Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Herring Fishery; 2006 Specifications, 74285-74288 [05-24079]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 240 / Thursday, December 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
plan was being drafted that was
expected to provide improved
protection for the subspecies. That
finding was challenged in Federal
District Court in Washington DC, in a
suit filed on November 17, 1995, by 8
of the original 10 petitioners, plus 2
additional conservation organizations
and 1 additional individual. The Court
granted a summary judgment for the
plaintiffs on September 25, 1996,
holding that we should not have relied
on a draft revision of the 1979 Tongass
Land Management Plan ‘‘to provide
sanctuary for the goshawk,’’ remanded
the decision to us, and instructed us to
make a listing determination based on
the existing Forest Plan, Southwest
Center for Biological Diversity v.
Babbitt, 939 F. Supp. 2d 49 (D.D.C.
1996). The Court agreed to a deadline of
May 31, 1997, to complete this analysis.
On May 23, 1997, however, the Forest
Service released a new plan, the
Tongass Land and Resources
Management Plan. We requested and
received an extension from the court
until August 31, 1997, to review the
petitioned action and the status of the
subspecies in light of the new plan. On
September 4, 1997, we published our
new finding that listing of the
subspecies under the Act was not
warranted (62 FR 46710), confirming
our previous determination. This
finding was challenged in District Court,
and a decision was issued July 20, 1999.
The finding was remanded to us, with
instructions to provide a more accurate
and reliable population estimate, and to
consider a 1999 revision of the 1997
Tongass Land and Resources
Management Plan. We appealed that
decision, prevailed, and the case was
remanded back to the District Court,
Southwest Center for Biological
Diversity v. Babbitt, 215 F. 3d 58 (D.C.
Cir. 2000). On July 29, 2002, Magistrate
Facciola, of the D.C. District Court,
issued his findings and
recommendations, Southwest Center for
Biological Diversity v. Norton, 2002 WL
1733618 (D.D.C. July 29, 2002).
Magistrate Facciola found that: (1) We
had fulfilled the requirement of the Act
to use the best scientific data available;
(2) the ‘‘not warranted’’ determination
was due deference; (3) our
determination that the Queen Charlotte
goshawk would persist in Alaska and
certain Canadian islands was not
unreasonable; (4) Vancouver Island,
which constituted one-third of the
subspecies’ geographic range, was a
‘‘significant portion’’ of the subspecies’’
range; and (5) our failure to make a
specific finding as to conservation of the
subspecies on an island which
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:18 Dec 14, 2005
Jkt 208001
constituted one-third of the subspecies’
geographic range was material omission.
On May 24, 2004, Judge Urbina, of the
D.C. District Court, issued an order that
adopted Magistrate Facciola’s Findings
and Recommendations in total, except
for the Magistrate’s finding that
Vancouver Island constituted a
significant portion of the range for
Queen Charlotte goshawk. Instead,
Judge Urbina directed us, upon remand,
to reconsider and explain any
determination regarding whether or not
Vancouver Island is indeed a significant
portion of the range, and assess whether
the Queen Charlotte goshawk is
endangered or threatened on Vancouver
Island. This opening of the public
comment period is consistent with
Judge Urbina’s order as we are reevaluating the status of the subspecies
in relation to Vancouver Island and as
a taxon as a whole.
Author
The primary author of this document
is Steve Brockmann, Fish and Wildlife
Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Juneau Fish and Wildlife Field
Office, Juneau, Alaska.
Authority: The authority for this action is
the Endangered Species Act of 1973 as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: December 7, 2005.
Marshall Jones Jr.,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
[FR Doc. 05–24045 Filed 12–14–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 648
74285
upcoming year and to provide an
opportunity for public comment. The
intent of the specifications is to
conserve and manage the Atlantic
herring resource and provide for a
sustainable fishery.
DATES: Comments must be received no
later than 5 p.m., eastern standard time,
on January 17, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Copies of supporting
documents, including the
Environmental Assessment, Regulatory
Impact Review, Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/IRFA), and
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment are
available from Paul J. Howard,
Executive Director, New England
Fishery Management Council, 50 Water
Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950.
The EA/RIR/IRFA is also accessible via
the Internet at https://www.nero.gov.
Written comments on the proposed
rule may be sent by any of the following
methods:
• Mail to Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional
Administrator, NMFS, Northeast
Regional Office, One Blackburn Drive,
Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside
of the envelope ‘‘Comments–2006
Herring Specifications’’;
• Fax to Patricia A. Kurkul 978–281–
9135;
• E-mail to the following address:
Herr2006Specs@noaa.gov. Include in
the subject line of the e-mail comment
the following document identifier:
‘‘Comments–2006 Herring
Specifications;’’ or
• Electronically through the Federal
e-Rulemaking portal: https://
www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric
Jay Dolin, Fishery Policy Analyst, 978–
281–9259, e-mail at
eric.dolin@noaa.gov, fax at 978–281–
9135.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
[Docket No. 051130316–5316–01; I.D.
110905C]
Background
Regulations implementing the
RIN 0648–AT21
Atlantic Herring Fishery Management
Plan (FMP) require the New England
Fisheries of the Northeastern United
Fishery Management Council’s
States; Atlantic Herring Fishery; 2006
(Council) Atlantic Herring Plan
Specifications
Development Team (PDT) to meet at
least annually, no later than July each
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries
year, with the Atlantic States Marine
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Fisheries Commission’s (Commission)
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Atlantic Herring Plan Review Team
Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed specifications; request (PRT) to develop and recommend the
following specifications for
for comments.
consideration by the Council’s Atlantic
SUMMARY: NMFS proposes specifications Herring Oversight Committee:
Allowable biological catch (ABC),
for the 2006 Atlantic herring fishery,
which are the same as the specifications optimum yield (OY), domestic annual
harvest (DAH), domestic annual
implemented in 2005. The regulations
processing (DAP), total foreign
for the Atlantic herring fishery require
processing (JVPt), joint venture
NMFS to publish specifications for the
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\15DEP1.SGM
15DEP1
74286
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 240 / Thursday, December 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
processing (JVP), internal waters
processing (IWP), U.S. at-sea processing
(USAP), border transfer (BT), total
allowable level of foreign fishing
(TALFF), and reserve (if any). The PDT
and PRT also recommend the total
allowable catch (TAC) for each
management area and subarea identified
in the FMP. As the basis for its
recommendations, the PDT reviews
available data pertaining to: Commercial
and recreational catch; current estimates
of fishing mortality; stock status; recent
estimates of recruitment; virtual
population analysis results and other
estimates of stock size; sea sampling and
trawl survey data or, if sea sampling
data are unavailable, length frequency
information from trawl surveys; impact
of other fisheries on herring mortality;
and any other relevant information.
Recommended specifications are
presented to the oversight committee
and the Council in order to make a
recommendation to NMFS. NMFS
reviews the Council recommendation,
and may modify it if necessary to insure
that it is consistent with the criteria in
the FMP and other applicable laws.
In 2004, the Council proposed
specifications that would have set OY at
180,000 mt. It also voted to maintain the
2005 specifications for 2006, unless
stock and fishery conditions changed
substantially. Upon review of the
specifications package submitted by the
Council for 2005, NMFS decided that
the justification for setting the OY at
180,000 mt was not persuasive, given
the recent history of landings in the
fishery and concerns about allocating
TALFF. As a result, NMFS proposed
setting the OY at 150,000 mt, and
readjusting the TACs in Areas 2 and 3
to reflect that change. NMFS also did
not find the Council’s argument for
setting USAP at zero to be persuasive,
noting that such an allocation would
favor one segment of the U.S. processing
sector over another, without any
justifiable reasons based on
conservation objectives. USAP could
also provide an additional outlet for
harvesters and, therefore, increase the
benefits to the U.S. industry. As a result,
NMFS proposed setting USAP at 20,000
mt for 2005. The modified alternative
proposed by NMFS was added to and
fully analyzed in the 2005 specification
package’s EA/RIR/IRFA. That package
analyzed and evaluated the
environmental, social, and economic
impacts of maintaining the same
specifications for 2 years. The 2005
specifications assumed that the PDT
would update and evaluate stock and
fishery information during 2005, and
the Council and NMFS might
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:18 Dec 14, 2005
Jkt 208001
determine, based on the review by the
Herring PDT, that no adjustments to the
specifications were necessary for the
2006 fishing year. The PDT completed
a comprehensive review of all herring
related stock and fishery data as part of
the development of the DSEIS for
Amendment 1 to the FMP. It concluded
that stock and fishery conditions have
remained relatively constant. It found
no reason to modify the specifications,
as implemented by NMFS for 2005, for
2006. At its September 2005 meeting,
the Council agreed and voted to
recommend that the 2005 specifications,
as implemented by NMFS, be
maintained for 2006. Given that there
has been no significant change in the
herring fishery over the past year, and
that the 2005 specifications package
fully evaluated the impacts of
maintaining the specifications for 2
years, NMFS concurs with the Council’s
recommendation.
intended to be a temporary and
precautionary placeholder for MSY
until the next stock assessment for the
Atlantic herring stock complex is
completed. Because of the importance of
ABC as a means of determining the
other values in the specifications, it is
discussed in the specifications, even
though it is not a value that is set by the
specification process.
The FMP specifies that OY will be
less than or equal to ABC minus the
expected Canadian catch (C) from the
stock complex. The estimate of C that is
deducted from ABC will be no more
than 20,000 mt for the New Brunswick
weir fishery and no more than 10,000
mt for the Georges Bank fishery. With
ABC set at 220,000 mt, OY could be less
than or equal to 190,000 mt if the
maximum catch is assumed for the
Canadian herring fishery. The FMP also
states that the establishment of OY will
include consideration of relevant
economic, social, and ecological factors
Proposed 2006 Specifications
and that, for this reason, OY may be less
NMFS proposes the specifications and than ABC C. In addition, the Herring
PDT recommended that OY be specified
Area TACs contained in the following
at a level lower than ABC for biological
table.
and ecological reasons.
As in 2005, OY is proposed to be
PROPOSED SPECIFICATIONS AND AREA
TACS FOR THE 2006 ATLANTIC specified at 150,000 mt, a level that can
be fully harvested by the domestic fleet,
HERRING FISHERY
thereby precluding the specification of a
Proposed Allocation TALFF. This will enable the U.S.
Specification
Atlantic herring industry to expand and
(mt)
will yield positive social and economic
ABC
220,000.
benefits to U.S. harvesters and
OY
150,000.
processors.
DAH
150,000.
NMFS proposes setting DAH at
DAP
146,000.
150,000 mt. The highest level of
JVPt
0.
landings in recent years was in 2001,
JVP
0.
when they reached 121,332 mt. The
IWP
0.
proposed DAH of 150,000 mt would
USAP
20,000 (Areas 2
allow a 23–percent increase in landings
and 3 only).
as compared to 2001, and reflect fishery
BT
4,000.
TALFF
0.
performance in recent years, while at
Reserve
0.
the same time giving the fishery an
TAC - AREA 1A
60,000 (January 1
opportunity to expand. The proposed
May 31, landings
Area TACs would remain the same as
cannot exceed
they were in 2005. These area
6,000).
allocations are intended to permit the
TAC - Area 1B
10,000.
fishery to increase landings above the
TAC - Area 2
30,000 (No
highest levels achieved in recent years.
Reserve).
The highest recent landings in Area 2
TAC - Area 3
50,000.
were 27,198 mt in 2000; thus, the
The proposed measures are discussed allocation would allow the fishery to
here briefly. For a complete discussion
slightly exceed that level. The highest
of the development of and rationale for
recent landings in Area 3 were 35,079
the specifications, please refer to the
mt in 2001; thus, the allocation would
proposed rule for the 2005
allow the fishery to exceed that level by
specifications, published January 31,
a considerable amount because this is
2005 (70 FR 4808).
the area most likely to see expanded
An ABC of 220,000 mt is proposed,
harvests.
consistent with the MSY proxy
The regulations, at § 648.200(e), allow
recommended in Amendment 1 to the
for inseason adjustments of the herring
FMP, which is currently being
specifications. Thus, if the herring
developed. The 220,000 mt proxy
fishery during the 2006 fishing year
recommended in Amendment 1 is
expands more than anticipated, the OY,
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\15DEP1.SGM
15DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 240 / Thursday, December 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
the DAH, the DAP, and the area TACs
could be increased to enable the fishery
to perform to its fullest potential. Such
increases would be constrained by the
analysis that the Council included in
the specification recommendations.
That means that DAH and OY could be
increased to a maximum of 180,000 mt,
the DAP could be increased to a
maximum of 176,000 mt, and the Area
2 TAC and the Area 3 TAC could be
increased to 50,000 mt and 60,000 mt,
respectively, which are the highest
levels that the Council originally
recommended and analyzed for each of
these measures.
Since DAH is proposed to be set at
150,000 mt (of which 4,000 mt would be
allocated for BT), DAP is proposed to be
specified at 146,000 mt. It is certainly
possible, given the capacity of the
current harvesting fleet, the potential for
market expansion to occur, and the
expressed intent (made clear through
public testimony) of the U.S. industry to
increase its participation in the Atlantic
herring fishery, that processors will
utilize the recommended DAP. Because
the Council’s recommended DAP is
sufficient to process the entire DAH
(minus the BT), the Council and NMFS
propose setting JVP at zero. Future JVP
operations would likely compete with
U.S. processors for product, which
could have a substantial negative impact
on domestic facilities in a market-driven
fishery. This is consistent with the
following relationship, which is
specified in the FMP: DAH = DAP +
JVPt + BT.
NMFS proposes setting USAP at
20,000 mt in Areas 2 and 3 only. USAP
could provide an additional outlet for
harvesters and, therefore, increase the
benefits to the U.S. industry.
Classification
This action is authorized by 50 CFR
part 648 and has been determined to be
not significant for purposes of Executive
Order 12866.
The Council prepared an IRFA, as
required by section 603 of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act, which
describes the economic impacts this
proposed rule, if adopted, would have
on small entities. A copy of the IRFA
can be obtained from the Council or
NMFS (see ADDRESSES) or via the
Internet at https://www.nero.noaa.gov. A
summary of the analysis follows:
Statement of Objective and Need
A description of the reasons why this
action is being considered, and the
objectives of and legal basis for this
action, is contained in the preamble to
this proposed rule and is not repeated
here.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:18 Dec 14, 2005
Jkt 208001
Description and Estimate of Number of
Small Entities to Which the Rule Will
Apply
During the 2003 fishing year, 154
vessels landed herring, 38 of which
averaged more than 2,000 lb (907 kg) of
herring per trip. There are no large
entities, as defined in section 601 of the
RFA, participating in this fishery.
Therefore, there are no disproportionate
economic impacts between large and
small entities.
Description of Projected Reporting,
Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements
This action does not contain any new
collection-of-information, reporting,
recordkeeping, or other compliance
requirements. It does not duplicate,
overlap, or conflict with any other
Federal rules.
Minimizing Significant Economic
Impacts on Small Entities
Impacts were assessed by the Council
and NMFS by comparing the proposed
measures to the Atlantic herring
landings made in 2003. The proposed
specifications are not expected to
produce a negative economic impact to
vessels prosecuting the fishery because
it allows for landings levels that are
significantly higher than the average
landings achieved by the fishery in
recent years. The proposed 2006
specifications should allow for
incremental growth in the industry,
while taking into consideration
biological uncertainty.
The specification of OY and DAH is
proposed to be 150,000 mt for 2006. At
this level, there could be an increase of
up to 50,000 mt in herring landings, or
$7,150,000 in revenues, based on an
average price of $143/mt. This could
allow individual vessels to increase
their profitability under the proposed
2006 specifications, depending on
whether or not new vessels enter the
fishery (the herring fishery will remain
an open-access fishery for the 2006
fishing year). The magnitude of
economic impacts related to the
146,000–mt specification of DAP will
depend on the shoreside processing
sector’s ability to expand markets and
increase capacity to handle larger
amounts of herring during 2006.
The potential loss associated with
eliminating the JVPt allocation (20,000
mt for 2003 and 2004) could
approximate $2.9 million (based on an
average price of $143/mt) if all of the
20,000–mt allocation would have been
utilized (10,000 mt for JVP and 10,000
mt for IWP). However, very little of the
10,000–mt JVP allocation was utilized
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
74287
in 2002 and 2003 and, as of August
2004, no JVP activity for herring had
occurred during the 2004 fishing year.
The Council received no indication that
demand for the JVP allocation will
increase in 2006. As a result, no
substantial economic impacts are
expected from reducing the JVP
allocation to 0 mt in 2006, as vessels
that sold fish in the past to JVP vessels
could sell to U.S. processors.
The Area 1A and 1B TACs of 60,000
mt and 10,000 mt, respectively, have
been unchanged since the 2000 fishery.
In 2002 and 2003, the Area 1A TAC for
the directed herring fishery was fully
utilized and is expected to be fully
utilized for the 2006 fishery. Therefore,
no change is expected in profitability of
vessels from the 2006 Area 1A
specification. Since only 4,917 mt of
herring were harvested in Area 1B in
2003, the proposed 2006 specification of
10,000 mt should allow for increased
economic benefits to individual vessels
prosecuting the fishery in this
management area. The potential
economic gains associated with
allocating 20,000 mt for USAP could
approximate $2.9 million (based on an
average price of $143/mt) if all of the
20,000–mt allocation were utilized in
2006.
The Council analyzed four
alternatives for OY and the distribution
of TACs. One alternative would have
retained the specifications implemented
during the 2003 and 2004 fishing years,
which would have maintained the OY at
180,000 mt. This OY is still roughly 80
percent greater than the average
historical landings for this fishery, and
therefore that level of OY would not
pose a constraint on the fishery. The
three other alternatives considered by
the Council would set the OY at 150,000
mt. This is still roughly 50 percent
greater than the average historical
landings for this fishery, and, therefore,
that level of OY would not pose a
constraint on the fishery. Each of the
alternatives that would set the OY at
150,000 mt would establish varying
levels for the area TACs.
One alternative would have
established the following TACs: Area
1A, 60,000 mt; Area 1B, 10,000 mt; Area
2, 20,000 mt; and Area 3, 60,000 mt. The
only area TAC that would be lower than
2003/2004 under this option is the Area
2 TAC. The most recent year in which
the landings from this area were greater
than 20,000 mt (the proposed TAC) was
2000 (27,198 mt). The average landings
from 2001 2003 were 14,300 mt, with
2003 landings at 16,079 mt. Under
current market conditions, the new TAC
may become constraining if the fishery
in 2006 is similar to that in 2000. If this
E:\FR\FM\15DEP1.SGM
15DEP1
74288
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 240 / Thursday, December 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
is the case, then the Area 2 TAC fishing
season could end before the end of the
year, creating a potential economic
constraint on the fishery, especially if
vessels are forced to travel farther
(increased steaming time) to harvest in
Area 3.
Another alternative considered would
have established the following TACs:
Area 1A, 45,000 mt; Area 1B, 10,000 mt;
Area 2, 35,000 mt; and Area 3, 60,000
mt. With a 15,000–mt decrease in the
combined Area 1 TACs, the economic
impact of this option could be relatively
large on vessels in the fishery that
depend on herring in Area 1A,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:18 Dec 14, 2005
Jkt 208001
especially if those vessels are not able
to move to other areas to obtain fish.
Even if vessels could fish in other areas,
their operating costs would be increased
because of increased steaming time. An
Area 2 TAC of 35,000 mt proposed
under this alternative should not be
constraining, given recent landings
history.
The final alternative considered
would have established the following
TACs: Area 1A, 55,000 mt; Area 1B,
5,000 mt; Area 2, 30,000 mt; and Area
3, 60,000 mt. With a 10,000–mt decrease
in the combined Area 1 TACs, the
impact of this alternative would be very
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
similar to the impact of the prior
alternative, although not as severe. An
Area 2 TAC of 30,000 mt proposed
under this alternative should not be
constraining, given recent landings
history.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
Dated: December 9, 2005.
James W. Balsiger,
Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 05–24079 Filed 12–14–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–S
E:\FR\FM\15DEP1.SGM
15DEP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 240 (Thursday, December 15, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 74285-74288]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-24079]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 648
[Docket No. 051130316-5316-01; I.D. 110905C]
RIN 0648-AT21
Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Herring
Fishery; 2006 Specifications
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed specifications; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS proposes specifications for the 2006 Atlantic herring
fishery, which are the same as the specifications implemented in 2005.
The regulations for the Atlantic herring fishery require NMFS to
publish specifications for the upcoming year and to provide an
opportunity for public comment. The intent of the specifications is to
conserve and manage the Atlantic herring resource and provide for a
sustainable fishery.
DATES: Comments must be received no later than 5 p.m., eastern standard
time, on January 17, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Copies of supporting documents, including the Environmental
Assessment, Regulatory Impact Review, Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (EA/RIR/IRFA), and Essential Fish Habitat Assessment are
available from Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, New England Fishery
Management Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950. The
EA/RIR/IRFA is also accessible via the Internet at https://www.nero.gov.
Written comments on the proposed rule may be sent by any of the
following methods:
Mail to Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, NMFS,
Northeast Regional Office, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930.
Mark the outside of the envelope ``Comments-2006 Herring
Specifications'';
Fax to Patricia A. Kurkul 978-281-9135;
E-mail to the following address: Herr2006Specs@noaa.gov.
Include in the subject line of the e-mail comment the following
document identifier: ``Comments-2006 Herring Specifications;'' or
Electronically through the Federal e-Rulemaking portal:
https://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric Jay Dolin, Fishery Policy
Analyst, 978-281-9259, e-mail at eric.dolin@noaa.gov, fax at 978-281-
9135.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Regulations implementing the Atlantic Herring Fishery Management
Plan (FMP) require the New England Fishery Management Council's
(Council) Atlantic Herring Plan Development Team (PDT) to meet at least
annually, no later than July each year, with the Atlantic States Marine
Fisheries Commission's (Commission) Atlantic Herring Plan Review Team
(PRT) to develop and recommend the following specifications for
consideration by the Council's Atlantic Herring Oversight Committee:
Allowable biological catch (ABC), optimum yield (OY), domestic annual
harvest (DAH), domestic annual processing (DAP), total foreign
processing (JVPt), joint venture
[[Page 74286]]
processing (JVP), internal waters processing (IWP), U.S. at-sea
processing (USAP), border transfer (BT), total allowable level of
foreign fishing (TALFF), and reserve (if any). The PDT and PRT also
recommend the total allowable catch (TAC) for each management area and
subarea identified in the FMP. As the basis for its recommendations,
the PDT reviews available data pertaining to: Commercial and
recreational catch; current estimates of fishing mortality; stock
status; recent estimates of recruitment; virtual population analysis
results and other estimates of stock size; sea sampling and trawl
survey data or, if sea sampling data are unavailable, length frequency
information from trawl surveys; impact of other fisheries on herring
mortality; and any other relevant information. Recommended
specifications are presented to the oversight committee and the Council
in order to make a recommendation to NMFS. NMFS reviews the Council
recommendation, and may modify it if necessary to insure that it is
consistent with the criteria in the FMP and other applicable laws.
In 2004, the Council proposed specifications that would have set OY
at 180,000 mt. It also voted to maintain the 2005 specifications for
2006, unless stock and fishery conditions changed substantially. Upon
review of the specifications package submitted by the Council for 2005,
NMFS decided that the justification for setting the OY at 180,000 mt
was not persuasive, given the recent history of landings in the fishery
and concerns about allocating TALFF. As a result, NMFS proposed setting
the OY at 150,000 mt, and readjusting the TACs in Areas 2 and 3 to
reflect that change. NMFS also did not find the Council's argument for
setting USAP at zero to be persuasive, noting that such an allocation
would favor one segment of the U.S. processing sector over another,
without any justifiable reasons based on conservation objectives. USAP
could also provide an additional outlet for harvesters and, therefore,
increase the benefits to the U.S. industry. As a result, NMFS proposed
setting USAP at 20,000 mt for 2005. The modified alternative proposed
by NMFS was added to and fully analyzed in the 2005 specification
package's EA/RIR/IRFA. That package analyzed and evaluated the
environmental, social, and economic impacts of maintaining the same
specifications for 2 years. The 2005 specifications assumed that the
PDT would update and evaluate stock and fishery information during
2005, and the Council and NMFS might determine, based on the review by
the Herring PDT, that no adjustments to the specifications were
necessary for the 2006 fishing year. The PDT completed a comprehensive
review of all herring related stock and fishery data as part of the
development of the DSEIS for Amendment 1 to the FMP. It concluded that
stock and fishery conditions have remained relatively constant. It
found no reason to modify the specifications, as implemented by NMFS
for 2005, for 2006. At its September 2005 meeting, the Council agreed
and voted to recommend that the 2005 specifications, as implemented by
NMFS, be maintained for 2006. Given that there has been no significant
change in the herring fishery over the past year, and that the 2005
specifications package fully evaluated the impacts of maintaining the
specifications for 2 years, NMFS concurs with the Council's
recommendation.
Proposed 2006 Specifications
NMFS proposes the specifications and Area TACs contained in the
following table.
Proposed Specifications and Area TACs for the 2006 Atlantic Herring
Fishery
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Allocation
Specification (mt)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ABC 220,000
OY 150,000
DAH 150,000
DAP 146,000
JVPt 0
JVP 0
IWP 0
USAP 20,000 (Areas 2 and
3 only)
BT 4,000
TALFF 0
Reserve 0
TAC - AREA 1A 60,000 (January 1
May 31, landings
cannot exceed
6,000)
TAC - Area 1B 10,000
TAC - Area 2 30,000 (No Reserve)
TAC - Area 3 50,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed measures are discussed here briefly. For a complete
discussion of the development of and rationale for the specifications,
please refer to the proposed rule for the 2005 specifications,
published January 31, 2005 (70 FR 4808).
An ABC of 220,000 mt is proposed, consistent with the MSY proxy
recommended in Amendment 1 to the FMP, which is currently being
developed. The 220,000 mt proxy recommended in Amendment 1 is intended
to be a temporary and precautionary placeholder for MSY until the next
stock assessment for the Atlantic herring stock complex is completed.
Because of the importance of ABC as a means of determining the other
values in the specifications, it is discussed in the specifications,
even though it is not a value that is set by the specification process.
The FMP specifies that OY will be less than or equal to ABC minus
the expected Canadian catch (C) from the stock complex. The estimate of
C that is deducted from ABC will be no more than 20,000 mt for the New
Brunswick weir fishery and no more than 10,000 mt for the Georges Bank
fishery. With ABC set at 220,000 mt, OY could be less than or equal to
190,000 mt if the maximum catch is assumed for the Canadian herring
fishery. The FMP also states that the establishment of OY will include
consideration of relevant economic, social, and ecological factors and
that, for this reason, OY may be less than ABC C. In addition, the
Herring PDT recommended that OY be specified at a level lower than ABC
for biological and ecological reasons.
As in 2005, OY is proposed to be specified at 150,000 mt, a level
that can be fully harvested by the domestic fleet, thereby precluding
the specification of a TALFF. This will enable the U.S. Atlantic
herring industry to expand and will yield positive social and economic
benefits to U.S. harvesters and processors.
NMFS proposes setting DAH at 150,000 mt. The highest level of
landings in recent years was in 2001, when they reached 121,332 mt. The
proposed DAH of 150,000 mt would allow a 23-percent increase in
landings as compared to 2001, and reflect fishery performance in recent
years, while at the same time giving the fishery an opportunity to
expand. The proposed Area TACs would remain the same as they were in
2005. These area allocations are intended to permit the fishery to
increase landings above the highest levels achieved in recent years.
The highest recent landings in Area 2 were 27,198 mt in 2000; thus, the
allocation would allow the fishery to slightly exceed that level. The
highest recent landings in Area 3 were 35,079 mt in 2001; thus, the
allocation would allow the fishery to exceed that level by a
considerable amount because this is the area most likely to see
expanded harvests.
The regulations, at Sec. 648.200(e), allow for inseason
adjustments of the herring specifications. Thus, if the herring fishery
during the 2006 fishing year expands more than anticipated, the OY,
[[Page 74287]]
the DAH, the DAP, and the area TACs could be increased to enable the
fishery to perform to its fullest potential. Such increases would be
constrained by the analysis that the Council included in the
specification recommendations. That means that DAH and OY could be
increased to a maximum of 180,000 mt, the DAP could be increased to a
maximum of 176,000 mt, and the Area 2 TAC and the Area 3 TAC could be
increased to 50,000 mt and 60,000 mt, respectively, which are the
highest levels that the Council originally recommended and analyzed for
each of these measures.
Since DAH is proposed to be set at 150,000 mt (of which 4,000 mt
would be allocated for BT), DAP is proposed to be specified at 146,000
mt. It is certainly possible, given the capacity of the current
harvesting fleet, the potential for market expansion to occur, and the
expressed intent (made clear through public testimony) of the U.S.
industry to increase its participation in the Atlantic herring fishery,
that processors will utilize the recommended DAP. Because the Council's
recommended DAP is sufficient to process the entire DAH (minus the BT),
the Council and NMFS propose setting JVP at zero. Future JVP operations
would likely compete with U.S. processors for product, which could have
a substantial negative impact on domestic facilities in a market-driven
fishery. This is consistent with the following relationship, which is
specified in the FMP: DAH = DAP + JVPt + BT.
NMFS proposes setting USAP at 20,000 mt in Areas 2 and 3 only. USAP
could provide an additional outlet for harvesters and, therefore,
increase the benefits to the U.S. industry.
Classification
This action is authorized by 50 CFR part 648 and has been
determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
The Council prepared an IRFA, as required by section 603 of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act, which describes the economic impacts this
proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A copy of the
IRFA can be obtained from the Council or NMFS (see ADDRESSES) or via
the Internet at https://www.nero.noaa.gov. A summary of the analysis
follows:
Statement of Objective and Need
A description of the reasons why this action is being considered,
and the objectives of and legal basis for this action, is contained in
the preamble to this proposed rule and is not repeated here.
Description and Estimate of Number of Small Entities to Which the Rule
Will Apply
During the 2003 fishing year, 154 vessels landed herring, 38 of
which averaged more than 2,000 lb (907 kg) of herring per trip. There
are no large entities, as defined in section 601 of the RFA,
participating in this fishery. Therefore, there are no disproportionate
economic impacts between large and small entities.
Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements
This action does not contain any new collection-of-information,
reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements. It does not
duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules.
Minimizing Significant Economic Impacts on Small Entities
Impacts were assessed by the Council and NMFS by comparing the
proposed measures to the Atlantic herring landings made in 2003. The
proposed specifications are not expected to produce a negative economic
impact to vessels prosecuting the fishery because it allows for
landings levels that are significantly higher than the average landings
achieved by the fishery in recent years. The proposed 2006
specifications should allow for incremental growth in the industry,
while taking into consideration biological uncertainty.
The specification of OY and DAH is proposed to be 150,000 mt for
2006. At this level, there could be an increase of up to 50,000 mt in
herring landings, or $7,150,000 in revenues, based on an average price
of $143/mt. This could allow individual vessels to increase their
profitability under the proposed 2006 specifications, depending on
whether or not new vessels enter the fishery (the herring fishery will
remain an open-access fishery for the 2006 fishing year). The magnitude
of economic impacts related to the 146,000-mt specification of DAP will
depend on the shoreside processing sector's ability to expand markets
and increase capacity to handle larger amounts of herring during 2006.
The potential loss associated with eliminating the JVPt allocation
(20,000 mt for 2003 and 2004) could approximate $2.9 million (based on
an average price of $143/mt) if all of the 20,000-mt allocation would
have been utilized (10,000 mt for JVP and 10,000 mt for IWP). However,
very little of the 10,000-mt JVP allocation was utilized in 2002 and
2003 and, as of August 2004, no JVP activity for herring had occurred
during the 2004 fishing year. The Council received no indication that
demand for the JVP allocation will increase in 2006. As a result, no
substantial economic impacts are expected from reducing the JVP
allocation to 0 mt in 2006, as vessels that sold fish in the past to
JVP vessels could sell to U.S. processors.
The Area 1A and 1B TACs of 60,000 mt and 10,000 mt, respectively,
have been unchanged since the 2000 fishery. In 2002 and 2003, the Area
1A TAC for the directed herring fishery was fully utilized and is
expected to be fully utilized for the 2006 fishery. Therefore, no
change is expected in profitability of vessels from the 2006 Area 1A
specification. Since only 4,917 mt of herring were harvested in Area 1B
in 2003, the proposed 2006 specification of 10,000 mt should allow for
increased economic benefits to individual vessels prosecuting the
fishery in this management area. The potential economic gains
associated with allocating 20,000 mt for USAP could approximate $2.9
million (based on an average price of $143/mt) if all of the 20,000-mt
allocation were utilized in 2006.
The Council analyzed four alternatives for OY and the distribution
of TACs. One alternative would have retained the specifications
implemented during the 2003 and 2004 fishing years, which would have
maintained the OY at 180,000 mt. This OY is still roughly 80 percent
greater than the average historical landings for this fishery, and
therefore that level of OY would not pose a constraint on the fishery.
The three other alternatives considered by the Council would set the OY
at 150,000 mt. This is still roughly 50 percent greater than the
average historical landings for this fishery, and, therefore, that
level of OY would not pose a constraint on the fishery. Each of the
alternatives that would set the OY at 150,000 mt would establish
varying levels for the area TACs.
One alternative would have established the following TACs: Area 1A,
60,000 mt; Area 1B, 10,000 mt; Area 2, 20,000 mt; and Area 3, 60,000
mt. The only area TAC that would be lower than 2003/2004 under this
option is the Area 2 TAC. The most recent year in which the landings
from this area were greater than 20,000 mt (the proposed TAC) was 2000
(27,198 mt). The average landings from 2001 2003 were 14,300 mt, with
2003 landings at 16,079 mt. Under current market conditions, the new
TAC may become constraining if the fishery in 2006 is similar to that
in 2000. If this
[[Page 74288]]
is the case, then the Area 2 TAC fishing season could end before the
end of the year, creating a potential economic constraint on the
fishery, especially if vessels are forced to travel farther (increased
steaming time) to harvest in Area 3.
Another alternative considered would have established the following
TACs: Area 1A, 45,000 mt; Area 1B, 10,000 mt; Area 2, 35,000 mt; and
Area 3, 60,000 mt. With a 15,000-mt decrease in the combined Area 1
TACs, the economic impact of this option could be relatively large on
vessels in the fishery that depend on herring in Area 1A, especially if
those vessels are not able to move to other areas to obtain fish. Even
if vessels could fish in other areas, their operating costs would be
increased because of increased steaming time. An Area 2 TAC of 35,000
mt proposed under this alternative should not be constraining, given
recent landings history.
The final alternative considered would have established the
following TACs: Area 1A, 55,000 mt; Area 1B, 5,000 mt; Area 2, 30,000
mt; and Area 3, 60,000 mt. With a 10,000-mt decrease in the combined
Area 1 TACs, the impact of this alternative would be very similar to
the impact of the prior alternative, although not as severe. An Area 2
TAC of 30,000 mt proposed under this alternative should not be
constraining, given recent landings history.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
Dated: December 9, 2005.
James W. Balsiger,
Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National
Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 05-24079 Filed 12-14-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S