The Council submitted an omnibus essential fish habitat (EFH) amendment to address EFH provisions for several FMPs for Northeastern fisheries. The omnibus EFH amendment document also included the EFH components of the Atlantic Herring FMP, which was then still under development by the Council. Although the Atlantic herring EFH components were included in the omnibus EFH amendment, they were not considered during Secretarial review of the omnibus EFH amendment. The EFH information for Atlantic herring was incorporated by reference into the FMP when that FMP was submitted for Secretarial approval. The NOA for the FMP invited comment on the approvability of the herring EFH provisions in the Council’s omnibus EFH amendment. Under the framework adjustment process for Atlantic herring, measures may be added or adjusted to describe, identify, and protect EFH and designate habitat areas of particular concern within EFH.

The FMP will be monitored on an annual basis. The status of the resource and the fishery will be reviewed by the Council's Atlantic Herring Oversight Committee in consultation with the Commission's Atlantic Herring Section. Recommendations on specifications will be developed, as well as any suggested changes to the management measures. These will be forwarded by the Herring Oversight Committee to the Council, which will take appropriate action. Specifications will be recommended to NMFS, and changes to management measures may be adopted through a framework adjustment or FMP amendment, as appropriate. This process will begin by July of each year so that changes can be implemented by January 1 of the following fishing year. The Commission is expected to implement any corresponding changes in state waters.

The framework adjustment process adopted in the FMP is identical to that used in other Northeast Region fisheries. This process allows changes to be made to the regulations in a timely manner, without going through the plan amendment process, as appropriate. It provides a formal opportunity for public comment that substitutes for the customary public comment period provided by publishing a proposed rule. If changes to the management measures were contemplated in the FMP and if sufficient opportunity for public comment on the framework action exists, NMFS may bypass the proposed rule stage and publish a final rule in the Federal Register . The management measures that may be implemented and adjusted through the framework process include: (1) Management area boundaries; (2) size, timing, or location of spawning area closures; (3) closed areas other than spawning closures; (4) restrictions in the amount of fishing time; (5) a days-at-sea effort control system; (6) adjustments to specifications; (7) adjustments to the Canadian catch deducted when determining specifications; (8) distribution of the TAC; (9) gear restrictions (such as mesh size) or requirements (such as bycatch-reduction devices); (10) vessel size or horsepower restrictions; (11) closed seasons; (12) minimum fish size; (13) trip limits; (14) seasonal, area, or industry sector quotas; (15) measures to describe EFH, fishing gear management measures to protect EFH, and designation of habitat areas of particular concern within EFH; (16) measures to facilitate aquaculture, such as 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 measures included in the FMP; (17) changes to the overfishing definition; (18) vessel monitoring system requirements; (19) limits or restrictions on the harvest of herring for specific uses; (20) quota monitoring tools, such as vessel, operator, or dealer reporting requirements; (21) permit and vessel upgrading restrictions; (22) implementation of measures to reduce gear conflicts, such as mandatory monitoring of a radio channel by fishing vessels, gear location reporting by fixed gear fishermen, mandatory plotting of gear by mobile fishermen, standards of operation when conflict occurs, fixed gear marking or setting practices; gear restrictions for certain areas, vessel monitoring systems, restrictions on the maximum number of fishing vessels, and special permitting conditions; (23) limited entry or controlled access system; (24) specification of the amount of herring to be used for roe; and (25) any other measure currently included in the FMP.

The Council, in its discussion of specifications for the Herring FMP, referred to an initial “fishing-up” period in which OY would not exceed MSY. A complete discussion is contained in section 3.2 of Volume I of the FMP. NMFS interprets the initial “fishing-up” period to mean the 2000 fishing year.

On July 24, 1995 (60 FR 37848), NMFS announced approval of the PMP to regulate foreign joint venture activities for Atlantic herring in the EEZ. The PMP, which set the initial specification for Atlantic herring, provided joint venture opportunities in the EEZ by allocating a portion of the allowable biological catch for joint venture processing. The PMP also established permit conditions and restrictions for foreign vessels that participate in joint ventures. Because the FMP addresses issues related to Atlantic herring foreign joint venture activities, NMFS withdraws approval of the PMP and removes existing regulations related to Atlantic herring (50 CFR 600.525) effective January 10, 2001.

Twelve sets of written comments on the FMP were received during the comment period date established by the NOA, which ended September 27, 1999. Those comments were considered by NMFS before it partially approved the FMP on October 27, 1999, and, while not specifically repeated here, those comments are characterized below.

NMFS also received 14 sets of written comments on the proposed rule, some of which included comments on the FMP, during the comment period specified in the proposed rule, which ended on April 21, 2000. Because the comment period for the proposed rule was distinct from, and followed, the comment period for the FMP, comments received during the proposed rule comment period were not considered in NMFS’ determination to approve the FMP. However, the comments addressing the proposed rule itself were considered in approval and implementation of the final rule effecting the FMP and its management measures and are responded to here. Those comments specifically addressing the FMP submitted after September 27, 1999, are not responded to here, since the comment period on the FMP had closed prior to their submission.

Comment 1 : A commenter expressed concern that the FMP prohibits TALFF even though the FMP acknowledges Atlantic herring is not fully harvested by the available domestic harvesting capacity. The commenter further stated that the provision on TALFF, as currently written, is not consistent with section 303(a)(4)(B) of the Magnuson- Stevens Act and that the FMP should be revised to provide for an annual specification of TALFF even if, in any given year, it is determined that the amount should be zero.

Response : NMFS concurs and disapproved the prohibition on TALFF. Section 303(a)(4)(B) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act provides that any fishery management plan that is prepared by any Council, or by the Secretary, with respect to any fishery, shall assess and specify the portion of OY which, on an annual basis, will not be harvested by fis hing vessels of the United States and can be made available for foreign fishing.

Comment 2 : A commenter reiterated EFH issues raised previously pertaining to the Northeast Omnibus EFH Amendment. The commenter also provided extensive comments on technical aspects of the Omnibus Amendment’s discussion of potential impacts to EFH from oil, gas, and mineral extraction, and the recommended conservation and enhancement measures dealing with these activities.

Response : The Northeast Omnibus EFH Amendment included the EFH components of the Atlantic Herring FMP, which was then still under development by the Council. When NMFS announced approval of the EFH amendments to several fishery management plans (64 FR 19503, April 21, 1999) it stated that the EFH information for Atlantic herring would be incorporated by reference into the Atlantic Herring FMP when that FMP was submitted for Secretarial approval. NMFS responded to the commenter’s comments submitted on the Northeast Omnibus EFH Amendment at that time.

Comment 3 : A commenter expressed concern about the level of effort in Management Area 1A and disagreed with NMFS’ concerns about the following: Discrepancies in vessel size between the Atlantic mackerel and Atlantic herring fisheries (which the commenter asked to have clarified); the lack of a real-time mechanism to monitor Canadian catch (tied to the adjustment of the TAC for Management Area 1A); and the lack of sufficient benefits from adjusting the TAC in Management Area 1A after October 1 because the fishing year ends December 31. The commenter also stated that a real-time monitoring system for the Canadian fishery does exist; that adjusting the TAC after October 1 could have substantial benefits to the eastern Maine fixed gear fishery; that date-certain spawning closures are problematic and do not protect spawning herring; that the overall strategy for protection of spawning herring is inconsistent between Federal and state waters; and that NMFS and the Council need to address the impacts of other fisheries on spawning herring, whereby vessels from other fisheries are not constrained from fishing in the spawning closures.

Response : Regarding the commenter’s concern about the level of effort in Management Area 1A, the management measures are intended to reduce herring landings from this area. The FMP effects TACs, assigned by management areas, to help prevent overfishing of the resource, and Management Area 1A in particular.

NMFS approved the vessel size restrictions. Regarding the commenter’s request to clarify differences in domestic vessel size restrictions between the Atlantic herring and Atlantic mackerel fisheries, the FMP states that domestic vessels ≥ 165 ft (50.3 m) in length, or > 750 GRT, or > 3,000 horsepower are not permitted to catch, take, or harvest herring in or from the EEZ. Amendment 8 to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid and Butterfish Fishery Management Plan, however, provides that domestic vessels > 165 ft (50.3 m) in length and 750 GRT, or > 3,000 horsepower are not permitted to catch, take, or harvest mackerel in or from the EEZ.

Further, regarding vessel restrictions for processing, the FMP states that domestic vessels > 165 ft (50.3 m) in length, or > 750 GRT, are allowed to process or receive herring in the EEZ, but are limited to the allocated amount specified pursuant to the specification process for USAP. Amendment 8 to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid and Butterfish Fishery Management Plan, however, provides no size restrictions for processing vessels.

The differences between the mackerel and herring size specifications do not result in any practical differential impact on vessels currently subject to these specifications. Nevertheless, NMFS will continue to work with the New England and Mid-Atlantic Councils (Councils) and the Commission to resolve these minor inconsistencies in order to facilitate FMP administration.

Regarding NMFS’ concern that there is no real-time mechanism to monitor Canadian catch, even if Canadian data could be obtained, there is no way to ensure that it would be provided in future years. Therefore, NMFS disapproved adjustment of the TAC for Management Area 1A if the NB, Canada, fixed gear fishery would not harvest 20,000 mt of Atlantic herring by October 1.

NMFS disapproved the spawning closures measure.

Comment 4 : The Commission commented in support of the FMP’s full implementation and acknowledged its close coordination with the Council during the development of the FMP.

Response : The Commission coordinated development of its Amendment 1 to its Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Sea Herring simultaneously with the Council’s development of the FMP. In its attempt to maintain consistency with the Federal FMP, the Commission adopted the Council’s proposed measures, where feasible, in its own plan, which was effective in February 1999. Disapproval by NMFS of several measures of concern in the Federal FMP has resulted in inconsistencies between the Commission and Federal plans. NMFS is working with the Commission and Councils to resolve any inconsistencies as they cooperatively develop future management measures.

Comment 5 : A commenter stated that the FMP fails to prevent overfishing, minimize bycatch, and protect EFH. With regard to EFH, the commenter said that the Omnibus EFH Amendment incorrectly concluded that mid-water trawls have minimal effects on EFH; the Omnibus Amendment and the FMP failed to minimize fishing gear impacts on EFH; and the FMP fails to protect herring egg beds throughout the range of the stock. The commenter also stated that the Environmental Impact Statement for the FMP fails to discuss adequately the direct, indirect and cumulative environmental impacts of the proposed action; and that NMFS failed to undertake an Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7 formal consultation to determine the proposed action’s potential to jeopardize threatened or endangered species.

Response : The Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) reviewed the overfishing definition for Atlantic herring for compliance with guidelines provided in 50 CFR part 600, including consideration of whether the overfishing definition has sufficient scientific merit, is likely to result in effective action to protect the stock from closely approaching or reaching an overfished status, provides a basis for the objective measurement of the status of the stock against the overfishing definition, and is operationally feasible. Based on its review, the NEFSC certified that the overfishing definition complies with 50 CFR part 600 guidelines. The NEFSC further stated that the current estimates of biological reference points for this stock complex are based on the best available scientific information but added that the Herring Plan Development Team (PDT), Stock Assessment Review Committee (SARC)-Pelagic Working Group, and the Commission’s Herring Section recognize that further work and analyses are necessary for the stock complex and its components, and revisions will probably be required. These committees will continue to work on improving estimates of Bmsy, Fmsy (the fishing mortality rate consistent with the production of MSY), and MSY for Atlantic herring and may recommend changes in the future. The NEFSC will continue to monitor abundance, recruitment, fishing mortality and other information for the Atlantic herring stock complex and fishery and will recommend adjustments, if and when necessary.

The information available on the extent of bycatch in the herring fishery is summarized in sec. E.6.4.2.6. of the FMP and is further addressed throughout the FMP. This information, while not representative of the entire fishery in all areas and seasons, indicates that the traditional purse seine and mid-water trawl herring fisheries are relatively “clean” fisheries, with limited bycatch of other species.

There is some concern over possible marine mammal interactions with the herring mid-water trawl fishery, based on experience with other mid-water trawl fisheries. For this reason, NOAA listed the herring mid-water trawl fishery as a Category II fishery (defined at § 229.2 (60 FR 45086, August 30, 1995)). This will facilitate the use of marine mammal observers to determine the extent of any interactions. Further, restrictions on the size of vessels in the herring fishery may reduce the likelihood of bycatch of marine mammals. Large pelagic trawlers in the mackerel fishery are known to have taken marine mammals. The prohibition on the catching of herring by large domestic vessels may prevent a possible recurrence of this problem.

Management of the Atlantic herring fishery relies on accurate estimates of catches, catch rates, and bycatch. The FMP contains a measure that provides NMFS (and, cooperatively, the states) with the ability to place observers on board vessels to collect this information if necessary.

With regard to EFH issues, NMFS disagrees that the omnibus amendment incorrectly concluded that mid-water trawls have minimal effects on EFH. The 1998 Auster and Langton report referenced in the Omnibus Amendment provided a literature review of all available scientific information pertaining to gear impacts on habitat. No reference was made to mid-water trawl gear. Pursuant to 50 CFR 648.2, a mid-water trawl is defined as trawl gear designed to fish for, or that is capable of fishing for, or that 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. Based upon this definition and the lack of information documenting adverse impacts to bottom habitat from mid-water trawls, the Council correctly concluded that mid-water trawls do not significantly impact the sea floor or other EFH.

The Councils approached the evaluation of impacts from fishing gears methodically. They identified the major gears used in the region based on landings, described the major gears, identified that otter trawls and scallop dredges were the most likely to have adverse impacts on habitat, appended a summary of the literature on fishing gear impacts to habitat, and described other impacts from fishing activities such as the impacts of fishing-related marine debris and lost gear, impacts of aquaculture, and impacts of at-sea fish processing. The Councils also evaluated fisheries management measures currently in place and assessed their impact on EFH. Finally, the Councils identified a number of areas that require further research in order to provide a better basis for determining fishing gear impacts, such as the spatial distribution and extent of fishing effort for gear types; the effects of specific gear types along a gradient of effort on specific habitat types; and recovery rates of various habitat types following fishing activity. Although the commenter may disagree with the manner in which the information was presented, NMFS concludes that the Councils satisfied the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the EFH requirements (50 CFR 600.815(a)(3)) regarding the assessment of fishing gear impacts.

The Council can use the framework adjustment process to address future identified impacts to herring EFH. Based upon management measures in place in other fishery management plans, as well as those within the Herring FMP as explained in the Northeast Omnibus Amendment, the Council has satisfied its requirement under 50 CFR 600.815(a)(3)(iii) to minimize, to the extent practicable, adverse effects on EFH.

Environmental impacts of this action are discussed in section E.7.0 of the FMP. The action is not expected to have a negative impact on the biological components of the herring fishery and is expected to have a net positive impact on the economic and social components of the herring fishery. Spawning stock biomass is projected to continue to increase at the same time that landings of herring could double. In the long-term, the establishment of TACs and effort controls are expected to result in a sustainable herring fishery. The social impacts of the action are not expected to be large in scale, long-term, or far-reaching. Fishermen in the Gulf of Maine (GOM) may be the most affected, primarily by forcing a redistribution of fishing effort from the inshore area. Some fishermen in other fisheries will have the opportunity to enter the herring fishery, which may alleviate problems caused by increasing restrictions in those fisheries.

NMFS completed a biological opinion (BO), pursuant to section 7 of the ESA, on the FMP on September 17, 1999. The BO concluded that while competition with the herring fishery may affect the availability of sufficient prey for endangered whales, the complexity of ecosystem interactions and the logistical difficulties of conducting necessary sampling have hindered conclusive demonstration of the existence of competition. This opinion further concluded that the proposed Federal herring fishery is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of threatened or endangered species or designated critical habitat. The BO also includes an Incidental Take Statement that provides the fishery with an exemption from the take prohibitions established in section 9 of the ESA.

Comment 6 : A commenter expressed concern that a serious decline in the herring stock in the GOM is due to mid-water trawling and suggested closing areas in the GOM to mid-water gear.

Response : While NMFS acknowledges some concern for the inshore portion of the stock in the GOM, the stocks offshore are robust. There is no credible evidence that any decline in the herring stock in the inshore GOM is due to any particular type of gear. The FMP limits TACs in each of the established herring management areas. Attainment of the TAC, therefore, would close a management area to directed herring fishing by any gear type. The measures do not, however, include the establishment of closed areas to address fishing mortality or other concerns.

Comment 7 : A commenter supported the FMP as submitted, with the following exceptions: That the spawning area closures scheme is seriously flawed and should be rejected; JVP should be disapproved; and the word “shoreside” should be added to one of the FMP objectives, to read, “To maximize domestic shoreside use and encourage value-added product utilization.”

In requesting that the Secretary reject spawning area closures, the commenter stated that the date-certain approach proposed in the FMP will eliminate fishing opportunities. The commenter added that it will also be unsuccessful in reducing spawning fish mortality if herring are not spawning during the dates that the areas are closed. The commenter further added that spawning closures should also apply to mobile, bottom-tending vessels in addition to purse seiners and mid-water trawlers. The commenter also opposed the 2,000-lb (907.2-kg) incidental catch allowance.

In requesting disapproval of JVP, the commenter argued that the FMP seriously underestimates the amount of DAP that exists to freeze, or otherwise process, herring. The commenter also raised the equity issue that a zero allocation for JVP would be consistent with the zero allocation for USAP.

The commenter requested that the word “shoreside” be added to one of the FMP objectives because the word was removed by the Council in finalizing this objective after 2 years of having been included in that objective. The commenter stated that, by eliminating this word, the Region’s shoreside processors become less competitive globally than large offshore processing vessels would be, which the commenter found contrary to national standard 8.

The commenter also included suggestions for EFH, which it submitted to the Council on July 27, 1998, and other suggestions for improving management of the fishery.

Response : NMFS disapproved the spawning closures.

Regarding the request for disapproval of JVP, the amount expected to be used by DAP was estimated and subtracted from the DAH, along with herring transported to Canada (BT). The FMP provides that, if there is any DAH remaining, it may be made available for JVP. Such was the case. Regarding the comment that since USAP is zero, JVP should be zero, the Council addressed this issue by voting at its July 1999 meeting to increase USAP to 20,000 mt for the 2000 fishing year and to establish the same amount for JVPt. The Council’s request and attendant analysis are under NMFS review.

In response to the commenter’s request that the word “shoreside” should be added to one of the FMP objectives the Council, after public discussion, chose not to take the position that either shoreside processors or existing small freezer trawlers were more desirable than the other and decided to forward the FMP without the word “shoreside” in that objective. NMFS disagrees that the objective, as approved, violates national standard 8.

The commenter’s suggestions for EFH and improving management of the fishery are acknowledged and were previously responded to in association with approval of the Northeast Omnibus EFH Amendment.

Comment 8 : A commenter stated that USAP should be at least equal to JVP; the Mid-Atlantic Council should align large vessel size in the mackerel fishery with the New England Council’s herring vessel size; the days out of the fishery scheme is too burdensome to be effective; and a roe fishery should not be allowed because while searching for herring with the proper roe content, large amounts of herring are discarded. The commenter added that allowing roe fishing is shortsighted because once established, the economic pressure of such a lucrative fishery would make curtailing it politically impossible.

Response : As to USAP being equal to JVP, see response to comment 7.

With regard to aligning large vessel size in the mackerel fishery with the vessel size established by this FMP, as stated previously, the Atlantic Herring and Atlantic Mackerel fishery management plans are separate from each other (neither adversely affecting the other). Their differences do not hinder either plan from meeting its respective objectives and there are no practical differential impacts on vessels currently subject to the size specifications. Nevertheless, NMFS will continue to work with the Councils and the Commission to resolve these inconsistencies in order to facilitate FMP administration as they continue to develop future management measures.

NMFS disapproved the proposed days-out-of-the-fishery provision.

After exploring alternatives for allowing a roe fishery, the Council chose to allow this activity and to monitor its development. This allows the cautious development of a fishery that takes advantage of the high value of herring roe, while at the same time protecting the resource. Furthermore, the possession of herring roe is only authorized if carcasses are retained. Should the amount of herring harvested for roe become a concern, the Council may initiate a framework adjustment action to implement additional management measures to limit the harvest of herring for roe.

Comment 9 : A commenter raised the need for an ecosystem-wide, integrated approach to population assessments.

Response: NMFS acknowledges that ecosystem approaches to fishery assessment and management are desirable and is working on such approaches that may prove useful in the future. However, the current population assessment is consistent with the best available scientific information and scientific practices, is consistent with requirements of applicable law, and is adequate to manage the herring fishery effectively.

Comment 10 : A commenter argued for a prohibition on bottom trawls during the spawning season and added that fixed-date spawning closures will not be effective.

Response : NMFS disapproved the spawning closures measure.

Comment 11: A commenter disagreed with the size restrictions on domestic vessels and the establishment of an “at-sea processing” sector, which could discriminate against large vessels. The commenter argued that the size restriction was included in the FMP with the intent of eliminating an existing freezer trawler. The commenter argued further that there is no analysis on “the effect or consequence of including or excluding vessels based on their length, tonnage, or horsepower either individually, all three, or a combination of any two of the specifications”. The commenter concluded that the vessel size limits adversely affect the ability of those who would develop and supply the export markets for whole round frozen-at-sea herring.

Response: The Council did not intend to exclude any current participants in the herring fishery, but only to restrict the size of vessels. The Council reasoned that restricting the size of vessels entering the open access fishery would slow the increase in harvest rates. It stated that this is consistent with the 1998 SARC recommendation that the herring harvest be increased in an incremental manner until the precision of stock estimates can be improved. In actual effect, this measure allocates the herring resource to existing participants and future participants that comply with the size restrictions. For the vessels identified as having caught herring in 1997, the maximum length was 126 ft (38.4 m), the maximum horsepower was 2,100, and the maximum GRT was 246. While there are mid-water trawl vessels that exceed these criteria and may desire to participate in the fishery in the future, there were no vessels actively participating in the herring fishery during development of this FMP that exceeded the size limits specified in the FMP.

The FMP provides that vessels over the size limits for harvesting herring may participate in the fishery by processing at sea. The annual specification process, in this case, USAP, which is set at zero initially, is intended to provide a mechanism for the Council to control, if necessary, the development of large vessel at-sea processing capability for the herring fishery. While the question of excess capacity is not solely one of vessel size, given the existence of available capacity in the Northeast Region and recent attempts to reduce overall capacity in other U.S. fisheries, the Council chose not to allow large domestic vessels in the fishery until it is certain that the capacity they represent can be accommodated.

The Council set the initial specification for USAP at zero. However, it voted at its July 1999 meeting to request an increase in USAP to 20,000 mt for the 2000 fishing year. The Council request and analysis are currently under NMFS review.

Comment 12 : A commenter considered the FMP to be overly broad and exceeding the intent of Congress. The commenter specifically cited the breadth of EFH designation, noting that EFH appeared to be designated over the range of the species, and in estuarine and coastal waters of the states.

Response : These concerns were addressed in the Northeast Omnibus EFH Amendment, which is incorporated into this action, and summarized here. The Magnuson-Stevens Act defines EFH as those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity. Therefore, the geographic scope of EFH must be sufficiently broad to encompass the biological requirements of the species. The information that the Councils used for EFH designation was primarily species distribution and relative abundance data, which is “level 2” information under the EFH regulations (50 CFR 600.815). Since the information available was not more specific (e.g., did not show species production by habitat type), the approach prescribed by the regulations led to fairly broad EFH designations. The EFH regulations at 50 CFR 600.10 interpret the statutory definition of EFH to include aquatic areas that are used by fish, including historically used areas, where appropriate, to support a sustainable fishery and the managed species' contribution to a healthy ecosystem, provided that restoration is technologically and economically feasible. The Councils' EFH designation is consistent with these requirements.

Comment 13 : A commenter stated that the conservation and enhancement recommendations for non-fishing impacts to EFH that are provided in the omnibus EFH amendments are neither based on the best available science, nor sufficiently supported. The commenter contended that the recommended measures do not take into consideration current practices, and are likely to be in conflict with measures being pursued under other regulatory programs. The commenter also stated that the Magnuson-Stevens Act did not empower the Councils to address non-fishing activities.

Response : NMFS disagrees. The information presented in the omnibus EFH amendments is well researched and is substantiated by the best available scientific information. The commenter did not provide examples of specific information not considered by the Councils.

Conservation and enhancement recommendations for non-fishing industries were included to satisfy the requirements of section 303(a)(7) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act to “identify other actions to encourage the conservation and enhancement of [EFH].” This information is provided to assist non-fishing industries in avoiding impacts to EFH. The recommendations are neither posed as, nor meant to be, binding in nature. It is up to the discretion of the non-fishing industries and relevant regulatory agencies whether these recommendations are implemented.

Additionally, under section 305(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS is required, and the Councils are authorized, to make conservation recommendations to any Federal or state agency regarding any activity that would adversely affect EFH. Moreover, Federal agencies are required to respond to these recommendations in writing.

Comment 14 : A commenter stated that the amendment contains no meaningful threshold of significance or likelihood of adverse effect on habitat for non-fishing impacts. The commenter suggested that the consultation and conservation recommendation provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act will be burdensome and unworkable. The commenter also contended that the consultation procedures will be redundant with requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), costly, and time-consuming.

Response : The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires Federal action agencies to consult with NMFS on activities that may adversely affect EFH. Adverse effects, as defined at 50 CFR 600.810(a), means any impact that reduces the quality and/or quantity of EFH. Adverse effects may include, for example, direct effects through contamination or physical disruption, indirect effects such as loss of prey or reduction in species fecundity, and site-specific or habitat-wide impacts, including individual, cumulative, or synergistic consequences of actions. Only actions that have a reasonably foreseeable adverse effect require consultation.

Consultations are not likely to be redundant or inefficient. The EFH regulations provide for streamlined consultation procedures, such as general concurrences and abbreviated consultations, that may be used when the activities at issue do not have the potential to cause substantial adverse effects on EFH. The EFH consultation requirements will be consolidated with other existing consultation and environmental review procedures wherever appropriate. This approach will ensure that EFH consultations do not duplicate other environmental reviews, yet still fulfill the statutory requirement for Federal actions to consider potential effects on EFH.

Comment 15 : A commenter stated that the Omnibus EFH Amendment generally failed to address the potential for significant adverse impacts of this amendment on non-fishing entities, specifically citing the requirements of NEPA and the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA).

Response : The conservation and enhancement recommendations outlined in the Omnibus EFH Amendment include a review of suggested measures for municipal, state, and Federal agencies and other organizations for the conservation and enhancement of EFH. As stated earlier, these recommendations are non-binding. Any regulatory action that may reflect these recommendations will be subject to the analysis and public review required by state or Federal law, which will be the appropriate vehicle for consideration of impacts to both fishing and non-fishing entities.

In the environmental assessment (EA) included with the Omnibus EFH Amendment, the Council found, and NMFS concurs, that there will be no significant impacts on the human environment as a result of this amendment. The EFH regulations and NOAA policy require that NMFS coordinate EFH consultations with other consultation and commenting requirements under environmental review procedures currently in place. This will eliminate duplication and ensure a workable review process. The analytical requirements of the RFA apply only to regulatory actions for which a general notice of proposed rulemaking (i.e., notice-and- comment rulemaking) is required under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) or another statute. The requirements of the RFA did not apply to the approval of the EFH portions of the FMP, since a general notice of proposed rulemaking was not required. Nothing related to EFH of Atlantic herring was codified in regulatory text in 50 CFR part 600, because no regulatory measures related to EFH were proposed in the FMP.

Comment 16 : A commenter charged that the EFH provisions of the FMP do not comply with Magnuson-Stevens Act national standards 2 (best available scientific information), and 7 (unnecessary duplication).

Response : As a part of the Council's Omnibus EFH Amendment, the Atlantic herring section was intended to address only habitat issues, including the EFH requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

The Omnibus EFH Amendment was developed with significant input from scientists of the NEFSC and is based upon the best scientific information available. In the strategic plan portion of the amendment, the Councils clearly stated their commitment to updating the amendment as new information becomes available. NMFS finds the amendment consistent with national standard 2.

The commenter did not elaborate upon the assertion that the amendment violates national standard 7, so NMFS assumes, for the purpose of responding to this comment, that the commenter believes that the EFH consultation process is duplicative of other federally required consultation processes. NMFS has determined that the EFH amendment is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, including national standard 7. Inter-agency consultations on Federal activities that may adversely affect EFH are required by the Magnuson-Stevens Act; they are not optional. Section 305(b)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act states: “Each Federal agency shall consult with the Secretary with respect to any action authorized, funded, or undertaken, or proposed to be authorized, funded, or undertaken, by such agency that may adversely affect any essential fish habitat identified under this Act.”

Existing Federal statutes such as the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and NEPA already require consultation or coordination between NMFS and other Federal agencies. As explained earlier, EFH consultations will be conducted to the greatest extent possible under existing review processes and within existing process time frames. NMFS is committed to a consultation process that will be effective, efficient, and to the extent possible non-duplicative. The EFH regulations at 50 CFR 600.920 suggest that NMFS be consulted as early as possible in project planning so that appropriate conservation measures can minimize the potential for adverse effects to EFH. The amendment contains conservation recommendations that are appropriate for many Federal actions, and they can also serve as guidelines that should be considered during project planning.

Comment 17 : A commenter expressed concern regarding the application of a framework adjustment process to EFH. The commenter was concerned that the framework process would allow changes to these measures to be published as a final rule without first publishing them as a proposed rule. The commenter stated that non-fishing interests lack representation at Council meetings and, therefore, will not have an opportunity to comment on actions regarding EFH. The commenter asserted that the framework adjustment process will foster inconsistencies in treatment among the different NMFS Regions and the Fishery Management Councils, thereby complicating the EFH consultation process. The commenter requested that the inclusion of these measures be delayed until revision of NMFS EFH interim final regulations and guidelines.

Response : The framework adjustment process requires the Councils, when making specifically allowed adjustments to the FMP, to develop and analyze the actions over the span of at least two Council meetings. The Councils must provide the public with advance notice of the meetings through publication of the meeting agenda in the Federal Register , the proposals and the analysis, and provide an opportunity to comment on the proposals prior to, and at, the second Council meeting. Upon review of the analysis and public comment, the Council may recommend to NMFS that the measures be published as a final rule, if certain conditions are met. NMFS may either publish the measures as a final rule, or as a proposed rule if NMFS or the Council determines that additional public comment is needed. NMFS believes that there is enough flexibility in the framework system to ensure that the affected parties will be able to participate. NMFS also believes that there is little likelihood of significant inconsistencies occurring between regions, since all measures are reviewed by NMFS Headquarters.

The list of measures that can be implemented by framework included in the FMP is inclusive to give the Councils maximum flexibility to respond quickly to fishery information as it becomes available and to adjust the regulations accordingly. As such, modifications to EFH and Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPC) can be implemented in an expedited manner if circumstances warrant, based upon Council and NMFS approval. The framework adjustment process requires adherence to all applicable law.

Comment 18 : A commenter recommended that the Area 1A TAC be adjusted upward, not to exceed 60,000 mt, with the condition that the combined TAC for Area 1A and 1B not exceed 70,000 mt. Other commenters asked for an upward adjustment to 55,000 mt or that Areas 1A and 1B be combined for a single quota of 70,000 mt.

Response : Since NMFS may only approve or disapprove an FMP measure, it was constrained to accept the 45,000 mt TAC for Area 1A. However, the Council voted at its May 3-4, 2000, meeting to request an inseason transfer of 15,000 mt of TAC from Area 1B (offshore) to Area 1A (inshore). The Council’s request would increase the Area 1A quota to 60,000 mt and reduce the quota in Area 1B to 10,000 mt. The Council’s request is currently under review.

Comment 19 : A commenter stated that language should be clarified to allow landing of herring caught in any open area in an area that has been closed to directed fishing due to attainment of that area’s TAC.

Response : The Council did not intend to disallow landing of herring caught in open areas in areas closed to directed fishing. Regulatory language has been clarified to allow landing of any amount of herring in areas where possession is restricted to 2,000 lb (907.2 kg) of Atlantic herring due to attainment of 95 percent of that area’s TAC, provided such herring was caught lawfully in an open area and all gear is stowed and is not available for immediate use.

Comment 20 : A commenter stated that the regulations prohibit transferring fish in or from closed areas, but that IWPs and USAPs in state waters are allowed to do so.

Response : The FMP allows vessels to transfer up to 2,000 lb (907.2 kg) of herring per day to other U.S. vessels in or from closed areas in Federal waters.

Comment 21 : A commenter stated that the requirement that lobster and tuna fishermen who occasionally purchase bait at sea obtain permits is unnecessarily burdensome.

Response : Section 648.4(a)(10)(i)(A)( 1 ) exempts a vessel that possesses herring solely for its own use as bait, providing the vessel does not have purse seine, mid-water trawl, pelagic gillnet, sink gillnet, or bottom trawl gear on board, from the requirement to obtain an Atlantic herring permit. Also exempted under § 648.4(a)(10)(i)(2) is a skiff or other similar craft used exclusively to deploy the net in a purse seine operation during the fishing trip of a vessel that is duly permitted under part 648.

Comment 22 : A commenter stated that defining a shore-based pump operator as a herring dealer will add confusion to dealer reporting requirements and will decrease report quality.

Response : NMFS agrees and has removed shore-based pump operators from the herring dealer definition.

Comment 23 : A commenter stated that the definition for the VMS currently limits fishers to one approved system and that the regulation should provide a choice of VMS systems. Another commenter, who proposed its own VMS system as a low cost alternative to the existing NMFS-approved system, suggested that the unnecessarily high cost of the one approved VMS is inconsistent with national standard 8.

Response : To ensure efficient and expeditious implementation of the VMS requirement in the herring fishery, the Regional Administrator has determined that such requirements, at this time, should be consistent with existing VMS requirements in other fisheries, such as the Atlantic scallop fishery. The definition does not limit the fishery to one approved system. The opportunity exists for any vendor to apply to the Regional Administrator for approval of the vendor’s VMS system. NMFS will annually approve VMS systems that meet the minimum performance criteria specified in § 648.9(b). Any changes to the performance criteria will be published annually in the Federal Register and a list of approved VMS systems will be published in the Federal Register upon addition or deletion of a VMS from the list.

Comment 24 : A commenter stated that the final rule should consider incorporating the Council’s recommended 2000 specifications previously approved by the Council (decreases JVPt by 20,000 mt and increases USAP by 20,000 mt).

Response : The Council has submitted its recommended 2000 specifications with an accompanying analysis to NMFS. Its submission package is undergoing NMFS review and is being processed separately as an inseason adjustment.

Comment 25 : A commenter stated that it is unfair to U.S. fishermen selling herring to Canadian carriers to be limited by the FMP. The commenter suggested that the Boat Transfer (BT) of 4,000 mt be removed from the FMP to enhance free trade. The commenter further stated that the fixed gear (weir/stop seine) sector of the U.S. herring fishery should be exempted from the Area 1 TAC, as the Canadian fixed gear fishery is in New Brunswick, at least until the sector’s annual harvest becomes a significant portion of the region’s herring fishery.

Response : Because the removal of herring for purposes of transferring to Canadian carriers is part of the DAH, it must be included in OY calculations and restricted accordingly. The specification of BT allows the continuation of the historic trade in herring between the U.S. and Canada, while addressing the concerns of other U.S. processors by preventing this trade from being an unlimited transfer that reduces their access to the resource. While the commenter’s suggestions are directed to future management measures rather than to these regulations, upon implementation of this rule the Council will have the ability to revise the specifications and TAC distribution method. It would be appropriate for the commenter to raise his concerns in the Council forum.

Comment 26 : A commenter stated that the regulations should clarify the intent of the FMP, which is that a vessel may only land 2,000 lb (907.2 kg) of herring taken in an area closed because the TAC has been reached in a given calendar day. Other commenters stated that the regulations correctly note this limit, but do not include the FMP language, which reflects the Council’s intent that a vessel on a 5-day trip (for instance) would not be allowed to land 10,000 lb (4,536 kg) of herring.

Response : The regulations have been clarified.

Comment 27 : A commenter stated that NMFS authorized the broad use of framework adjustments to allow for expedited rulemaking, without demonstrating a need for such a provision. The commenter stated that this violates the APA because regulations could be implemented without adequate opportunity for public comment. The commenter also stated that the framework process violates the Magnuson-Stevens Act because it fails to conform with the statutorily required FMP process for proposing regulatory changes.

Response : The FMP allows the Council to 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 FMP, or to address gear conflicts. After a management action has been initiated, the Council develops and analyzes appropriate actions over the span of at least two Council meetings. Prior to the second Council meeting, a framework document is prepared that discusses and shows the impacts of the alternatives, which is made available to the public prior to the second or final framework meeting. The public is invited to participate and comment, in person or writing, at all pertinent Council and Committee meetings during the development of the framework action. If the Council recommends to NMFS that the action be issued as a final rule, the Council must first consider and provide support and analysis for several factors, one of which is whether there has been adequate notice and opportunity for participation by the public and members of the affected industry.

NMFS believes that there is enough flexibility in the framework system to ensure that the affected parties are able to participate. For further discussion of the framework adjustment process, see response 17.

Comment 28 : A commenter stated that the final rule needs to clearly express NMFS’ commitment to protecting EFH of Atlantic herring to the greatest extent practicable and that HAPC need to be identified. At a minimum, at least one of the identified herring schools in each inshore and offshore area should be managed as a no-take school. The commenter also stated that this final rule should explicitly state that the Council, through its EFH Committee, consider impacts of fishing gear and practices (as well as non-fishing impacts) to this school-as-habitat approach to EFH and HAPC for herring.

Response : As stated in the Northeast Omnibus EFH Amendment incorporated into the FMP and this action, the Council determined, and NMFS concurred, that the most appropriate way to identify EFH for herring was by using scientific studies to quantify herring abundance and distribution, and applying this information as a proxy for estimating habitat utilization. The identification of HAPC is recommended by the EFH regulations, but not required. Further, the approach proposed by the commenter appears to be more of an attempt to manage the herring fishery than a provision for conservation of herring EFH.

Comment 29 : A commenter stated that the final rule should require the applicable fishery managers to factor in the dietary needs of humpback whales and other marine mammals that are feeding on the Atlantic herring resource. The commenter said that the whale watching industry has been significantly impacted by the departure of whales from nearshore Federal waters due to the commercial removals of entire herring schools from areas such as Schoodic Ledge.

Response : The FMP states that the annual specification of OY will include consideration of economic, social, and ecological factors, which is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and national standard guidelines. For fishing year 2000, the OY has been set at 224,000 mt with a total herring biomass estimated at 2.9 million mt. It is projected that there will be a 39 percent increase in overall stock size. The 2000 specifications have been set at a conservative level well below ABC to allow for controlled industry growth. This conservative specification level also acknowledges the need to provide for an adequate forage base for marine mammals. However, the degree to which whales are dependent on the herring resource is unknown. Trophic interactions between the herring fishery and humpback and fin whales, as well as other marine mammals, were considered during the ESA consultation on the FMP. Given the complexity of ecosystem interactions, there is no demonstrated link between herring abundance and marine mammal survival and recovery. The ESA consultation recognizes that in the past the herring fishery has apparently affected the distribution of whales that eat herring. However, it also notes that the conversion of the herring fishery into a regulated fishery will benefit protected species management by the overall monitoring of effort patterns in the fishery and the designation of area-based TACs based on the health of the resource in those areas. In addition, one effect of the FMP is to limit harvest from Area 1 in the Gulf of Maine where the resource is considered fully utilized and move more of the fishery further offshore to Areas 2 and 3, where the resource is not considered fully utilized. The combination of area-based TACs and the movement of the herring fishery further offshore would benefit the whale watching industry in the nearshore Federal waters by preventing localized depletions of herring that may affect the distribution of whales in that area.

Comment 30 : A commenter stated that the NEFMC/Commission meetings were held in locations that were relatively inaccessible to the fixed gear fishermen in the herring fishery. The commenter said that this resulted in unfair representation at Council meetings of some sectors of the industry.

Response : Both the Council and Commission attempt to accommodate as much as possible all sectors of the fisheries within their areas of authority. Council meetings are held throughout New England during the course of the year. In deciding upon meeting sites, the Council and Commission must balance budgetary, staff, travel, facilities and other issues. Industry representatives and members of the public have the opportunity to submit written comments for the Council to consider during its deliberations. However, at least one representative of the fixed gear sector of this fishery is a member of the Council.

Regarding the 2001 meeting schedule, the commenter may appropriately raise his concern directly with the Council and Commission.

Comment 31 : A commenter stated the need to clarify vessel sizes in the regulations. Another commenter would extend this clarification to capacity, horsepower, and to discrepancies between Herring and Mackerel fishery management plans. A third commenter asked for clarification that a vessel’s total (not a single engine) horsepower of its main propulsion machinery cannot exceed 3,000 horsepower.

Response : Clarifications have been made, where possible, through modification of the regulatory text in this final rule (See Changes from the Proposed Rule).

Comment 32 : A commenter suggested that the Atlantic herring dealer definition include harvesters who sell herring to individuals for personal use.

Response : The definition of a dealer is not intended to identify persons who sell herring to end users, but rather to identify the person who first receives herring from a harvesting vessel. Including harvesters who sell herring to individuals for personal use in the Atlantic herring dealer definition, therefore, was not the intent of the Council, nor would it be consistent with the definition of a dealer in § 648.2.

Comment 33 : A commenter stated that the definition of USAP is not clear as to whether the specification refers to the quantity of whole round herring received by vessels for processing, or the quantity of finished, processed product.

Response : The definition of USAP has been modified in this final rule to clarify that it is the quantity of whole round herring that can be received for processing by U.S. vessels issued an Atlantic herring processing permit.

Comment 34 : A commenter stated that the SARC recommended that it would not be prudent to consider MSY above 200,000 mt until the sizes of recent year classes were better estimated.

Response : The Council’s Herring PDT and the Commission’s Technical Committee considered the SARC’s recommendation. Their response and a complete discussion of this issue may be found in the Overfishing Definition Section, Volume I, section 2.6 of the FMP.

Comment 35 : A commenter mentioned that, because of NMFS’ rejected management measures in the proposed rule that would have protected species of concern, it must undertake an additional Section 7 formal consultation to determine if the regulations implementing the partially approved FMP jeopardize any of these listed species.

Response : On July 13, 1999, a BO on the proposed FMP concluded that the operation of the Federal Atlantic herring fishery under the FMP could adversely affect but would not likely jeopardize the continued existence of endangered and threatened species under NMFS’ jurisdiction and also would not likely destroy or adversely modify right whale critical habitat.

Subsequent to completion of the BO, NMFS disapproved certain management measures in the proposed FMP. These included: (1) mandatory days out of the fishery; (2) spawning area closures; (3) adjustment of the TAC for Management Area 1A; and (4) a prohibition on specifying TALFF. Modification of the FMP does not automatically trigger reinitiating a formal Section 7 consultation. Re-initiation is only required if the consulting agency has retained involvement or control over the action, and the agency action has been modified in a manner that causes an effect to the listed species or critical habitat not considered in the BO. The FMP, as amended, will not cause an effect to listed species or critical habitat that has not been previously considered in the BO.

As stated in the BO, the primary benefit of regulating the Atlantic herring fishery will be the overall monitoring of effort patterns in the fishery and designation of area-based TACs established based on the health of the resource in those areas. An annual scientific review of the resource will allow for adjustments to the fishery as a result of fluctuations in stock size. The BO considered the adjustment of TAC in Management Area 1A, mandatory days out of the fishery and prohibition on specifying a TALFF as supporting administrative measures to the area-based TAC effort control measure. Since the method for controlling effort in the herring fishery has not been changed, disapproval of the measure for adjustment of the Area 1A TAC is not expected to result in effects to protected species or critical habitat not previously considered in the BO. Similarly, although the measure that would have required mandatory days out of the fishery has been disapproved, the trigger that closes the fishery in any one management area is still in place and is the same as what was considered in the BO. Finally, while NMFS disapproved the prohibition on establishing a TALFF, it has set the TALFF for the herring fishery at zero. Even if specified above zero, a TALFF would be specified from that portion of the OY that would not be taken in the domestic harvest. Therefore, disapproval of a prohibition on setting a TALFF is not expected to result in an effect to protected species that was not considered in the BO.

The Council included Area 1 spawning closures as an additional measure to help ensure the health of the herring resource. The Council also included a provision to add area closures by framework action. That provision of the FMP remains in place. The BO considered the effect that spawning closures would have on listed species, and concluded that spawning closures could provide some benefit to listed species. This conclusion was moderated, however, with information in the BO that the efficacy of spawning closures could be affected by the 2,000-lb (907.2-kg)/day incidental catch allowance and/or be offset by the potential for effort shifts causing amplification of any adverse effects of the fishery during the time right before and after spawning closures and in areas outside the boundaries of these closures. In addition to these considerations, the BO also examined the trophic relationships between listed species and herring in the current fishery where there are no spawning closures. Given the limited information available on these trophic relationships, the BO could only conclude that while competition with the herring fishery may affect the availability of sufficient prey for endangered whales, the complexity of ecosystem interactions and the logistical difficulties of conducting necessary sampling have hindered conclusive demonstration of the existence of competition. Since the BO did consider the effects to listed species and critical habitat in the presence and absence of spawning closures, re-initiation of the Section 7 consultation is not required. A new Section 7 consultation would not provide any additional or new information that could change the final determination of the BO.

In § 648.2, the definition of “Atlantic herring dealer” is changed to reflect that shore-based pump operators do not automatically qualify as Atlantic herring dealers. In the proposed rule, shore-based pump operators were designated as dealers because of the difficulty in identifying all the persons who receive herring from the pump operator. These persons have since been identified and will provide fisheries managers with better and more complete data.

In § 648.2, the definition of “Atlantic herring processor” is clarified by stipulating that an Atlantic herring dealer who purchases Atlantic herring for resale as bait must do so from a fishing vessel with a Federal Atlantic herring permit to be considered an Atlantic herring processor.

In § 648.2, the definition of “Council” is modified by adding “spiny dogfish fishery” to the list of fisheries under the auspices of the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council. This brings the definition up to date to reflect approval of the Spiny Dogfish Fishery Management Plan.

In § 648.2, the definition of “horsepower” is removed because, as proposed, it would have been administratively inconsistent with its use as applied to other fisheries of the Northeastern United States.

In § 648.2, the definition of “processing” is corrected by removing the words “icing, bleeding, heading or gutting” of Atlantic herring as an exception to the means of preparation of herring to render it suitable for use as bait.

In § 648.2, the definition of “U.S. at-sea processing (USAP)” is clarified to show that USAP means the specification of the total amount of herring available for processing by U.S. vessels issued an Atlantic herring processing permit.

In § 648.4, paragraph (a)(10)(i)(B) is clarified to show that the total horsepower of a vessel’s main propulsion machinery cannot exceed 3,000 horsepower. Prior to this clarification, the regulation could have been interpreted to apply horsepower restrictions to a single engine, which would have allowed a multi-engine vessel to exceed the limit established in the FMP.

In § 648.4, paragraph (c)(2)(vi)(C) is revised to indicate that the VMS vendor receipt required for certain vessels must be submitted initially not later than March 12, 2001.

In § 648.6, the first sentence of paragraph (a) is corrected by substituting the word “dealers” for “purchasers.” The section further retains language pertaining to small-mesh multispecies used as bait, which was added to § 648.6 after submission of the proposed rule for Atlantic herring. Atlantic herring is also added as an exemption from the requirement to possess a valid permit or letter of authorization when purchasing herring at sea if it is to be used for one’s own use as bait and certain specific fishing gear is not on board.

In § 648.7, the first sentence of paragraphs (a)(3)(i) and (b)(1)(i) were proposed for revision and the heading of paragraph (b)(1)(i) was proposed for removal. However, these revisions were implemented in the final rule implementing Amendment 1 to the FMP for Atlantic Bluefish Fishery and, therefore, are not repeated in this final rule.

In § 648.7, paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(A) is clarified.

In § 648.11, paragraph (a) is corrected by substituting the word “require” for the word “request” as pertains to the Regional Administrator’s authority to place sea samplers/observers aboard federally permitted fishing vessels.

In § 648.13, paragraph (e) is redesignated as paragraph (f) and is further corrected by modifying paragraph (f)(1) to reflect that persons receiving bait at sea for their own personal use are exempt from the requirement to possess a valid Atlantic herring permit or a letter of authorization from the Regional Administrator, providing certain specific fishing gear is not on board the vessel.

In § 648.14, paragraph (a)(103) is corrected to reflect that purchasers of herring at sea to be used for their own use as bait do not require an Atlantic herring dealer permit.

In § 648.200, paragraph (a) is corrected to reflect that the Atlantic Herring Plan Development Team shall meet at least annually, but no later than July, with the Commission’s Atlantic Herring Plan Review Team to develop and recommend specifications for the following year to the Council. The requirement in the proposed rule to present the specifications recommendation to the Council at its July meeting is removed.

In § 648.202, paragraph (d) is redesignated as paragraph (e) and a new paragraph (d) is added. The new paragraph (d) corrects an inadvertent omission in the proposed rule by allowing the landing of herring in closed areas if such herring were caught in open areas. Paragraph (a) is corrected to reflect the addition of paragraph (d) and the newly re-designated paragraph (e). Paragraph (a) is also modified to clarify that once the TAC is reached, a vessel may only land 2,000 lb (907.2 kg) of herring in a given calendar day, without regard to the length of the trip.