increases in minimum fish size for winter flounder. Some of these

comments stated that the size increases: (1) merely postpone mortality,

rather than reduce it, (2) would have a disproportionate impact on

participants west of 72o30', (3) are not consistent with

mesh in place west of 72o30', (4) would increase discards,

and (5) favor fishermen in Northern states at the expense of southerly

fishermen. These commenters generally supported a 12-inch (30.5 cm)

size limit west of 72o30', trip limits, limits on the length

of trawl sweeps, and 6-inch (15.2 cm) codend in the Southern New

England management area. At least one comment on this measure noted

that the final report of SAW-28 indicated that this stock is not

overfished, and that with no further management measures, the stock

could rebuild in 2 to 5 years.

Response: On April 7, 1999, NMFS disapproved the size increases for

winter flounder. The Council used preliminary information (the draft

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission assessment of winter

flounder) to support the size increase. The final SAW-28 report was not

complete or available at the time the

[[Page 55822]]

Council initially considered the increases. Draft documents for SAW-28

indicated the Southern New England/Mid-Atlantic stock is overfished and

would benefit from mortality reduction. However, the final

interpretation of the results with respect to the revised national

standard 1 guidelines (63 FR 24212, May 1, 1998) indicated that the

stock is not overfished, and that the mortality reduction is not

necessary. Instead, the stock could rebuild to maximum sustainable

yield (MSY) in 2 to 5 years under the management measures currently in

place. Since a reduction is not necessary under the final assessment

results, the costs imposed by the restrictive size limits are not

justified. Therefore, this provision was disapproved.

Comment 2: One commenter supports a 13-inch (33-cm) fish size as an

incentive not to use illegal net liners.

Response: While NMFS supports measures that would decrease illegal

activity, NMFS found no compelling scientific or social benefit to

increasing the fish size solely to achieve that goal. Further, revision

to the interpretation of the SAW-28 results indicating that the stock

is not overfished has changed the scientific basis used to support the

proposed minimum fish size increases. As discussed in the response to

Comment 1, NMFS has disapproved the measure.

Comment 3: One commenter supports a prohibition on brush-sweep

(streetsweeper'') trawl gear.

Response: NMFS agrees and approved this provision on April 7, 1999.

Comment 4: One commenter supported implementation of the VMS as

soon as possible as an aid to enforcement, whereas another expressed

concern and disappointment that NMFS was considering disapproval of the

recommended VMS postponement, and urged approval of the delay.

Response: The mandatory use of VMS by individual days-at-sea (DAS)

vessels was originally implemented under Amendment 5 to the FMP. At the

time, the Administrator, Northeast Region, NMFS (Regional

Administrator) authorized the alternative call-in system as a method of

notification for these vessels until the VMS was determined operable.

The VMS requirement was due to become effective May 1, 1999. For the

reasons stated in the proposed rule, NMFS considered disapproving

measures in Amendment 9 which would postpone implementation of the VMS

requirement until the Council addresses outstanding policy, equity and

operations issues. NMFS specifically invited comments from the public

on the issue during its review. Upon completion of its review, NMFS

concluded that the existing call-in system is adequate for the needs of

the fishery and that the framework mechanism would be the appropriate

place to re-initiate the program, should the Council resolve the

outstanding issues listed above. NMFS approved the indefinite

postponement of the VMS requirement for individual DAS vessels.

Comment 5: Several commenters expressed concern that Amendment 9

does not address bycatch. One supported a comprehensive bycatch review

to address bycatch of unmanaged species, such as barndoor skate.

Response: NMFS and the Council are both active participants in the

Atlantic Coastal Cooperative Statistics Program which is a long-term

effort to improve the collection and utility of fisheries data -

including bycatch. Currently, NMFS employs both the mandatory Vessel

Trip Reports (VTRs) and information gathered in the Northeast Fisheries

Observer Program. Both of these systems review discards of both managed

and unmanaged species, as they are comprehensive. Assessment scientists

have recently expanded their analysis of discards in stock assessments

for some species.

NMFS recognizes that bycatch, as defined under the Magnuson-Stevens

Act, can include both managed and unmanaged species. Measures contained

in the FMP, such as DAS, fish sizes, closed areas, and mesh

requirements, are designed to minimize bycatch and bycatch mortality.

Specific measures adopted under Amendment 9, such as the 1-fish halibut

possession limit, recognize that the multi-species nature of the

fishery prevents complete cessation of bycatch. The Council believes

that additional management measures regarding bycatch, beyond those

adopted in Amendment 9, are impracticable and unnecessary at this time.

Regarding barndoor skate, this species is the focus of recent media

attention but was not of special concern when the Council developed

Amendment 9. As a result, the species was not added to the FMP's

management unit under Amendment 9. However, the Council recently

requested that NMFS designate it as the lead Council for skate

management. NMFS will decide on the Council's request after inviting

public comment on it.

Comment 6: One commenter stated that the Council did not accurately

note the changes SFA made to the definition of optimum'' as it relates

to optimum yield (OY). The commenter points out that the Magnuson-

Stevens Act defines ``optimum'' as the yield as reduced by relevant

social, economic and ecological factors, and also requires that OY take

into account protection of marine ecosystems. Thus, the commenter

argues, Amendment 9 is deficient in that it ignores fishing gears'

effect on marine ecosystems and relies solely on mortality and the use

of landings as a proxy for mortality, which are not the same. The

commenter does not support management by mortality reduction.

Response: The impacts of fishing gears' differential impacts on

marine ecosystems, to the degree that they are known, were fully

considered in Amendment 11 to the FMP. That discussion and its findings

were found to be acceptable under the requirements of the SFA, and as a

result, Amendment 11 was approved on March 3, 1999 (64 FR 199503, April

21, 1999). The OY specified in Amendment 9 was found to be in

accordance with the SFA, and was approved on April 7, 1999. The

Magnuson-Stevens Act allows for a multi-faceted approach to achievement

of OY, including mortality reduction, which by definition includes the

reduction of bycatch and bycatch mortality (bycatch is defined as fish

that are harvested but not sold or kept for personal use), stock

rebuilding, and habitat protection. The Council and NMFS have never

defined mortality as synonymous with landings, as this comment letter

states.

Comment 7: Two commenters do not support management by fishing

mortality (F) reduction and instead support opening closed areas to

jigging.

Response: Reduction of F to rebuild overfished stocks is an

appropriate mechanism that has proven successful in the Northeast

Multispecies FMP and other FMPs. Additionally, the commenters'

suggestion of opening closed areas to jigging was not taken to public

hearings for Amendment 9. Therefore, under Section 304 of the Magnuson-

Stevens Act, NMFS could not implement such a measure in the final rule

implementing the approved measures of Amendment 9. NMFS encourages the

commenters to forward their suggestions to the Council for

consideration under future FMP amendments.

Comment 8: Several comment letters were received on the EFH

provisions. One commenter stated that EFH was not considered, and

called Amendment 9 ``shallow avoidance.'' Another stated that Amendment

9 fails to comply with EFH provisions and interpreted statements in the

Council's EFH omnibus Amendment (including Amendment 11 to the FMP) to

indicate that Amendment 9 would contain provisions to satisfy the EFH

[[Page 55823]]

requirement of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

Response: Amendment 11 to the FMP conducted a methodical evaluation

of impact from fishing gears on EFH. That amendment indicated that some

of the management measures contained in Amendment 9 that are designed

to curb F will also serve to limit impacts on EFH. Those measures,

therefore, warrant consideration in determining the Council's

compliance with the requirements to minimize the effects of fishing on

EFH, to the extent practicable. Amendment 11 includes the EFH

information required by the Magnuson-Stevens Act and was approved by

NMFS on March 3, 1999.

Comment 9: Several commenters did not specifically comment on any

one measure or provision of Amendment 9, but expressed support for the

small boat fleet of Cape Cod, and do not want regulations that would

cause it undue harm.

Response: This comment did not specifically address any one

provision of Amendment 9. Regardless, NMFS reviewed Amendment 9 for

consistency with the national standards and other applicable law. The

approved measures of Amendment 9 were found to be consistent with

national standard 8, which specifies the measures shall, consistent

with the conservation requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act

(including the prevention of overfishing and rebuilding of overfished

stocks), take into account the importance of fishery resources to

fishing communities in order to provide for the sustained participation

of such communities, and to the extent practicable, minimize adverse

impacts on such communities. Management measures enacted by this rule

will have few impacts on communities, the exceptions being the halibut

restrictions and the brush-sweep trawl gear prohibition.

The Council drafted an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

(IRFA) to examine impacts of the bush-sweep trawl gear prohibition, and

1-fish halibut possession limit. NMFS supplemented that analysis and

considered the impact of Amendment 9 on small entities prior to making

the decision to implement these measures. The IRFA includes a

discussion of the various alternatives considered and rejected. This

analysis is summarized in the Classification section and is

incorporated within the FRFA for this final rule.

Comment 10: Several commenters found the OFDs confusing and

difficult to understand. As a result, the commenters were unsure of the

consequences of the OFDs. Further, one of the commenters questioned the

stock definitions, and urged that the stock definitions be rejected and

improved.

Response: NMFS acknowledges that the OFDs are very technical and,

thus, can be confusing, particularly to the lay person. Consequently,

NMFS has made every effort, where practicable, to encourage or employ

the use of easily understood language. The purpose of these definitions

is to aid managers in identifying the status of the stock relative to

the goals of the FMPs, and to adopt measures to rebuild stocks (as

appropriate) so that the stocks may produce the MSY on a continuing

basis.

Stock definitions were approved with the original FMP adopting

management measures for these species. The definitions were not

revisited in Amendment 9 and, consequently, cannot be rejected at this

time. The authority granted to NMFS is the approval, partial approval,

or disapproval of the measures contained within Amendment 9.

Comment 11: One commenter supported the OFDs and is pleased that

both a stock biomass component and an F component are included.

Response: Comment noted. NMFS approved the OFDs, except for GOM

winter flounder, which was not included in the amendment. The OFDs are

not described in this rule, which makes changes to the text of

regulations implementing the FMP. While OFDs appear in the FMP, they do

not appear in the regulations.

Comment 12: One commenter supported halibut conservation, and

recommended a prohibition on halibut possession, rather than a 1-fish

possession limit of 36 inches (91.4 cm).

Response: NMFS recognizes that this fishery is seriously depleted

in comparison to historical levels. The measures approved in Amendment

9 will allow for the occasional incidental catch of halibut, but not a

directed fishery for that species. However, a complete prohibition on

halibut possession would not provide any substantive conservation

benefits, since mortality would still occur due to incidental catch.

Changes from the Proposed Rule

To clarify the DAS notification requirements for vessels issued a

limited access multispecies, occasional scallop, or combination permit,

the regulations in Secs. 648.4(c)(2)(iii), 648.10(b), and 648.14(c)(2)

have been revised.

In Sec. 648.10, paragraph (b) has been revised to incorporate the

applicable requirements contained in the final rule implementing the

Monkfish FMP (64 FR 54732, October 7, 1999).

Section headings for Secs. 648.80, 648.83, 648.86, 648.88, and

Sec. 648.90 have been revised to reflect revisions contained in the

final rule implementing the Monkfish FMP (64 FR 54732, October 7,

1999).

NMFS disapproved the fish size increases for winter flounder. As a

result, the regulations proposed in Secs. 648.83(a)(1) and

648.89(b)(1), as they relate to winter flounder only, have been removed

from this final rule. The size limits for halibut that are specified in

those same paragraphs, remain and are unchanged from the proposed rule.

NOAA codifies its OMB control numbers for information collection at

15 CFR part 902. Part 902 collects and displays the control numbers

assigned to information collection requirements of NOAA by OMB pursuant

to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This final rule codifies OMB

control number 0648-0307 for Sec. 648.10.

Under NOAA Administrative Order 205-11, dated December 17, 1990,

the Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere has delegated to the

Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, the authority to sign

material for publication in the Federal Register.

Classification

The Administrator, Northeast Region, NMFS, determined that

Amendment 9 is necessary for the conservation and management of the

Northeast Multispecies fishery and that it is consistent with the

Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable law, except for the

disapproved provisions.

This final rule has been determined to be significant for the

purposes of E.O. 12866.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

NMFS prepared an FRFA as part of the regulatory impact review,

which describes the impact this rule would have on small entities. The

FRFA is comprised of the IRFA and its supplement prepared by the

Council, dated December 14, 1998, and supplement prepared by NMFS,

dated January 27, 1999, public comments and responses that are included

in this document, the analysis of impacts and alternatives in Amendment

9, and the summary that is included here.

The Council, in its IRFA, had determined that this action would not

have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

However, NMFS concluded that a determination of non-significance could

not be made because of the inability to identify the number of vessels

that may

[[Page 55824]]

be impacted by measures in the proposed rule, namely the brush-sweep

trawl gear prohibition, the 1-fish halibut possession limit, and the

winter flounder fish size increase. In its supplement to the IRFA, NMFS

revisited each of these measures and concluded that the degree of

economic impacts on small entities varied depending on whether the

number of vessels impacted includes all permitted vessels, all active

vessels, or just those vessels directly impacted by a measure. A copy

of the FRFA is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).

The following section discusses (1) the need for, and objectives,

of the rule; (2) public comments on the IRFA; (3) the number of small

entities to which the rule will apply; (4) reporting and recordkeeping

requirements; (5) reasons for selecting the alternatives adopted in the

final rule and rejecting the alternatives; and (6) the measures that

minimize the economic impact of this action.

The need for, and objectives of, the rule are mainly to address

requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, as amended by the SFA on

October 11, 1996, eliminate overfishing, and rebuild many of the

groundfish stocks. Several comments were received that opposed

regulations that caused undue harm to the Cape Cod small boat fleet.

Those comments, and the agency's response, are summarized in the

preamble. No changes were made to the rule as a result.

This rule prohibits the possession of brush-sweep trawl gear while

in the possession of Northeast multispecies and fishing for, landing,

or possessing Northeast multispecies harvested with brush-sweep trawl

gear, unless the vessel has not been issued a multispecies permit and

fishes for Northeast multispecies exclusively in state waters. This

measure was selected in order to allow time to study the effect of this

gear on habitat and to protect the integrity of the DAS system. The

Council rejected the ``no-action'' alternative (no prohibition) because

continued use of brush-sweep trawl gear may significantly increase

trawl efficiency and thereby reduce the benefits of the FMP's effort

reduction program. The potential number of vessels that would be

impacted by the brush-sweep trawl gear prohibition is approximately 900

vessels, based on the number of permit holders, according to the NMFS

Regional Office database, that fish for multispecies with otter trawl

gear, and assuming all 900 vessels are currently using brush-sweep

gear.

This action implements a 1-fish per vessel halibut possession limit

with a minimum fish size of 36 inches (91.4 cm). These measures were

selected to promote the rebuilding of this overfished resource.

Alternatives to these measures that were considered but rejected were

status quo (no action); a 1-fish possession limit with a maximum fish

size of 48 inches (137.1 cm); a 1-fish possession limit combined with a

maximum fish size of 48 inches (137.1 cm) and a minimum fish size of 36

inches (91.4 cm); and a total prohibition on halibut possession. The

Council rejected the status quo alternative because of the need to

reduce directed fishing mortality on this overfished resource. The

Council rejected the maximum size provisions based on concerns that the

associated discard mortality would negate the intended conservation

benefits. The Council rejected a total prohibition as that measure

would not provide any substantive conservation benefits, since

mortality would still occur due to incidental catch.

The number of vessels affected by the proposed 1-fish halibut

possession limit may amount to 1,050 vessels based on the number of

permitted vessels in the multispecies fishery. This number includes

active limited access multispecies permit holders (1,000) combined with

a subset of one-half the estimated 100 active participants in the

directed halibut fishery that do not possess a Federal fisheries

permit. Active vessels (those that reported landings of halibut in

recent years) are estimated to be only those vessels that caught at

least one halibut (134 - 139 vessels) in 1996 or 1997.

The postponement of the VMS requirement (measure) mitigates impacts

of this rule on small entities because they do not have to invest in

VMS equipment at this time. The measure was selected, and the ``no

action'' alternative (no postponement of VMS) was rejected, because of

unresolved uncertainties regarding the equity among permit categories,

system efficiency, and costs. Between 91 and 110 vessels that fished as

Individual DAS vessels in 1998 would be required to have an operational

VMS unit under the ``no-action'' alternative if those vessels remained

in that permit category in 1999.

This rule also modifies the framework process to allow the Council

to make recommendations on adjustments or additions to selected

management measures and OFDs. Modification of the framework process

will not have any immediate impact on small entities. Specific

framework actions will be evaluated, including their economic impacts,

when they are developed and proposed by the Council. The Council

rejected the ``no-action'' alternative (no modification) as that would

prevent the Council's use of the procedure to recommend timely

adjustments or additions to management measures and OFDs.

NMFS disapproved the proposed fish size increases for winter

flounder as inconsistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other

applicable law.

This rule contains information collection requirements subject to

the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The rule restates requirements

concerning the installation of a vessel tracking system, documentation

of installation of a vessel tracking system, declarations of a vessel

being in or out of a fishery, and call-in systems.

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required

to respond to nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to

comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of

the PRA unless that collection of information displays a currently

valid OMB control number.

The requirement for installation of vessel tracking systems has

been approved under OMB control number 0648-0307, with an estimated

response time of 60 minutes. The other requirements have been approved

under OMB control number 0648-0202, with an estimated response time of

2 minutes for each requirement.

The contents of this rule also affect two other information

collection requirements. The requirement that a vessel must have a NE

multispecies permit in order to land or possess one halibut will

subject additional persons to the existing permit requirement approved

under OMB number 0648-0202. Those persons who are newly subject to the

permit requirement will also automatically be subject to the

requirement that permit holders submit VTRs, a requirement which has

been approved under OMB number 0648-0212. This request for the expanded

coverage of these requirements has been approved by OMB. The estimated

response time for these requirements is 35 minutes for the permit and 5

minutes per day for the logbook entries beyond those made in vessel

logbooks as part of normal fishing operations and includes the time

needed for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources,

gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing

the collection of information. Send comments regarding these burden

estimates or any other aspect of the data requirements, including

suggestions for reducing the burden, to NMFS (see ADDRESSES) and to the

Office of

[[Page 55825]]

Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget,

Washington, DC 20503 (ATTN: NOAA Desk Officer).

List of Subjects

15 CFR Part 902

Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

50 CFR Part 648

Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: October 7, 1999.

Andrew A. Rosenberg,

Deputy Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries

Service.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, 15 CFR part 902, chapter

IX, and 50 CFR part 648, chapter VI, are amended as follows:

15 CFR Chapter IX

PART 902--NOAA INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE

PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT; OMB CONTROL NUMBERS

1. The authority citation for part 902 continues to read as

follows:

Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

2. In Sec. 902.1, the table in paragraph (b) is amended by revising

under 50 CFR the following entry in numerical order:

Sec. 902.1 OMB control numbers assigned pursuant to the Paperwork

Reduction Act.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

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

Current OMB control number

CFR part or section where the information (all numbers begin with 0648-

collection requirement is located )

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

* * * * *

50 CFR

* * * * *

648.10 -0202 and -0307

* * * * *

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

50 CFR Chapter VI

PART 648--FISHERIES OF THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES

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

follows:

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

2. In Sec. 648.2, the definition for ``Brush-sweep trawl gear'' is

added, and the definitions for ``Nonregulated multispecies'' and

``Northeast (NE) multispecies or multispecies'' are revised to read as

follows:

Sec. 648.2 Definitions.

* * * * *

Brush-sweep trawl gear means trawl gear consisting of alternating

roller discs and bristle brushes that are strung along cables, chains,

or footropes, and aligned together to form the sweep of the trawl net,

designed to allow the trawl sweep to maintain contact with the ocean

floor, or any modification to trawl gear that is substantially similar

in design or effect.

* * * * *

Nonregulated multispecies means the subset of Northeast

multispecies that includes silver hake, red hake, ocean pout, and

Atlantic halibut.

Northeast (NE) multispecies or multispecies means the following

species:

American plaice--Hippoglossoides platessoides.

Atlantic cod--Gadus morhua.

Atlantic halibut--Hippoglossus hippoglossus.

Haddock--Melanogrammus aeglefinus.

Ocean pout--Macrozoarces americanus.

Pollock--Pollachius virens.

Redfish--Sebastes fasciatus.

Red hake--Urophycis chuss.

Silver hake (whiting)--Merluccius bilinearis.

White hake--Urophycis tenuis.

Windowpane flounder--Scophthalmus aquosus.

Winter flounder--Pleuronectes americanus.

Witch flounder--Glyptocephalus cynoglossus.

Yellowtail flounder--Pleuronectes ferrugineus.

* * * * *

3. In Sec. 648.4, paragraph (c)(2)(iii)(A) is revised to read as

follows:

Sec. 648.4 Vessel and individual commercial permits.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(2) * * *

(iii) * * *

(A) An application for a limited access multispecies permit must

also contain the following information: For vessels fishing for NE

multispecies with gillnet gear, with the exception of vessels fishing

under the Small Vessel permit category, an annual declaration as either

a Day or Trip gillnet vessel designation as described in

Sec. 648.82(k). A vessel owner electing a Day gillnet designation must

indicate the number of gillnet tags that he/she is requesting and must

include a check for the cost of the tags. A permit holder letter will

be sent to the owner of each eligible gillnet vessel informing him/her

of the costs associated with this tagging requirement and directions

for obtaining tags. Once a vessel owner has elected this designation,

he/she may not change the designation or fish under the other gillnet

category for the remainder of the fishing year. Incomplete

applications, as described in paragraph (e) of this section, will be

considered incomplete for the purpose of obtaining authorization to

fish in the NE multispecies gillnet fishery and will be processed

without a gillnet authorization.

* * * * *

4. In Sec. 648.10, paragraphs (b) and (d) are revised to read as

follows:

Sec. 648.10 DAS notification requirements.

* * * * *

(b) VMS Notification. (1) A scallop vessel issued a full-time or

part-time limited access scallop permit, or issued an occasional

limited access permit when fishing under the Georges' Bank Sea Scallop

Exemption Program specified under Sec. 648.58, or a scallop vessel

fishing under the small dredge program specified in Sec. 648.51(e), or

a vessel issued a limited access multispecies, monkfish, occasional

scallop, or combination permit whose owner elects to provide the

notifications required by this paragraph (b) using the VMS specified in

paragraph (b) of this section, unless otherwise authorized or required

by the Regional Administrator under paragraph (d) of this section, must

have installed on board an operational VMS unit that meets the minimum

performance criteria specified in Sec. 648.9(b) or as modified in

Sec. 648.9(a). The owner of such a vessel must provide documentation to

the Regional Administrator at the time of application for a limited

access permit that the vessel has an operational VMS unit installed on

board that meets those criteria. If a vessel has already been issued a

limited access permit without the owner providing such documentation,

the Regional Administrator shall allow at least 30 days for the vessel

to install an operational VMS unit that meets the criteria and for the

owner to provide documentation of such installation to the Regional

Administrator. A vessel that is required to, or whose owner has elected

to, use a VMS unit is subject to the following requirements and

presumptions:

(i) A vessel that have crossed the VMS Demarcation Line specified

under paragraph (a) of this section is deemed to be fishing under the

DAS program, unless the vessel's owner or authorized representative

declares the vessel out of the scallop or NE multispecies, or monkfish

fishery, as applicable, for a specific time period by notifying the

Regional Administrator through the VMS prior to the vessel leaving

port.

[[Page 55826]]

(ii) A part-time scallop vessel may not fish in the DAS allocation

program unless it declares into the scallop fishery for a specific time

period by notifying the Regional Administrator through the VMS.

(iii) Notification that the vessel is not under the DAS program

must be received prior to the vessel leaving port. A vessel may not

change its status after the vessel leaves port or before it returns to

port on any fishing trip.

(iv) DAS for a vessel that is under the VMS notification

requirements of this paragraph (b) begin with the first hourly location

signal received showing that the vessel crossed the VMS Demarcation

Line leaving port. DAS end with the first hourly location signal

received showing that the vessel crossed the VMS Demarcation Line upon

its return to port.

(v) If the VMS is not available or not functional, and if

authorized by the Regional Administrator, a vessel owner must provide

the notifications required by paragraphs (b)(1)(i), (ii), and (iii) of

this section by using the call-in notification system described under

paragraph (c) of this section, instead of using the VMS specified in

paragraph (b) of this section.

(2)(i) A vessel issued a limited access multispecies, monkfish,

occasional scallop, or combination permit must use the call-in

notification system specified in paragraph (c) of this section, unless

the owner of such vessel has elected under paragraph (b)(2)(iii) of

this section to provide the notifications required by paragraph (b) of

this section.

(ii) Upon recommendation by the Council, the Regional Administrator

may require, by notification through a letter to affected permit

holders, notification in the Federal Register, or other appropriate

means, that a multispecies vessel issued an Individual DAS or

Combination Vessel permit install on board an operational VMS unit that

meets the minimum performance criteria specified in Sec. 648.9(b) or as

modified in Sec. 648.9(a). An owner of such a vessel must provide

documentation to the Regional Administrator that the vessel has

installed on board an operational VMS unit that meets those criteria.

If a vessel has already been issued a permit without the owner

providing such documentation, the Regional Administrator shall allow at

least 30 days for the vessel to install an operational VMS unit that

meets the criteria and for the owner to provide documentation of such

installation to the Regional Administrator. A vessel that is required

to use a VMS shall be subject to the requirements and presumptions

described under paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (b)(1)(v) of this section.

(iii) A vessel issued a limited access multispecies, monkfish,

occasional scallop, or combination permit may be authorized by the

Regional Administrator to provide the notifications required by

paragraph (b) of this section using the VMS specified in paragraph (b)

of this section. The owner of such vessel becomes authorized by

providing documentation to the Regional Administrator at the time of

application for an individual or combination vessel limited access

multispecies permit that the vessel has installed on board an

operational VMS unit that meets the minimum performance criteria

specified in Sec. 648.9(b) or as modified in Sec. 648.9(a). Vessels

that are authorized to use the VMS in lieu of the call-in requirement

for DAS notification shall be subject to the requirements and

presumptions described under paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (b)(1)(v) of

this section. Those who elect to use the VMS do not need to call in DAS

as specified in paragraph (c) of this section. Vessels that do call in

are exempt from the prohibition specified in Sec. 648.14(c)(2).

* * * * *

(d) Temporary authorization for use of the call-in system. The

Regional Administrator may authorize or require, on a temporary basis,

the use of the call-in system of notification specified in paragraph

(c) of this section, instead of use of the VMS. If use of the call-in

system is authorized or required, the Regional Administrator shall

notify affected permit holders through a letter, notification in the

Federal Register, or other appropriate means. A multispecies vessel

issued an Individual DAS or Combination Vessel (regarding the

multispecies fishery) permit are authorized to use the call-in system

of notification specified in paragraph (c) of this section, unless

otherwise notified as specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this section.

* * * * *

5. In Sec. 648.14, paragraphs (a)(117), (a)(118) and (c)(31) are

added, and paragraphs (b), (c)(1), (c)(2) introductory text, (d)(1),

(e) and (g)(2) are revised to read as follows:

Sec. 648.14 Prohibitions.

(a) * * *

(117) Fish for, land, or possess NE multispecies harvested with

brush-sweep trawl gear unless the vessel has not been issued a

multispecies permit and fishes for NE multispecies exclusively in state

waters.

(118) Possess brush-sweep trawl gear while in possession of NE

multispecies, unless the vessel has not been issued a multispecies

permit and fishes for NE multispecies exclusively in state waters.

(b) In addition to the general prohibitions specified in

Sec. 600.725 of this chapter and in paragraph (a) of this section, it

is unlawful for any person owning or operating a vessel holding a

multispecies permit, issued an operator's permit, or issued a letter

under Sec. 648.4(a)(1)(i)(H)(3), to land, or possess on board a vessel,

more than the possession or landing limits specified in

Sec. 648.86(a),(b) and (c), or to violate any of the other provisions

of Sec. 648.86, unless otherwise specified in Sec. 648.17.

(c) * * *

(1) Fish for, possess at any time during a trip, or land per trip

more than the possession limit of NE multispecies specified in

Sec. 648.86(d) after using up the vessel's annual DAS allocation or

when not participating in the DAS program pursuant to Sec. 648.82,

unless otherwise exempted under Sec. 648.82(b)(3) or Sec. 648.89.

(2) For purposes of DAS notification, if required or electing to

have a VMS unit under Sec. 648.10:

* * * * *

(31) Possess or land per trip more than the possession or landing

limit specified under Sec. 648.86(c) if the vessel has been issued a

multispecies permit.

(d) * * *

(1) Possess, at any time during a trip, or land per trip, more than

the possession limit of NE multispecies specified in Sec. 648.88(a),

unless the vessel is a charter or party vessel fishing under the

charter/party restrictions specified in Sec. 648.89.

* * * * *

(e) In addition to the general prohibitions specified in

Sec. 600.725 of this chapter and in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this

section, it is unlawful for any person owning or operating a vessel

issued a scallop multispecies possession limit permit to possess or

land more than the possession limit of NE multispecies specified in

Sec. 648.88(c), or to possess or land regulated species when not

fishing under a scallop DAS, unless otherwise specified in Sec. 648.17.

* * * * *

(g) * * *

(2) Possess cod, haddock, and Atlantic halibut in excess of the

possession limits specified in Sec. 648.89(c).

* * * * *

6. In Sec. 648.80, paragraph (g)(4) is added to read as follows:

[[Page 55827]]

Sec. 648.80 Multispecies regulated mesh areas and restrictions on gear

and methods of fishing.

* * * * *

(g) * * *

(4) Brush-sweep trawl prohibition. No vessel may fish for, possess,

or land NE multispecies while fishing with, or while in possession of,

brush-sweep trawl gear.

* * * * *

7. In Sec. 648.83, paragraph (a)(1) is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 648.83 Multispecies minimum fish sizes.

(a) * * * (1) Minimum fish sizes for recreational vessels and

charter/party vessels that are not fishing under a NE multispecies DAS

are specified in Sec. 648.89. Except as provided in Sec. 648.17, all

other vessels are subject to the following minimum fish sizes,

determined by total length (T.L.):

Minimum Fish Sizes (T.L.)

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

Species Size (Inches)

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

Cod 19 (48.3 cm)

Haddock 19 (48.3 cm)

Pollock 19 (48.3 cm)

Witch flounder (gray sole) 14 (35.6 cm)

Yellowtail flounder 13 (33.0 cm)

American plaice (dab) 14 (35.6 cm)

Atlantic halibut 36 (91.4 cm)

Winter flounder (blackback) 12 (30.5 cm)

Redfish 9 (22.9 cm)

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

* * * * *

8. In Sec. 648.86, paragraph (c) is revised and paragraph (e) is

added to read as follows:

Sec. 648.86 Multispecies possession restrictions.

* * * * *

(c) Atlantic halibut. A vessel issued a NE multispecies permit

under Sec. 648.4(a)(1) may land or possess on board no more than one

Atlantic halibut per trip, provided the vessel complies with other

applicable provisions of this part.

* * * * *

(e) Other possession restrictions. Vessels are subject to any other

applicable possession limit restrictions of this part.

9. In Sec. 648.88, paragraphs (a)(1), (b), (c), and (d) are revised

to read as follows:

Sec. 648.88 Multispecies open access permit restrictions.

(a) * * *

(1) The vessel may possess and land up to 300 lb (136.1 kg) of cod,

haddock, and yellowtail flounder, combined, one Atlantic halibut, and

unlimited amounts of the other NE multispecies, per trip, provided that

it does not use or possess on board gear other than rod and reel or

handlines while in possession of, fishing for, or landing NE

multispecies, and provided it has at least one standard tote on board.

* * * * *

(b) Charter/party permit. A vessel that has been issued a valid

open access multispecies charter/party permit is subject to the

additional restrictions on gear, recreational minimum fish sizes,

possession limits, and prohibitions on sale specified in Sec. 648.89,

and any other applicable provisions of this part.

(c) Scallop multispecies possession limit permit. A vessel that has

been issued a valid open access scallop multispecies possession limit

permit may possess and land up to 300 lb (136.1 kg) of regulated

species when fishing under a scallop DAS allocated under Sec. 648.53,

provided the vessel does not fish for, possess, or land haddock from

January 1 through June 30 as specified under Sec. 648.86(a)(2)(i), and

provided the vessel has at least one standard tote on board.

(d) Non-regulated multispecies permit. A vessel issued a valid open

access nonregulated multispecies permit may possess and land one

Atlantic halibut and unlimited amounts of the other nonregulated

multispecies. The vessel is subject to restrictions on gear, area, and

time of fishing specified in Sec. 648.80 and any other applicable

provisions of this part.

10. In Sec. 648.89, paragraphs (b)(1) and (c) are revised to read

as follows:

Sec. 648.89 Recreational and charter/party restrictions.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(1) Minimum fish sizes. Persons aboard charter or party vessels

permitted under this part and not fishing under the DAS program, and

recreational fishing vessels in the EEZ, may not retain fish smaller

than the minimum fish sizes, measured in total length (T.L.) as

follows:

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

Species Size (Inches)

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

Cod 21 (53.3 cm)

Haddock 21 (53.3 cm)

Pollock 19 (48.3 cm)

Witch flounder (gray sole) 14 (35.6 cm)

Yellowtail flounder 13 (33.0 cm)

Atlantic halibut 36 (91.4 cm)

American plaice (dab) 14 (35.6 cm)

Winter flounder (blackback) 12 (30.5 cm)

Redfish 9 (22.9 cm)

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

* * * * *

(c) Possession restrictions--(1) Cod and haddock. Each person on a

recreational vessel may possess no more than 10 cod and/or haddock,

combined, in, or harvested from, the EEZ.

(i) For purposes of counting fish, fillets will be converted to

whole fish at the place of landing by dividing fillet number by two. If

fish are filleted into a single (butterfly) fillet, such fillet shall

be deemed to be from one whole fish.

(ii) Cod and haddock harvested by recreational vessels with more

than one person aboard may be pooled in one or more containers.

Compliance with the possession limit will be determined by dividing the

number of fish on board by the number of persons on board. If there is

a violation of the possession limit on board a vessel carrying more

than one person, the violation shall be deemed to have been committed

by the owner and operator.

(iii) Cod and haddock must be stored so as to be readily available

for inspection.

(2) Atlantic halibut. Charter and party vessels permitted under

this part, and recreational fishing vessels fishing in the EEZ, may not

possess, on board, more than one Atlantic halibut.

* * * * *

11. In Sec. 648.90, paragraphs (b) introductory text and (b)(1) are

revised to read as follows:

Sec. 648.90 Multispecies framework specifications.

* * * * *

(b) Within season management action. The Council may, at any time,

initiate action to add or adjust management measures if it finds that

action is necessary to meet or be consistent with the goals and

objectives of the Northeast Multispecies FMP, to address gear

conflicts, or to facilitate the development of aquaculture projects in

the EEZ. This procedure may also be used to modify FMP overfishing

definitions and fishing mortality targets which form the basis for

selecting specific management measures.

(1) Adjustment process. The Council shall develop and analyze

appropriate management actions over the span of at least two Council

meetings. The Council shall provide the public with advance notice of

the availability of both the proposals and the analyses and an

opportunity to comment on them prior to, and at, the second Council

meeting. The Council's recommendation on adjustments or additions to

management measures, other than to address gear conflicts, must come

from one or more of the following categories: DAS changes, effort

monitoring, data

[[Page 55828]]

reporting, possession limits, gear restrictions, closed areas,

permitting restrictions, crew limits, minimum fish sizes, onboard

observers, minimum hook size and hook style, the use of crucifiers in

the hook-gear fishery, fleet sector shares, recreational fishing

measures, area closures and other appropriate measures to mitigate

marine mammal entanglements and interactions, and any other management

measures currently included in the FMP. The Council's recommendation on

adjustments or additions to management measures for the purposes of

facilitating aquaculture projects must come from one or more of the

following categories: Minimum fish sizes, gear restrictions, minimum

mesh sizes, possession limits, tagging requirements, monitoring

requirements, reporting requirements, permit restrictions, area

closures, establishment of special management areas or zones, and any

other management measures currently included in the FMP.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 99-26839 Filed 10-14-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-22-F