Browse: Departments Dates Agencies
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
CFR Citation: 50 CFR Part 648
Docket ID: [Docket No. 020508113-2113-01; I.D. 090501D]
RIN ID: RIN 0648-AP12
NOTICE: PROPOSED RULES
ACTION: Fishery conservation and management:
DOCUMENT ACTION: Proposed rule, request for comments.
SUBJECT CATEGORY: Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Mackerel, Squid and Butterfish Fisheries; Framework Adjustment 2
DATES: Public comments must be received no later than 5 p.m., eastern standard time, on June 10, 2002.
DOCUMENT SUMMARY: NMFS proposes measures contained in Framework Adjustment 2 (Framework 2) to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP). This action would extend the limited entry program for the Illex squid fishery for an additional year; modify the Loligo squid overfishing definition and control rule; allow for the rollover of the annual specifications for these fisheries (with the exception of total allowable landings of foreign fishing (TALFF)) in the event annual specifications are not published prior to the start of the fishing year; and allow Loligo squid specifications to be set for up to 3 years, subject to annual review. NMFS has disapproved the proposed framework measure to allow Illex squid vessels an exemption from the Loligo squid trip limit during an August or September closure of the directed Loligo squid fishery. This action is necessary to address issues and problems that have developed relative to the management of these fisheries and is intended to further the objectives of the FMP and the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MagnusonStevens Act).
SUMMARY: Northeastern United States fisheries—; Atlantic mackerel, squid, and butterfish,
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
In 1997, Amendment 5 to the FMP established a limited entry program for the Illex squid fishery in response to a concern that fishing capacity could otherwise expand to over exploit the stock. At the time the program was established, there were concerns that the capacity of the limited entry vessels might prove, over time, to be insufficient to fully exploit the annual quota. In response to this concern, a 5year sunset provision was placed on the Illex squid limited entry program, and it is currently scheduled to end July 1, 2002. However, in recent years the limited entry fleet has demonstrated that it has sufficient capacity to harvest the longterm potential yield from this fishery. The MidAtlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) must prepare an amendment to the FMP to evaluate whether or not the limited entry program should be extended permanently. In the meantime, this action would extend the Illex squid moratorium through July 1, 2003, to prevent overcapitalization while the amendment is being prepared and considered by the Council. This extension complies with the criteria in section 303(b)(6) of the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The extension will allow the Council additional time to consider longterm management for the Illex squid fishery, including the limited entry program. Vessels that took small quantities of Illex squid in the past may continue to do so under the incidental catch provision of the FMP. This action would also authorize the rollover of the annual
specifications for the Atlantic mackerel, squid, and butterfish
fisheries. In recent years, publication of the annual specifications [[Page 36557]]
for those fisheries has occurred after the start of the fishing year
on January 1, resulting in inefficient management and industry
uncertainty. In particular, late publication has affected business
entities interested in conducting Joint Venture Processing (JVP)
operations for Atlantic mackerel, because such operations cannot be
authorized until there is a final rule that includes a JVP allocation.
This action would allow the annual Atlantic mackerel, squid, and
butterfish specifications from the previous fishing year to rollover
into the next fishing year (excluding TALFF), in the event that annual
specifications for that year have not been published. The rolledover
specifications would be superceded by the publication of the current year's annual specifications.
While the primary components of the overfishing definition for
Loligo squid (the maximum fishing mortality rate threshold and the
minimum biomass threshold) remain unchanged, this proposed action would
modify the control rules that guide the Council in making harvest
recommendations based upon those definitions. The fishing mortality
rate (F) control rule adopted for Loligo squid in Amendment 8 to the
FMP specified that the target fishing mortality rate (F
This proposed action would allow specification of an annual quota
associated with a target F of up to 90 percent of F
This action also proposes to allow maximum optimum yield (Max OY), allowable biological catch (ABC), optimum yield (OY) and domestic annual harvest (DAH) for Loligo squid to be specified for up to 3 years. If the annual review conducted by the Council through its Monitoring Committee indicates that it is necessary, such a multiyear specification would be revised in the annual specification process.
This action also proposes an outline for a timeframe to be followed
for inseason adjustments to the annual specifications for Loligo
squid. The Council's Monitoring Committee will meet in late spring each year to review available NEFSC survey data and to develop
recommendations for the annual harvest for the following year. In
addition, at that meeting, the Monitoring Committee will make
recommendations regarding inseason adjustments to the annual Loligo
squid specifications for consideration by the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid,
and Butterfish Committee and the Council. Based on an evaluation of the
most recent NEFSC spring and fall trawl survey data, the OY, DAH, and
ABC specifications may be adjusted to be consistent with the control
rule. Upon review of the recommendations from the Council, the
Administrator, Northeast Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator) may make
inseason adjustments through publication of notification in the Federal
Register, to be followed by a 30day comment period, as specified in
the current regulations. Inseason adjustment actions may include
increases or decreases in the OY, DAH and ABC specifications and may
result in opening or closing the directed fishery for Loligo squid. Disapproved Measure
NMFS has disapproved the proposed measure to allow Illex squid vessels an exemption from the Loligo squid trip limit during an August or September closure of the directed Loligo squid fishery. The proposed measure would have allowed vessels fishing in the directed Illex squid fishery during a closure of the Loligo fishery to land Loligo squid harvested seaward of the 50fathom (91m) curve in an amount not to exceed 10 percent of the total weight of Illex squid on board the vessel. Currently, all vessels are limited to an incidental catch allowance of 2,500 lb (1,134 kg) of Loligo squid per trip during a closure of the directed Loligo fishery.
This provision is being disapproved at the proposed rule stage because it has been found to be inconsistent with national standards 2 and 7 under the MagnusonStevens Act. Because this action would limit vessels to a Loligo squid bycatch of 10 percent of the amount of Illex squid on board the vessel, and because of the highvolume nature of the Illex fishery, NMFS believes it would be impossible to enforce the proposed provision. In addition, under this provision, vessels would only be permitted to retain an increased bycatch of Loligo squid while directing on Illex squid seaward of the 50fathom (91m) curve. However, it would be difficult for enforcement agents to determine if a vessel's Loligo squid bycatch was legally taken, or occurred landward of the 50fathom (9 m) curve. Such a provision would create significant enforcement costs and, therefore, would be inconsistent with national standard 7.
Additionally, the Council did not consider the best scientific data
available to it when it defined the exemption measure; thus the measure
has been found to be inconsistent with national standard 2. The data
examined by NMFS indicates that there are factors contributing to the
Loligo squid bycatch that were not considered by the Council. NMFS is
also concerned that the analysis of the proposed measure did not use a
sufficiently long timeseries of data to account for the fact that the
overlap of the Illex and Loligo squid stocks is quite variable from
year to year. Preliminary review of available data also shows that the
Council analysis may have underestimated the amount of Loligo squid
that could be landed as incidental catch by vessels other than those
fishing under the Illex squid exemption. As a result, the analysis of
the measure appears not to properly assess the impact on the Loligo squid quota management program.
[[Page 36558]]
Classification
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
The Council prepared an IRFA that describes the economic impacts this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained at in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of the preamble. This proposed rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with other Federal rules. There are no new reporting or recordkeeping requirements contained in the Preferred Alternatives or any of the alternatives considered for this action. A copy of the complete IRFA can be obtained from the Northeast Regional Office of NMFS (see ADDRESSES) or via the Internet at http:/ www.nero.nmfs.gov. A summary of the analysis follows.
In addition to the measures described above, the Council considered several alternatives. The nonpreferred Illexpermit alternatives considered were: (1) To extend the moratorium on entry to the Illex fishery for an additional 5 years (through June 30, 2007); and (2) to allow the moratorium on entry to the Illex fishery to expire in 2002 (no action).
The alternative specification measures were: (1) If annual specifications are not published prior to the start of the fishing year, the fisheries would operate without specifications and Joint Ventures could not be conducted until specifications were published (no action/status quo); (2) if annual specifications are not published prior to the start of the fishing year, a set of default specifications would apply until the specifications are published; (3) if annual specifications are not published prior to the start of the fishing year, the fisheries would be closed until the final specifications are published; (4) if annual specifications for Atlantic mackerel are not published prior to the start of the fishing year, the previous year's specifications for Atlantic mackerel (excluding TALFF) would apply, until final specifications are published; and (5) if annual specifications for Atlantic mackerel are not published prior to the start of the fishing year, a set of default specifications (excluding TALFF) would apply until the specifications are published.
The alternative Loligo overfishing definitions were: (1) An annual
quota specified consistent with a target F of up to 90 percent
F
Illex Moratorium Extension
The proposed action would extend the moratorium on entry of new vessels into the Illex fishery for one year; therefore no impact is expected on vessels in the fishery in 2002 (and the first half of 2003), compared to individual vessel revenues in 2001. The Council assumed that the market and prices are expected to remain stable. Any changes in individual vessel revenues would be the result of factors outside the scope of the moratorium (e.g., change in fishing practices for individual vessels, or changes in abundance and distribution of Illex squid).
New vessels entering the fishery would limit per vessel share of the Illex squid quota and reduce revenues for the existing moratorium vessels proportionally. Computing the negative impacts of revenue losses for the existing moratorium vessels is impossible due to the redirection of effort into the Illex squid fishery. Therefore, the Council decided to assume three scenarios that presumed revenues derived from landings of Illex squid would be reduced by 75, 50, and 25 percent due to an assumed increase in vessels that have not participated in the Illex squid fishery.
Under alternative 2, the IRFA review of revenue impacts examined the landings of vessels in the existing moratorium fishery and presumed that revenues derived from landing Illex for these vessels would be reduced by 75 percent due to an assumed increase in effort of 75 percent. A total of 109 vessels were projected to be impacted by revenue losses that ranged from less than 5 percent for 79 vessels, to a maximum of 4049 percent for 2 vessels. There were no impacted vessels homeported in Maryland, New Hampshire, or Virginia; a high of 15 vessels had home ports in New Jersey. Other impacted vessels were home ported in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New York, and North Carolina. Presumably, other vessels entering the fishery would experience gains in revenues.
Under alternative 3, the IRFA review of revenue impacts presumed that vessel revenues derived from landing Illex would be reduced by 50 percent due to an assumed increase in effort of 50 percent. A total of 109 vessels were projected to be impacted by revenue losses that ranged from less than 5 percent for 84 vessels, to a maximum of 3039 percent for one vessel. There were no impacted vessels homeported in Maryland, New Hampshire, or Virginia; a high of 11 vessels had home ports in New Jersey. Others were in Massachusetts, Maine, Rhode Island, and North Carolina. Presumably, other vessels entering the fishery would experience gains in revenues.
Under alternative 4, the IRFA review of revenue impacts presumed that vessel revenues derived from landing Illex would be reduced by 25 percent due to an assumed increase in effort of 25 percent. A total of 109 vessels were projected to be impacted by revenue losses that ranged from less than 5 percent, for 88 vessels, to a maximum of 1019 percent for 8 vessels. The number of impacted vessels by home state ranged from none in Maryland, New Hampshire, New York, and Virginia, to a high of 11 in New Jersey. Other impacted vessels were home ported in Massachusetts, Maine, Rhode Island, and North Carolina. Presumably, other vessels entering the fishery would experience gains in revenues. Specifications Process
The only alternative considered concerning quota specifications
that would be expected to change gross vessel revenues would be the
option that would close the fisheries if the final specifications are
not published by the start of the fishing year. This measure would have
significant negative economic consequences for vessels operating in the
Atlantic mackerel, Loligo and butterfish fisheries because landings of
these three species would be prohibited until NMFS publishes the final
rule for new specifications and significant landings occur early in the
fishing year. The IRFA analysis assumed that these fisheries would most
likely be closed during the months of January and February under this
alternative. The total value of the landings of these three species
during the first 2 months of 1999 represented about 20 percent of the
annual revenue generated for all three species in 1999. For Atlantic
mackerel, 291 vessels landed 12.1 million lb of mackerel valued at $1.7 million. A closure in January and
[[Page 36559]]
February would result in a loss of mackerel revenue of $5,842 per
vessel under this alternative. For Loligo, 281 vessels landed 6.5
million lb of Loligo valued at $5.1 million. A closure in January and
February would result in a loss of Loligo revenue of $18,361 per vessel
under this alternative. For butterfish, 228 vessels landed 1.4 million
lb of butterfish valued at $0.9 million. A closure in January and
February would result in a loss of butterfish revenue of $4,067 per
vessel under this alternative. This measure would be expected to have
little or no economic impact on the Illex fishery since the directed fishery occurs during the summer.
Loligo Overfishing Definition
None of the alternatives considered concerning the Loligo control rule and inseason adjustment are expected to change gross revenues. Therefore, the IRFA concluded that neither the preferred nor the non preferred alternative represents catch constraints on vessels in these fisheries in aggregate or individually. Without such catch constraints, there is no impact on revenues.
However, the no action alternative could have severe economic
consequences if the stock biomass falls below [half] B
It has been determined that this proposed rule does not contain policies with federalism implications as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648
Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: May 22, 2002.
Rebecca Lent,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 648FISHERIES 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 [sect] 648.4, paragraph (a)(5)(i), the introductory text is revised to read as follows:
[sect] 648.4 Vessel permits.
(a) * * *
(5) * * *
(i) Loligo squid/butterfish and Illex squid moratorium permits.
(Illex squid moratorium is applicable from July 1, 1997, until July 1, 2003).* * *
* * * * *
3. In [sect] 648.20, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows: [sect] 648.20 Maximum optimum yields (OYs).
* * * * *
(b) Loligothe catch associated with a fishing mortality rate of
F
4. In [sect] 648.21, paragraphs (a)(1) and (d)(1) are revised and paragraphs (a)(4) and (a)(5) are added to read as follows:
[sect] 648.21 Procedures for determining initial annual amounts. (a) * * *
(1) Initial OY (IOY), including research quota (RQ), domestic
annual harvest (DAH), and domestic annual processing (DAP) for Illex squid;
* * * * *
(4) Initial OY (IOY), including research quota (RQ), domestic
annual harvest (DAH), and domestic annual processing (DAP) for Loligo
squid, which, subject to annual review, may be specified for a period of up to 3 years;
(5) Inseason adjustment, upward or downward, to the specifications
for Loligo squid as specified in paragraph (e) of this section. * * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) The Squid, Mackerel, and Butterfish Committee will review the
recommendations of the Monitoring Committee. Based on these
recommendations and any public comment received thereon, the Squid,
Mackerel, and Butterfish Committee must recommend to the MAFMC
appropriate specifications and any measures necessary to assure that
the specifications will not be exceeded. The MAFMC will review these
recommendations and, based on the recommendations and any public
comment received thereon, must recommend to the Regional Administrator
appropriate specifications and any measures necessary to assure that
the specifications will not be exceeded. The MAFMC's recommendations
must include supporting documentation, as appropriate, concerning the
environmental, economic, and social impacts of the recommendations. The
Regional Administrator will review the recommendations and, on or about
November 1 of each year, will publish notification in the Federal
Register proposing specifications and any measures necessary to assure
that the specifications will not be exceeded and providing a 30day
public comment period. If the proposed specifications differ from those
recommended by the MAFMC, the reasons for any differences must be
clearly stated and the revised specifications must satisfy the criteria
set forth in this section. The MAFMC's recommendations will be
available for inspection at the office of the Regional Administrator
during the public comment period. If the annual specifications for
squid, mackerel, and butterfish are not published in the Federal
Register prior to the start of the fishing year, the previous year's
annual specifications, excluding specifications of TALFF, will remain
in effect. The previous year's specifications will be superceded as of
the effective date of the final rule implementing the current year's annual specifications.
[FR Doc. 0213240 Filed 52202; 2:44 pm]
BILLING CODE 351022S
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT Paul H. Jones, Fishery Policy Analyst, 9782819273, fax 9782819135, email Paul.H.Jones@noaa.gov.
Common CFR Searches
14 CFR Part 39 40 CFR Part 52 14 CFR Part 71 33 CFR Part 165 26 CFR Part 1 50 CFR Part 679 40 CFR Part 180 47 CFR Part 73 33 CFR Part 117 50 CFR Part 17 44 CFR Part 67 50 CFR Part 648 14 CFR Part 97 33 CFR Part 100 40 CFR Part 63 26 CFR Part 301 50 CFR Part 622 39 CFR Part 111 40 CFR Part 300 50 CFR Part 660 44 CFR Part 65 40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 40 CFR Part 271 47 CFR Part 64 14 CFR Part 23 14 CFR Part 25 21 CFR Part 522 50 CFR Part 665 47 CFR Part 76 27 CFR Part 9