Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fisheries; Initial Specifications, 76436-76440 [E5-7849]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
76436
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 27, 2005 / Proposed Rules
Federal funding period. In 1999, a
formal evaluation of the HTPC The
Healthy Tomorrows Partnership for
Children Program in Review: Analysis
and Findings of a Descriptive Survey
was completed, and the authors
concluded that the required match
fosters long-term sustainability and
leveraging of community resources.
There was a 70 percent sustainability
rate for those projects with activities
that were sustained after the Federal
funding period.
This NPRM proposes to formally
introduce a cost participation
component to the HTPC grant program,
thus requiring its grantees to contribute
non-Federal matching funds and/or inkind resources in years 2 through 5 of
the 5-year project period equal to two
times the amount of the Federal Grant
Award or such lesser amount
determined by the Secretary for good
cause shown. The non-Federal matching
funds and/or in-kind resources must
come from non-Federal funds,
including, but not limited to,
individuals, corporations, foundations,
in-kind resources, or State and local
agencies. Documentation of matching
funds would be required (i.e., specific
sources, funding level, in-kind
contributions). Reimbursement for
services provided to an individual
under a State plan under Title XIX will
not be deemed ‘‘non-Federal matching
funds’’ for the purposes of this
provision.
bjneal on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Request for Comments
The Secretary invites public comment
as to the advisability of including a cost
participation/matching component to
the HTPC. You may submit comments,
identified by RIN #0906–AA70, by any
of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal:
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Agency Web Site: https://
www.hrsa.gov/. Follow the instructions
for submitting comments on the Agency
Web site.
• E-mail: jbelardo@hrsa.gov. Include
RIN #0906–AA70 in the subject line of
the message.
• Fax: 301–443–4842
• Mail: Jose Belardo, J.D., Division of
Research, Training and Education,
Maternal and Child Health Bureau,
Health Resources and Services
Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane,
Room 18A–55, Rockville, MD 20857.
• Hand Delivery/Courier: Jose
Belardo, J.D., Division of Research,
Training and Education (DRTE), MCHB,
HRSA, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 18A–
55, Rockville, MD 20857.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:39 Dec 23, 2005
Jkt 208001
Instructions: All submissions received
must include the agency name and
Regulatory Information Number (RIN)
for this rulemaking. All comments
received will be posted without change
to https://www.hrsa.gov/, including any
personal information provided. Docket:
For access to the docket to read
background documents or comments
received go to DRTE, MCHB, HRSA,
5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland
weekdays between the hours of 8:30
a.m. and 5 p.m. To schedule an
appointment to view public comments,
phone (301) 443–0757.
Economic and Regulatory Impact
Executive Order 12866—Regulatory
Planning and Review
HRSA has examined the economic
implications of this proposed rule as
required by Executive Order 12866.
Executive Order 12866 directs agencies
to assess all costs and benefits of
available regulatory alternatives and,
when regulation is necessary, to select
regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits (including potential
economic, environmental, public health
and safety, and other advantages;
distributive impacts; and equity).
Executive Order 12866 classifies a rule
as significant if it meets any one of a
number of specified conditions,
including: having an annual effect on
the economy of $100 million, adversely
affecting a sector of the economy in a
material way, adversely affecting
competition, or adversely affecting jobs.
A regulation is also considered a
significant regulatory action if it raises
novel legal or policy issues.
HRSA concludes that this proposed
rule is a significant regulatory action
under the Executive Order since it raises
novel legal and policy issues under
Section 3(f)(4). HRSA concludes,
however, that this proposed rule does
not meet the significance threshold of
$100 million effect on the economy in
any one year under Section 3(f)(1).
HRSA requests comments regarding this
determination, and invites commenters
to submit any relevant data that will
assist the Agency in estimating the
impact of this rulemaking.
Impact of the New Rule
Inclusion of this rule will greatly
enhance grant recipients’ ability to
achieve the HTPC goal/performance
measure of program sustainability
beyond the 5-year Federal funding
period.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
The proposed rule does not impose
any new data collection requirements.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
List of Subjects in 42 CFR Part 51a
Grant programs—Handicapped,
Health, Health care, Health professions,
Maternal and Child Health.
Dated: April 20, 2005.
Elizabeth M. Duke,
Administrator, Health Resources and Services
Administraion.
Approved: November 4, 2005.
Michael O. Leavitt,
Secretary.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, HRSA proposes to amend 42
CFR part 51a as follows:
PART 51a—PROJECT GRANTS FOR
MATERNAL AND CHILD HEALTH
1. The authority citation for part 51a
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1302; 42 U.S.C.
702(a), 702(b)(1)(A) and 706(a)(3).
2. Amend § 51a.8 to add paragraph (c)
to read as follows:
§ 51a.8 What other conditions apply to
these grants?
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Grant recipients of Healthy
Tomorrows Partnership for Children
Program, a Community Integrated
Service System-funded initiative, must
contribute non-Federal matching funds
in years 2 through 5 of the project
period equal to two times the amount of
the Federal Grant Award or such lesser
amount determined by the Secretary for
good cause shown. Reimbursement for
services provided to an individual
under a State plan under Title XIX will
not be deemed ‘‘non-Federal matching
funds’’ for the purposes of this
provision.
[FR Doc. 05–24444 Filed 12–23–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4165–15–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Parts 600 and 648
[Docket No. 051209329–5329–01; I.D.
120205A]
RIN 0648–AT19
Fisheries of the Northeastern United
States; Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and
Butterfish Fisheries; Initial
Specifications
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\27DEP1.SGM
27DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 27, 2005 / Proposed Rules
Proposed rule; 2006
specifications.
ACTION:
SUMMARY: NMFS proposes initial
specifications for the 2006 fishing year
for Atlantic mackerel, squid, and
butterfish (MSB). Regulations governing
these fisheries require NMFS to publish
proposed specifications for the
upcoming fishing year and to provide an
opportunity for public comment. The
intent of this action is to fulfill this
requirement and to promote the
development and conservation of the
MSB resources.
DATES: Public comments must be
received no later than 5 p.m., eastern
standard time, on January 11, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Copies of supporting
documents used by the Mid-Atlantic
Fishery Management Council (Council),
including the Environmental
Assessment (EA) and Regulatory Impact
Review (RIR)/Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), are
available from: Daniel Furlong,
Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic
Fishery Management Council, Room
2115, Federal Building, 300 South New
Street, Dover, DE 19904–6790. The EA/
RIR/IRFA is accessible via the Internet
at https://www.nero.nmfs.gov.
Written comments on the proposed
rule may be sent by any of the following
methods:
• Electronically through the Federal
e-Rulemaking portal: https://
www.regulations.gov;
• Mail to Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional
Administrator, NMFS, Northeast
Regional Office, One Blackburn Drive,
Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside
of the envelope ‘‘Comments on SMB
Specifications 2006’’;
• Fax to Patricia A. Kurkul, (978)
281–9135; or
• E-mail to the following address:
SMBSpecs2006@noaa.gov. Include in
the subject line of the e-mail comment
the following document identifier:
‘‘Comments on SMB Specifications
2006.’’
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric
Jay Dolin, Fishery Policy Analyst, (978)
281–9259, fax (978) 281–9135.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Regulations implementing the Fishery
Management Plan for the Atlantic
Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish
Fisheries (FMP) appear at 50 CFR part
648, subpart B. Regulations governing
foreign fishing appear at 50 CFR part
600, subpart F. These regulations, at
§ 648.21 and § 600.516(c), require that
NMFS, based on the maximum
optimum yield (Max OY) of each fishery
as established by the regulations,
annually publish a proposed rule
specifying the amounts of the initial
optimum yield (IOY), allowable
biological catch (ABC), domestic annual
harvest (DAH), and domestic annual
processing (DAP), as well as, where
applicable, the amounts for total
allowable level of foreign fishing
(TALFF) and joint venture processing
(JVP) for the affected species managed
under the FMP. In addition, these
regulations allow Loligo squid
specifications to be specified for up to
3 years, subject to annual review. The
regulations found in § 648.21 also
specify that IOY for squid is equal to the
combination of research quota and
DAH, with no TALFF specified for
squid. For butterfish, the regulations
76437
specify that a butterfish bycatch TALFF
will be specified only if TALFF is
specified for Atlantic mackerel.
In addition, the regulations at
§ 648.21(g) allow the specification of
research quotas (RQ) to be used for
research purposes. For 2006, the
Council recommended the
consideration of RQs of up to 3 percent
of IOY for Atlantic mackerel, butterfish,
and squids. The RQs would fund
research and data collection for those
species. A Request for Research
Proposals was published to solicit
proposals for 2006 based on research
priorities previously identified by the
Council (70 FR 20104, April 18, 2005).
The deadline for submission was May
18, 2005. On June 16, 2005, NMFS
convened a Review Panel to review the
comments submitted by technical
reviewers. Based on discussions
between NMFS staff, technical review
comments, and Review Panel
comments, one project proposal
requesting Loligo squid set-aside
landings was recommended for
approval and will be forwarded to the
NOAA Grants Office for award, for a
total RQ of 127.5 mt. Consistent with
the recommendations, the quotas in this
proposed rule have been adjusted to
reflect the project recommended for
approval. If the award is not made by
the NOAA Grants Office for any reason,
NMFS will give notice of an adjustment
to the annual quota to return the
unawarded set-aside amount to the
fishery.
Table 1 contains the proposed initial
specifications for the 2006 Atlantic
mackerel, Loligo and Illex squids, and
butterfish fisheries.
TABLE 1. PROPOSED INITIAL ANNUAL SPECIFICATIONS, IN METRIC TONS (MT), FOR ATLANTIC MACKEREL, SQUID, AND
BUTTERFISH FOR THE FISHING YEAR JANUARY 1 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2006
Specifications
Loligo
Max OY
ABC
IOY
DAH
DAP
JVP
TALFF
1
2
3
26,000
17,000
16,872.51
16,872.5
16,872.5
0
0
24,000
24,000
24,000
24,000
24,000
0
0
Mackerel
N/A
335,000
115,0002
115,0003
100,000
0
0
Butterfish
12,175
4,545
1,681
1,681
1,681
0
0
Excludes 127.5 mt for Research Quota (RQ).
IOY may be increased during the year, but the total ABC will not exceed 335,000 mt
Includes 15,000 mt of Atlantic mackerel recreational allocation.
2006 Proposed Specifications
bjneal on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Illex
Atlantic Mackerel
Overfishing for Atlantic mackerel is
defined by the FMP to occur when the
catch associated with a threshold
fishing mortality rate (F) of FMSY (the F
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:39 Dec 23, 2005
Jkt 208001
that produces MSY (maximum
sustainable yield)) is exceeded. When
spawning stock biomass (SSB) is greater
than 890,000 mt, the maximum F
threshold is FMSY (0.45), and the target
F is 0.25. To avoid low levels of
recruitment, the FMP contains a control
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
rule whereby the threshold F decreases
linearly from 0.45 at 890,000 mt SSB to
zero at 225,000 mt SSB (1/4 of the
biomass level that would produce MSY
on a continuing basis (BMSY)), and the
target F decreases linearly from 0.25 at
890,000 mt SSB to zero at 450,000 mt
E:\FR\FM\27DEP1.SGM
27DEP1
76438
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 27, 2005 / Proposed Rules
SSB (1/2 BMSY). Annual quotas are
specified that correspond to the target F
resulting from this control rule.
The most recent estimate of Atlantic
mackerel stock biomass was 2.1 million
mt. Since SSB is currently above
890,000 mt, the target F for 2006 is 0.25.
According to the Altantic mackerel,
squid, and butterfish regulations,
mackerel ABC must be calculated using
the formula ABC = T - C, where C is the
estimated catch of mackerel in Canadian
waters for the upcoming fishing year
and T is the yield associated with a
fishing mortality rate that is equal to the
target F. The yield associated with the
target F=0.25 is 369,000 mt. The
estimated Canadian catch is 34,000 mt.
Thus, 369,000 mt minus 34,000 mt
results in and ABC of 335,000 mt.
The Council recommends an IOY of
115,000 mt, arguing that this level
would provide the greatest overall
benefit to the Nation with respect to
food production and recreational
opportunities. This level of IOY was
also adopted because the Council
believes that it allows for a significant
increase in domestic landings, which
have increased in the last several years
due to major investments in the
domestic mackerel processing sector.
This level of IOY represents a
modification of MSY based on economic
and social factors (the mackerel
regulations at § 648.21(b)(2)(ii) state
that, ‘‘IOY is a modification of ABC,
based on social and economic factors,
and must be less than or equal to ABC’’).
The Council expressed its concern,
supported by industry testimony, that
an allocation of TALFF would threaten
the expansion of the domestic industry
(the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act
provides that the specification of
TALFF, if any, shall be that portion of
the optimum yield (OY) of a fishery that
will not be harvested by vessels of the
United States). TALFF catches would
allow foreign vessels to harvest U.S. fish
and sell their product on the world
market, in direct competition with the
U.S. industry efforts to expand exports.
The Council noted that this would
prevent the U.S. industry from taking
advantage of declines in the European
production of Atlantic mackerel that
have resulted in an increase in world
demand for U.S. fish. The only
economic benefit associated with a
TALFF is the foreign fishing fees it
generates. On the other hand, there are
economic benefits associated with the
development of the domestic mackerel
fishery. Increased mackerel production
generates jobs both for plant workers
and other support industries. More jobs
generate additional sources of income
for people resident in coastal
communities and generally enhance the
social fabric of these communities.
For these reasons, the Council
concluded, and NMFS agrees, that the
specification of an IOY at a level that
can be fully harvested by the domestic
fleet, thereby precluding the
specification of a TALFF, will assist the
U.S. mackerel industry to expand and
will yield positive social and economic
benefits to both U.S. harvesters and
processors. Given the trends in
landings, and the industry’s testimony
that the fishery is poised for significant
growth, NMFS concludes that it is
reasonable to assume that in 2006 the
commercial fishery will harvest 100,000
mt of mackerel. Thus DAH would be
115,000 mt, which is the commercial
harvest plus the 15,000 mt allocated for
the recreational fishery. Because IOY =
DAH, this specification is consistent
with the Council’s recommendation that
the level of IOY should not provide for
a TALFF.
NMFS also agrees with the Council’s
recommendation to specify JVP at zero
(as compared with 5,000 mt of JVP in
2004). In previous years, the Council
specified JVP greater than zero because
it believed U.S. processors lacked the
capability to process the total amount of
mackerel that U.S. harvesters could
land. The Council has been
systematically reducing JVP because it
concluded that the surplus between
DAH and DAP has been declining as
U.S. shoreside processing capacity for
mackerel has expanded over the last
several years. The Council received
testimony from processors and
harvesters that the shoreside processing
sector of this industry has been
undergoing significant expansion since
2002–2003. As a result of this
expansion, the Council concluded that
shoreside processing capacity was no
longer a limiting factor relative to
domestic production of mackerel. The
Council, therefore, concluded that the
U.S. mackerel processing sector has the
potential to process the DAH, so JVP
would be specified at zero.
Atlantic Squids
Loligo squid
In 2004, the Council specified the
annual quota and other measures for
Loligo squid for a period of up to 3 years
(i.e., 2004 – 2007). After a review of
available information, the Council
recommended no change to the Loligo
quota or other measures in 2006, and
NMFS concurs with this
recommendation. Based on a research
project approved for 2006, the Council
recommended that the RQ for scientific
research for Loligo squid not exceed
127.5 mt. The 2006 proposed Max OY
for Loligo squid is 26,000 mt, the
recommended ABC for the 2006 fishery
is 17,000 mt, and the IOY is 16,872.5
mt, which takes into account the 127.5
mt RQ. The FMP does not authorize the
specification of JVP and TALFF for the
Loligo squid fishery, because of the
domestic industry’s capacity to harvest
and process the OY for this fishery;
therefore, JVP and TALFF are zero.
Distribution of the Annual Loligo Squid
Quota
Since 2001, the annual DAH for Loligo
squid has been allocated into quarterly
periods. The Council and NMFS
recommend no change from the 2005
quarterly distribution system. Due to the
recommendation of a research project
that would utilize Loligo squid RQ, this
proposed rule would adjust the
quarterly allocations from those that
were proposed, based on formulas
specified in the FMP. The 2006
quarterly allocations would be as
follows:
TABLE 2. PERCENT ALLOCATIONS OF Loligo QUOTA
bjneal on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Quarter
Percent
I (Jan-Mar)
II (Apr-Jun)
III (Jul-Sep)
IV (Oct-Dec)
Total
1
33.23
17.61
17.30
31.86
100
Quarterly allocations after 127.5 mt RQ deduction.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:39 Dec 23, 2005
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\27DEP1.SGM
27DEP1
Metric Tons1
5,606.70
2,971.30
2,918.90
5,375.60
16,872.50
RQ
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
127.5
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 27, 2005 / Proposed Rules
bjneal on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Also unchanged from 2005, the 2006
directed fishery would be closed in
Quarters I-III when 80 percent of the
period allocation is harvested, with
vessels restricted to a 2,500–lb (1,134–
kg) Loligo squid trip limit per single
calender day until the end of the
respective quarter. The directed fishery
would close when 95 percent of the
total annual DAH has been harvested,
with vessels restricted to a 2,500–lb
(1,134–kg) Loligo squid trip limit per
single calender day for the remainder of
the year. Quota overages from Quarter I
would be deducted from the allocation
in Quarter III, and any overages from
Quarter II would be deducted from
Quarter IV. By default, quarterly
underages from Quarters II and III carry
over into Quarter IV, because Quarter IV
does not close until 95 percent of the
total annual quota has been harvested.
Additionally, if the Quarter I landings
for Loligo squid are less than 80 percent
of the Quarter I allocation, the underage
below 80 percent is applied to Quarter
III.
Illex squid
The Council recommended
maintaining the Illex specifications in
2006 at the same levels as they were for
the 2005 fishing year. NMFS concurs
with this recommendation; thus, the
specification of Max OY, IOY, ABC and
DAH would be 24,000 mt. The
overfishing definition for Illex squid
states that overfishing for Illex squid
occurs when the catch associated with
a threshold fishing mortality rate of
FMSY is exceeded. Max OY is specified
as the catch associated with a fishing
mortality rate of FMSY, while DAH is
specified as the level of harvest that
corresponds to a target fishing mortality
rate of 75 percent FMSY. The biomass
target is specified as BMSY. The
minimum biomass threshold is
specified as 1/2 BMSY.
In September 2003, the results of an
updated assessment of the Illex squid
stock (the 37th Northeast Regional Stock
Assessment Workshop; SAW–37) were
released. SAW–37 concluded that
overfishing was not likely to have
occurred during the period 1992–2002.
SAW–37 found that it was not possible
to evaluate the current biomass status
for Illex squid relative to BMSY because
the size of the stock could not be
reliably estimated. SAW 37 noted that,
since 1999, the Northeast Fishery
Science Center (NEFSC) autumn survey
abundance indices have been below the
1982–2002 average, but that it could not
determine whether this trend is due to
low abundance, low availability or both.
The assessment noted that surface and
bottom water temperatures in the Mid-
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:39 Dec 23, 2005
Jkt 208001
Atlantic Bight have been warmer than
average during recent years, and that
Illex abundance and biomass indices
from the autumn surveys were
significantly negatively correlated with
bottom water temperature anomalies
from the autumn surveys. SAW 37
concluded that this likely indicates an
environmental effect on productivity.
While landings have been below the
1982–2002 average since 1998, SAW 37
found that this could be due to the
reduced effort observed during the time
period, low biomass or both factors.
SAW 37 cautioned that, under current
stock conditions, a DAH of 24,000 mt,
which assumes a stock at BMSY, may not
be sufficient to prevent overfishing. It
also cautioned that the existing
overfishing definition, which is based
on FMSY, is not only difficult to estimate
given the available information, but may
also perform poorly given the stock’s
production dynamics. In addition, SAW
37 recommended that, given
uncertainties in the stock distribution
and population biology, the fishery
should be managed in relation to the
proportion of the stock on the
continental shelf and available to U.S.
fisheries. However, SAW 37 did not
recommend specific action. The
assessment also noted that more
knowledge of Illex is necessary to
respond to these concerns. While
cooperative research efforts are
underway, there is currently no
information to use to construct an
alternative recommendation.
Despite the cautions within SAW 37,
the assessment also concluded that it
was unlikely that overfishing occurred
during 1999–2002 for several reasons.
Many of these reasons remain
applicable to the proposal to maintain
DAH at 24,000 mt for 2006. The reasons
are: (1) The current small fleet size and
effort levels make it unlikely that the
fishery could exert the very high fishing
mortality rate required to exceed the
level recommended in the assessment
(F50%), (2) the short fishing season
makes high annual average fishing
mortality rates unlikely, (3) the
restricted geographical distribution of
the fishery makes high annual average
fishing mortality rates for the entire
stock unlikely, (4) relative exploitation
indices have declined considerably
since 1999 and have been below the
1982–2002 median since then, and (5)
preliminary model results indicate that
fishing mortality rates as high as F50%
are unlikely to have occurred even
during 1999, when relative fishing
mortality was the highest in recent
years.
Therefore, NMFS proposes that the
annual specifications for Illex squid
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
76439
should remain unchanged for 2006,
agreeing with the Council that there is
no basis for concluding that the
specifications are likely to result in
overfishing. As the Council noted, the
management program for Illex requires
the directed fishery to be closed when
95 percent of the quota (22,800 mt) is
harvested. While incidental landings are
allowed following this closure, the
amount of Illex caught incidentally by
vessels targeting other species is limited
due to the specialized nature of the Illex
fishery. Illex is harvested offshore near
the edge of the continental shelf during
the summer. The species spoils quickly,
so freezing or refrigerated seawater
equipment must be utilized to prevent
spoilage. Similar to Loligo squid, when
a trip limit is in effect, vessels are
prohibited from possessing or landing
more than the specified amount in a
single calendar day, which is 10,000 lb
(4,536 kg). Few vessels are expected to
invest in the necessary equipment to
pursue Illex under the incidental catch
allowance. Furthermore, if evidence
were to become available in 2006 that
overfishing was occurring, the current
FMP allows for in-season adjustments to
the IOY.
The FMP does not authorize the
specification of JVP and TALFF for the
Illex squid fishery because of the
domestic fishing industry’s capacity to
harvest and to process the OY from this
fishery.
Butterfish
The Council recommended
maintaining the butterfish specifications
in 2006 at the same levels as they were
for the 2005 fishing year; NMFS concurs
with this recommendation. Thus, the
proposed specifications would set IOY
at 1,681 mt to achieve the target fishing
mortality rate (75 percent of FMSY)
specified in the FMP based on the most
recent stock assessment for the species
(Stock Assessment Review Committee
(SARC) 38). Based on that assessment
and assuming that biomass in 2006 will
be nominally the same as 2000–2002,
then the catch associated with the target
F would be 2,242 mt, and this forms the
basis for the specification of butterfish
ABC of 4,545 mt. Assuming that the
discard-to-landing ratio remains
constant, then IOY, DAH, and DAP =
1,681 mt (i.e., the allowable landings
equals ABC less estimated discards,
which are roughly twice landings).
NMFS supports this recommended level
of landings because it should achieve
the target fishing mortality rate and
allow for stock rebuilding.
E:\FR\FM\27DEP1.SGM
27DEP1
76440
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 27, 2005 / Proposed Rules
Classification
This action is authorized by 50 CFR
part 648 and has been determined to be
not significant for purposes of Executive
Order 12866 (E.O. 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
The number of potential fishing
vessels in the 2006 fisheries are 406 for
Loligo squid/butterfish, 80 for Illex
squid, 2,414 for Atlantic mackerel, and
2,016 vessels with incidental catch
permits for squid/butterfish, based on
vessel permit issuance. There are no
large entities participating in this
fishery, as defined in section 601 of the
RFA. Therefore, there are no
disproportionate economic impacts on
small entities. Many vessels participate
in more than one of these fisheries;
therefore, the numbers are not additive.
bjneal on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
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
The IOY specification under the
proposed action for Atlantic mackerel
(115,000 mt, with 15,000 mt allocated to
recreational catch) represents no
constraint on vessels in this fishery.
This level of landings has not been
achieved by vessels in this fishery in
recent years. Mackerel landings for
2001–2003 averaged 24,294 mt; in 2003
they were 30,738 mt; and for 2004 they
were 53,781 mt. Therefore, no
reductions in revenues for the mackerel
fishery is expected as a result of the
proposed action. However, there is
likely to be an increase in revenues as
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:39 Dec 23, 2005
Jkt 208001
a result of the proposed action. Based on
2004 data, the mackerel fishery could
increase its landings by 46,219 mt in
2006, if it takes the entire IOY. In 2003,
the last year with complete financial
data, the average value for mackerel was
$234 per mt. Using this value, the
mackerel fishery could see an increase
in revenues of $10,815,246 as a result of
the proposed action.
The IOY specification under the
proposed action for Illex (24,000 mt)
represents a slight constraint on
revenues in this fishery, as compared to
the landings in 2004. Illex landings for
2001–2003 averaged 4,350 mt; in 2003
they were 6,389 mt; and in 2004 they
were 25,059 mt. Therefore, the proposed
action represents a reduction in
landings, from 2004, of 1,059 mt. In
2003, the last year with complete
financial data, the average value for Illex
was $626 per mt. Using this value, the
Illex fishery could see a decrease in
revenues of $662,934 as a result of the
proposed action. But, it is important to
note that the Illex landings for 2004
were 4.4 percent more than the quota for
that year allowed. The goal of fisheries
management is to avoid exceeding the
quotas. Thus, the better comparison to
use, in evaluating the impact of the
proposed action, is how that action
compares to what would have happened
had the 2004 landings reached, but not
exceeded the quota. If the quota had not
been exceeded in 2004, then the
proposed action would not represent a
reduction in landings. As a result, there
would be no reduction in revenues from
the implementation of the proposed
action, and that action would represent
no restraint on the fishery in 2006.
Under the proposed specifications for
butterfish (IOY = 1,681 mt), landings
would not be constrained relative to the
2001–2004 fisheries. During the period
2001–2004, butterfish landings averaged
1,535 mt. Compared to the most recent
2 years for which complete information
is available, 2003 and 2004, when
landings were 473 mt and 422 mt,
respectively, the proposed action would
not be expected to reduce revenues in
this fishery, but would rather increase
those revenues. Based on 2003 data, the
value of butterfish was $1,269 per mt.
The Council analysis evaluated two
alternatives for mackerel. Both of them
would have set IOY at 165,000 mt. This
IOY does not represent a constraint on
vessels in this fishery, so no impacts on
revenues in this fishery would be
expected as a result of these
alternatives. One of these alternatives
would have set the ABC at 347,000 mt.
This was rejected on biological grounds
because that level of ABC is not
consistent with the overfishing rule
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
adopted in Amendment 8 to the FMP
(F=0.25 yield estimate of 369,000 mt
minus the estimated Canadian catch of
34,000 mt). Furthermore, the Atlantic
mackerel alternatives that would set
IOY at 165,000 mt were rejected because
they were set too high in light of social
and economic concerns relating to
TALFF. The specification of TALFF
would have limited the opportunities
for the domestic fishery to expand, and
therefore would have resulted in
negative social and economic impacts to
both U.S. harvesters and processors (for
a full discussion of the TALFF issue,
please see the earlier section on Atlantic
mackerel).
For Illex, one alternative considered
would have set Max OY, ABC, IOY,
DAH, and DAP at 30,000 mt. This
alternative would allow harvest far in
excess of recent landings in this fishery.
Therefore, there would be no constraints
and, thus, no revenue reductions,
associated with these specifications.
However, the Council considered this
alternative unacceptable because an
ABC specification of 30,000 mt may not
prevent overfishing in years of moderate
to low abundance of Illex squid.
For butterfish, one alternative
considered would have set IOY at 5,900
mt, while another would have set it at
9,131 mt. These amounts exceed the
landings of this species in recent years.
Therefore, neither alternative represents
a constraint on vessels in this fishery or
would reduce revenues in the fishery.
However, both of these alternatives were
rejected because they would likely
result in overfishing and the additional
depletion of the spawning stock
biomass.
Authority
16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
Dated: December 20, 2005.
James W. Balsiger,
Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. E5–7849 Filed 12–23–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–S
E:\FR\FM\27DEP1.SGM
27DEP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 247 (Tuesday, December 27, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 76436-76440]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-7849]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Parts 600 and 648
[Docket No. 051209329-5329-01; I.D. 120205A]
RIN 0648-AT19
Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Mackerel,
Squid, and Butterfish Fisheries; Initial Specifications
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
[[Page 76437]]
ACTION: Proposed rule; 2006 specifications.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS proposes initial specifications for the 2006 fishing year
for Atlantic mackerel, squid, and butterfish (MSB). Regulations
governing these fisheries require NMFS to publish proposed
specifications for the upcoming fishing year and to provide an
opportunity for public comment. The intent of this action is to fulfill
this requirement and to promote the development and conservation of the
MSB resources.
DATES: Public comments must be received no later than 5 p.m., eastern
standard time, on January 11, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Copies of supporting documents used by the Mid-Atlantic
Fishery Management Council (Council), including the Environmental
Assessment (EA) and Regulatory Impact Review (RIR)/Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), are available from: Daniel Furlong,
Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Room 2115,
Federal Building, 300 South New Street, Dover, DE 19904-6790. The EA/
RIR/IRFA is accessible via the Internet at https://www.nero.nmfs.gov.
Written comments on the proposed rule may be sent by any of the
following methods:
Electronically through the Federal e-Rulemaking portal:
https://www.regulations.gov;
Mail to Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, NMFS,
Northeast Regional Office, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930.
Mark the outside of the envelope ``Comments on SMB Specifications
2006'';
Fax to Patricia A. Kurkul, (978) 281-9135; or
E-mail to the following address: SMBSpecs2006@noaa.gov.
Include in the subject line of the e-mail comment the following
document identifier: ``Comments on SMB Specifications 2006.''
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric Jay Dolin, Fishery Policy
Analyst, (978) 281-9259, fax (978) 281-9135.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Regulations implementing the Fishery Management Plan for the
Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fisheries (FMP) appear at 50
CFR part 648, subpart B. Regulations governing foreign fishing appear
at 50 CFR part 600, subpart F. These regulations, at Sec. 648.21 and
Sec. 600.516(c), require that NMFS, based on the maximum optimum yield
(Max OY) of each fishery as established by the regulations, annually
publish a proposed rule specifying the amounts of the initial optimum
yield (IOY), allowable biological catch (ABC), domestic annual harvest
(DAH), and domestic annual processing (DAP), as well as, where
applicable, the amounts for total allowable level of foreign fishing
(TALFF) and joint venture processing (JVP) for the affected species
managed under the FMP. In addition, these regulations allow Loligo
squid specifications to be specified for up to 3 years, subject to
annual review. The regulations found in Sec. 648.21 also specify that
IOY for squid is equal to the combination of research quota and DAH,
with no TALFF specified for squid. For butterfish, the regulations
specify that a butterfish bycatch TALFF will be specified only if TALFF
is specified for Atlantic mackerel.
In addition, the regulations at Sec. 648.21(g) allow the
specification of research quotas (RQ) to be used for research purposes.
For 2006, the Council recommended the consideration of RQs of up to 3
percent of IOY for Atlantic mackerel, butterfish, and squids. The RQs
would fund research and data collection for those species. A Request
for Research Proposals was published to solicit proposals for 2006
based on research priorities previously identified by the Council (70
FR 20104, April 18, 2005). The deadline for submission was May 18,
2005. On June 16, 2005, NMFS convened a Review Panel to review the
comments submitted by technical reviewers. Based on discussions between
NMFS staff, technical review comments, and Review Panel comments, one
project proposal requesting Loligo squid set-aside landings was
recommended for approval and will be forwarded to the NOAA Grants
Office for award, for a total RQ of 127.5 mt. Consistent with the
recommendations, the quotas in this proposed rule have been adjusted to
reflect the project recommended for approval. If the award is not made
by the NOAA Grants Office for any reason, NMFS will give notice of an
adjustment to the annual quota to return the unawarded set-aside amount
to the fishery.
Table 1 contains the proposed initial specifications for the 2006
Atlantic mackerel, Loligo and Illex squids, and butterfish fisheries.
Table 1. Proposed Initial Annual Specifications, in Metric Tons (mt), for Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and
Butterfish for the Fishing Year January 1 through December 31, 2006
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specifications Loligo Illex Mackerel Butterfish
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Max OY 26,000 24,000 N/A 12,175
ABC 17,000 24,000 335,000 4,545
IOY 16,872.5\1\ 24,000 115,000\2\ 1,681
DAH 16,872.5 24,000 115,000\3\ 1,681
DAP 16,872.5 24,000 100,000 1,681
JVP 0 0 0 0
TALFF 0 0 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes 127.5 mt for Research Quota (RQ).
\2\ IOY may be increased during the year, but the total ABC will not exceed 335,000 mt
\3\ Includes 15,000 mt of Atlantic mackerel recreational allocation.
2006 Proposed Specifications
Atlantic Mackerel
Overfishing for Atlantic mackerel is defined by the FMP to occur
when the catch associated with a threshold fishing mortality rate (F)
of FMSY (the F that produces MSY (maximum sustainable
yield)) is exceeded. When spawning stock biomass (SSB) is greater than
890,000 mt, the maximum F threshold is FMSY (0.45), and the
target F is 0.25. To avoid low levels of recruitment, the FMP contains
a control rule whereby the threshold F decreases linearly from 0.45 at
890,000 mt SSB to zero at 225,000 mt SSB (1/4 of the biomass level that
would produce MSY on a continuing basis (BMSY)), and the
target F decreases linearly from 0.25 at 890,000 mt SSB to zero at
450,000 mt
[[Page 76438]]
SSB (1/2 BMSY). Annual quotas are specified that correspond
to the target F resulting from this control rule.
The most recent estimate of Atlantic mackerel stock biomass was 2.1
million mt. Since SSB is currently above 890,000 mt, the target F for
2006 is 0.25. According to the Altantic mackerel, squid, and butterfish
regulations, mackerel ABC must be calculated using the formula ABC = T
- C, where C is the estimated catch of mackerel in Canadian waters for
the upcoming fishing year and T is the yield associated with a fishing
mortality rate that is equal to the target F. The yield associated with
the target F=0.25 is 369,000 mt. The estimated Canadian catch is 34,000
mt. Thus, 369,000 mt minus 34,000 mt results in and ABC of 335,000 mt.
The Council recommends an IOY of 115,000 mt, arguing that this
level would provide the greatest overall benefit to the Nation with
respect to food production and recreational opportunities. This level
of IOY was also adopted because the Council believes that it allows for
a significant increase in domestic landings, which have increased in
the last several years due to major investments in the domestic
mackerel processing sector. This level of IOY represents a modification
of MSY based on economic and social factors (the mackerel regulations
at Sec. 648.21(b)(2)(ii) state that, ``IOY is a modification of ABC,
based on social and economic factors, and must be less than or equal to
ABC''). The Council expressed its concern, supported by industry
testimony, that an allocation of TALFF would threaten the expansion of
the domestic industry (the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act provides that the specification of TALFF, if any, shall
be that portion of the optimum yield (OY) of a fishery that will not be
harvested by vessels of the United States). TALFF catches would allow
foreign vessels to harvest U.S. fish and sell their product on the
world market, in direct competition with the U.S. industry efforts to
expand exports. The Council noted that this would prevent the U.S.
industry from taking advantage of declines in the European production
of Atlantic mackerel that have resulted in an increase in world demand
for U.S. fish. The only economic benefit associated with a TALFF is the
foreign fishing fees it generates. On the other hand, there are
economic benefits associated with the development of the domestic
mackerel fishery. Increased mackerel production generates jobs both for
plant workers and other support industries. More jobs generate
additional sources of income for people resident in coastal communities
and generally enhance the social fabric of these communities.
For these reasons, the Council concluded, and NMFS agrees, that the
specification of an IOY at a level that can be fully harvested by the
domestic fleet, thereby precluding the specification of a TALFF, will
assist the U.S. mackerel industry to expand and will yield positive
social and economic benefits to both U.S. harvesters and processors.
Given the trends in landings, and the industry's testimony that the
fishery is poised for significant growth, NMFS concludes that it is
reasonable to assume that in 2006 the commercial fishery will harvest
100,000 mt of mackerel. Thus DAH would be 115,000 mt, which is the
commercial harvest plus the 15,000 mt allocated for the recreational
fishery. Because IOY = DAH, this specification is consistent with the
Council's recommendation that the level of IOY should not provide for a
TALFF.
NMFS also agrees with the Council's recommendation to specify JVP
at zero (as compared with 5,000 mt of JVP in 2004). In previous years,
the Council specified JVP greater than zero because it believed U.S.
processors lacked the capability to process the total amount of
mackerel that U.S. harvesters could land. The Council has been
systematically reducing JVP because it concluded that the surplus
between DAH and DAP has been declining as U.S. shoreside processing
capacity for mackerel has expanded over the last several years. The
Council received testimony from processors and harvesters that the
shoreside processing sector of this industry has been undergoing
significant expansion since 2002-2003. As a result of this expansion,
the Council concluded that shoreside processing capacity was no longer
a limiting factor relative to domestic production of mackerel. The
Council, therefore, concluded that the U.S. mackerel processing sector
has the potential to process the DAH, so JVP would be specified at
zero.
Atlantic Squids
Loligo squid
In 2004, the Council specified the annual quota and other measures
for Loligo squid for a period of up to 3 years (i.e., 2004 - 2007).
After a review of available information, the Council recommended no
change to the Loligo quota or other measures in 2006, and NMFS concurs
with this recommendation. Based on a research project approved for
2006, the Council recommended that the RQ for scientific research for
Loligo squid not exceed 127.5 mt. The 2006 proposed Max OY for Loligo
squid is 26,000 mt, the recommended ABC for the 2006 fishery is 17,000
mt, and the IOY is 16,872.5 mt, which takes into account the 127.5 mt
RQ. The FMP does not authorize the specification of JVP and TALFF for
the Loligo squid fishery, because of the domestic industry's capacity
to harvest and process the OY for this fishery; therefore, JVP and
TALFF are zero.
Distribution of the Annual Loligo Squid Quota
Since 2001, the annual DAH for Loligo squid has been allocated into
quarterly periods. The Council and NMFS recommend no change from the
2005 quarterly distribution system. Due to the recommendation of a
research project that would utilize Loligo squid RQ, this proposed rule
would adjust the quarterly allocations from those that were proposed,
based on formulas specified in the FMP. The 2006 quarterly allocations
would be as follows:
Table 2. Percent Allocations of Loligo Quota
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quarter Percent Metric Tons\1\ RQ
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I (Jan-Mar) 33.23 5,606.70 N/A
II (Apr-Jun) 17.61 2,971.30 N/A
III (Jul-Sep) 17.30 2,918.90 N/A
IV (Oct-Dec) 31.86 5,375.60 N/A
Total 100 16,872.50 127.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Quarterly allocations after 127.5 mt RQ deduction.
[[Page 76439]]
Also unchanged from 2005, the 2006 directed fishery would be closed
in Quarters I-III when 80 percent of the period allocation is
harvested, with vessels restricted to a 2,500-lb (1,134-kg) Loligo
squid trip limit per single calender day until the end of the
respective quarter. The directed fishery would close when 95 percent of
the total annual DAH has been harvested, with vessels restricted to a
2,500-lb (1,134-kg) Loligo squid trip limit per single calender day for
the remainder of the year. Quota overages from Quarter I would be
deducted from the allocation in Quarter III, and any overages from
Quarter II would be deducted from Quarter IV. By default, quarterly
underages from Quarters II and III carry over into Quarter IV, because
Quarter IV does not close until 95 percent of the total annual quota
has been harvested. Additionally, if the Quarter I landings for Loligo
squid are less than 80 percent of the Quarter I allocation, the
underage below 80 percent is applied to Quarter III.
Illex squid
The Council recommended maintaining the Illex specifications in
2006 at the same levels as they were for the 2005 fishing year. NMFS
concurs with this recommendation; thus, the specification of Max OY,
IOY, ABC and DAH would be 24,000 mt. The overfishing definition for
Illex squid states that overfishing for Illex squid occurs when the
catch associated with a threshold fishing mortality rate of FMSY
is exceeded. Max OY is specified as the catch associated with a fishing
mortality rate of FMSY, while DAH is specified as the level of harvest
that corresponds to a target fishing mortality rate of 75 percent
FMSY. The biomass target is specified as BMSY.
The minimum biomass threshold is specified as 1/2 BMSY.
In September 2003, the results of an updated assessment of the
Illex squid stock (the 37th Northeast Regional Stock Assessment
Workshop; SAW-37) were released. SAW-37 concluded that overfishing was
not likely to have occurred during the period 1992-2002. SAW-37 found
that it was not possible to evaluate the current biomass status for
Illex squid relative to BMSY because the size of the stock could not be
reliably estimated. SAW 37 noted that, since 1999, the Northeast
Fishery Science Center (NEFSC) autumn survey abundance indices have
been below the 1982-2002 average, but that it could not determine
whether this trend is due to low abundance, low availability or both.
The assessment noted that surface and bottom water temperatures in the
Mid-Atlantic Bight have been warmer than average during recent years,
and that Illex abundance and biomass indices from the autumn surveys
were significantly negatively correlated with bottom water temperature
anomalies from the autumn surveys. SAW 37 concluded that this likely
indicates an environmental effect on productivity. While landings have
been below the 1982-2002 average since 1998, SAW 37 found that this
could be due to the reduced effort observed during the time period, low
biomass or both factors.
SAW 37 cautioned that, under current stock conditions, a DAH of
24,000 mt, which assumes a stock at BMSY, may not be
sufficient to prevent overfishing. It also cautioned that the existing
overfishing definition, which is based on FMSY, is not only
difficult to estimate given the available information, but may also
perform poorly given the stock's production dynamics. In addition, SAW
37 recommended that, given uncertainties in the stock distribution and
population biology, the fishery should be managed in relation to the
proportion of the stock on the continental shelf and available to U.S.
fisheries. However, SAW 37 did not recommend specific action. The
assessment also noted that more knowledge of Illex is necessary to
respond to these concerns. While cooperative research efforts are
underway, there is currently no information to use to construct an
alternative recommendation.
Despite the cautions within SAW 37, the assessment also concluded
that it was unlikely that overfishing occurred during 1999-2002 for
several reasons. Many of these reasons remain applicable to the
proposal to maintain DAH at 24,000 mt for 2006. The reasons are: (1)
The current small fleet size and effort levels make it unlikely that
the fishery could exert the very high fishing mortality rate required
to exceed the level recommended in the assessment (F50%), (2) the short
fishing season makes high annual average fishing mortality rates
unlikely, (3) the restricted geographical distribution of the fishery
makes high annual average fishing mortality rates for the entire stock
unlikely, (4) relative exploitation indices have declined considerably
since 1999 and have been below the 1982-2002 median since then, and (5)
preliminary model results indicate that fishing mortality rates as high
as F50% are unlikely to have occurred even during 1999, when
relative fishing mortality was the highest in recent years.
Therefore, NMFS proposes that the annual specifications for Illex
squid should remain unchanged for 2006, agreeing with the Council that
there is no basis for concluding that the specifications are likely to
result in overfishing. As the Council noted, the management program for
Illex requires the directed fishery to be closed when 95 percent of the
quota (22,800 mt) is harvested. While incidental landings are allowed
following this closure, the amount of Illex caught incidentally by
vessels targeting other species is limited due to the specialized
nature of the Illex fishery. Illex is harvested offshore near the edge
of the continental shelf during the summer. The species spoils quickly,
so freezing or refrigerated seawater equipment must be utilized to
prevent spoilage. Similar to Loligo squid, when a trip limit is in
effect, vessels are prohibited from possessing or landing more than the
specified amount in a single calendar day, which is 10,000 lb (4,536
kg). Few vessels are expected to invest in the necessary equipment to
pursue Illex under the incidental catch allowance. Furthermore, if
evidence were to become available in 2006 that overfishing was
occurring, the current FMP allows for in-season adjustments to the IOY.
The FMP does not authorize the specification of JVP and TALFF for
the Illex squid fishery because of the domestic fishing industry's
capacity to harvest and to process the OY from this fishery.
Butterfish
The Council recommended maintaining the butterfish specifications
in 2006 at the same levels as they were for the 2005 fishing year; NMFS
concurs with this recommendation. Thus, the proposed specifications
would set IOY at 1,681 mt to achieve the target fishing mortality rate
(75 percent of FMSY) specified in the FMP based on the most
recent stock assessment for the species (Stock Assessment Review
Committee (SARC) 38). Based on that assessment and assuming that
biomass in 2006 will be nominally the same as 2000-2002, then the catch
associated with the target F would be 2,242 mt, and this forms the
basis for the specification of butterfish ABC of 4,545 mt. Assuming
that the discard-to-landing ratio remains constant, then IOY, DAH, and
DAP = 1,681 mt (i.e., the allowable landings equals ABC less estimated
discards, which are roughly twice landings). NMFS supports this
recommended level of landings because it should achieve the target
fishing mortality rate and allow for stock rebuilding.
[[Page 76440]]
Classification
This action is authorized by 50 CFR part 648 and has been
determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866
(E.O. 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
The number of potential fishing vessels in the 2006 fisheries are
406 for Loligo squid/butterfish, 80 for Illex squid, 2,414 for Atlantic
mackerel, and 2,016 vessels with incidental catch permits for squid/
butterfish, based on vessel permit issuance. There are no large
entities participating in this fishery, as defined in section 601 of
the RFA. Therefore, there are no disproportionate economic impacts on
small entities. Many vessels participate in more than one of these
fisheries; therefore, the numbers are not additive.
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
The IOY specification under the proposed action for Atlantic
mackerel (115,000 mt, with 15,000 mt allocated to recreational catch)
represents no constraint on vessels in this fishery. This level of
landings has not been achieved by vessels in this fishery in recent
years. Mackerel landings for 2001-2003 averaged 24,294 mt; in 2003 they
were 30,738 mt; and for 2004 they were 53,781 mt. Therefore, no
reductions in revenues for the mackerel fishery is expected as a result
of the proposed action. However, there is likely to be an increase in
revenues as a result of the proposed action. Based on 2004 data, the
mackerel fishery could increase its landings by 46,219 mt in 2006, if
it takes the entire IOY. In 2003, the last year with complete financial
data, the average value for mackerel was $234 per mt. Using this value,
the mackerel fishery could see an increase in revenues of $10,815,246
as a result of the proposed action.
The IOY specification under the proposed action for Illex (24,000
mt) represents a slight constraint on revenues in this fishery, as
compared to the landings in 2004. Illex landings for 2001-2003 averaged
4,350 mt; in 2003 they were 6,389 mt; and in 2004 they were 25,059 mt.
Therefore, the proposed action represents a reduction in landings, from
2004, of 1,059 mt. In 2003, the last year with complete financial data,
the average value for Illex was $626 per mt. Using this value, the
Illex fishery could see a decrease in revenues of $662,934 as a result
of the proposed action. But, it is important to note that the Illex
landings for 2004 were 4.4 percent more than the quota for that year
allowed. The goal of fisheries management is to avoid exceeding the
quotas. Thus, the better comparison to use, in evaluating the impact of
the proposed action, is how that action compares to what would have
happened had the 2004 landings reached, but not exceeded the quota. If
the quota had not been exceeded in 2004, then the proposed action would
not represent a reduction in landings. As a result, there would be no
reduction in revenues from the implementation of the proposed action,
and that action would represent no restraint on the fishery in 2006.
Under the proposed specifications for butterfish (IOY = 1,681 mt),
landings would not be constrained relative to the 2001-2004 fisheries.
During the period 2001-2004, butterfish landings averaged 1,535 mt.
Compared to the most recent 2 years for which complete information is
available, 2003 and 2004, when landings were 473 mt and 422 mt,
respectively, the proposed action would not be expected to reduce
revenues in this fishery, but would rather increase those revenues.
Based on 2003 data, the value of butterfish was $1,269 per mt.
The Council analysis evaluated two alternatives for mackerel. Both
of them would have set IOY at 165,000 mt. This IOY does not represent a
constraint on vessels in this fishery, so no impacts on revenues in
this fishery would be expected as a result of these alternatives. One
of these alternatives would have set the ABC at 347,000 mt. This was
rejected on biological grounds because that level of ABC is not
consistent with the overfishing rule adopted in Amendment 8 to the FMP
(F=0.25 yield estimate of 369,000 mt minus the estimated Canadian catch
of 34,000 mt). Furthermore, the Atlantic mackerel alternatives that
would set IOY at 165,000 mt were rejected because they were set too
high in light of social and economic concerns relating to TALFF. The
specification of TALFF would have limited the opportunities for the
domestic fishery to expand, and therefore would have resulted in
negative social and economic impacts to both U.S. harvesters and
processors (for a full discussion of the TALFF issue, please see the
earlier section on Atlantic mackerel).
For Illex, one alternative considered would have set Max OY, ABC,
IOY, DAH, and DAP at 30,000 mt. This alternative would allow harvest
far in excess of recent landings in this fishery. Therefore, there
would be no constraints and, thus, no revenue reductions, associated
with these specifications. However, the Council considered this
alternative unacceptable because an ABC specification of 30,000 mt may
not prevent overfishing in years of moderate to low abundance of Illex
squid.
For butterfish, one alternative considered would have set IOY at
5,900 mt, while another would have set it at 9,131 mt. These amounts
exceed the landings of this species in recent years. Therefore, neither
alternative represents a constraint on vessels in this fishery or would
reduce revenues in the fishery. However, both of these alternatives
were rejected because they would likely result in overfishing and the
additional depletion of the spawning stock biomass.
Authority
16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
Dated: December 20, 2005.
James W. Balsiger,
Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National
Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. E5-7849 Filed 12-23-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S
