Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fisheries; 2006 Specifications, 10611-10614 [06-1963]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
RMAJETTE on PROD1PC67 with RULES1
excess of the maximum allowable living
allowance may apply for State
competitive funds through a State
commission, or directly to the
Corporation as part of a National Direct
or National Professional Corps program,
or any other National program,
including Direct programs for States or
Territories without a State commission.
Such a professional corps may not apply
for funds through a State commission’s
formula application process.
When the Corporation published
regulations implementing the
AmeriCorps program in 1994, the
regulatory provision implementing this
statutory exception went further than
the statute requires by requiring
professional corps programs seeking an
exemption from the maximum living
allowance to apply only directly to the
Corporation. This excluded those
professional corps programs wishing to
provide a living allowance in excess of
the maximum from applying for State
competitive funding.
In July 2005, the Corporation
published a final AmeriCorps rule
which, among other things, reinforced
the Corporation’s commitment to
professional corps and low-cost
AmeriCorps programs, and encouraged
States to include them in their portfolios
as a way to reduce costs. At the time we
issued that rule, we did not include an
amendment to this pre-existing
regulatory provision. This amendment
brings the Corporation’s regulations into
alignment with the authorizing statute
and the Corporation’s support for
professional corps programs.
II. Final Action and Comments
The Corporation is issuing the
amendment as a direct final rule,
without prior proposal, under the good
cause exception for notice and public
procedure under the Administrative
Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B)),
because we view the revision as noncontroversial and anticipate no adverse
comments. However, in the Proposed
Rules section of this Federal Register,
we are publishing a separate document
that will serve as the proposal to amend
45 CFR 2522.240(b)(2) if adverse
comments are filed. This direct final
rule will be effective May 1, 2006,
without further notice, unless the
Corporation receives adverse comments
by April 3, 2006.
If the Corporation receives adverse
comments, the Corporation will publish
a document withdrawing the final rule
and informing the public that the rule
will not take effect. The Corporation
will then address public comments
received in a subsequent final rule
based on the proposed rule. The
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:10 Mar 01, 2006
Jkt 208001
Corporation will not institute a second
comment period. Any one interested in
commenting should do so at this time.
If the Corporation receives no adverse
comments, this rule will be effective on
May 1, 2006, and no further action will
be taken on the proposed rule.
III. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Executive Order 12866
The Corporation has determined that
this direct final rule, while a significant
regulatory action, is not an
‘‘economically significant’’ rule within
the meaning of E.O. 12866 because it is
not likely to result in: (1) An annual
effect on the economy of $100 million
or more, or an adverse and material
effect on a sector of the economy,
productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or
State, local, or tribal government or
communities; (2) the creation of a
serious inconsistency or interference
with an action taken or planned by
another agency; (3) a material alteration
in the budgetary impacts of entitlement,
grants, user fees, or loan programs or the
rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or (4) the raising of novel legal
or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President’s priorities, or
the principles set forth in E.O. 12866.
As a ‘‘significant’’ regulatory action, this
rule was reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB).
10611
not have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the
national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive 13132.
The direct final rule does not have
tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. The rule will
not have a substantial direct effect on
tribal governments, on the relationship
between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes.
List of Subjects in 45 CFR Part 2522
Grant programs-social programs,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volunteers.
For the reasons stated in the preamble,
the Corporation for National and
Community Service amends chapter
XXV, title 45 of the Code of Federal
Regulations as follows:
I
PART 2522—AMERICORPS
PARTICIPANTS, PROGRAMS, AND
APPLICANTS
1. The authority citation for part 2522
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 12571–12595.
2. Amend § 2522.240 by revising
paragraph (b)(2)(ii) to read as follows:
I
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Corporation has determined that
this regulatory action, if promulgated,
will not result in a significant impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
Therefore, the Corporation has not
performed the initial regulatory
flexibility analysis that is required
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.) for major rules that
are expected to have such results.
§ 2522.240 What financial benefits do
AmeriCorps participants serving in
approved AmeriCorps positions receive?
Other Impact Analyses
This action does not impose any new
information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
For purposes of Title II of the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, as well as
Executive Order 12875, this regulatory
action does not contain any Federal
mandate that may result in increased
expenditures in either Federal, State,
local, or tribal governments in the
aggregate, or impose an annual burden
exceeding $100 million on the private
sector.
The direct final rule amendment does
not have federalism implications. It will
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) The program must be operated
directly by the applicant, selected on a
competitive basis by submitting an
application to the Corporation, and may
not be included in a State’s application
for AmeriCorps program funds
distributed by formula under
§ 2521.30(a)(2) of this chapter.
*
*
*
*
*
Dated: February 24, 2006.
Frank R. Trinity,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 06–1934 Filed 3–1–06; 8:45 am]
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
*
BILLING CODE 6050–$$–P
E:\FR\FM\02MRR1.SGM
02MRR1
10612
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Parts 600 and 648
[Docket No. 051209329–6046–02; I.D.
120205A]
RIN 0648–AT19
Fisheries of the Northeastern United
States; Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and
Butterfish Fisheries; 2006
Specifications
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule; 2006 Atlantic
mackerel, squid and butterfish
specifications.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: NMFS announces final
specifications for the 2006 Atlantic
mackerel, squid, and butterfish (MSB)
fisheries. The intent of this final rule is
to promote the development and
conservation of the MSB resources.
DATES: Effective April 3, 2006, through
December 31, 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)/Final Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (FRFA), 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
specifications document is also
accessible via the Internet at https://
www.nero.noaa.gov. The FRFA consists
of the Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (IRFA)and the summary of
impacts and alternatives contained in
this final rule. No comments were
received on the IRFA or the economic
impacts of the rule. Copies of the small
entity compliance guide are available
from Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional
Administrator, Northeast Region,
National Marine Fisheries Service, One
Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930
2298.
Eric
Jay Dolin, Fishery Policy Analyst, (978)
281–9259, fax (978) 281–9135.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Proposed 2006 specifications for the
MSB fisheries were published on
December 27, 2005 (70 FR 76436), with
public comment accepted through
January 11, 2006. These final
specifications are unchanged from those
that were proposed (see Table 1). A
complete discussion of the development
of the specifications appears in the
preamble to the proposed rule and is not
repeated here.
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
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.
TABLE 1. FINAL 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
1 16,872.5
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
2 115,000
3 115,000
100,000
0
0
Butterfish
12,175
4,545
1,681
1,681
1,681
0
0
Excludes 127.5 mt for 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.
Loligo squid
The Loligo squid quota is divided into
quarterly allocations (See Table 2).
RMAJETTE on PROD1PC67 with RULES1
Illex
Quarter
I (Jan-Mar)
II (Apr-Jun)
III (Jul-Sep)
IV (Oct-Dec)
Total
Percent
33.23
17.61
17.30
31.86
100
1 Quarterly allocations
deduction.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:10 Mar 01, 2006
Jkt 208001
The 2006 directed fishery for Loligo
will be closed in Quarters I-III when 80
percent of the period allocation is
harvested, with vessels thereafter
Metric
RQ
Tons 1
restricted to a 2,500–lb (1,134–kg)
Loligo squid trip limit per single
5,606.70
N/A
calender day until the end of the
2,971.30
N/A
respective quarter. The directed fishery
2,918.90
N/A
5,375.60
N/A will close when 95 percent of the total
16,872.50
127.5 annual DAH has been harvested, with
vessels thereafter restricted to a 2,500–
after 127.5 mt RQ lb (1,134–kg) Loligo squid trip limit per
single calender day for the remainder of
TABLE 2. PERCENT ALLOCATIONS OF
Loligo QUOTA
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\02MRR1.SGM
02MRR1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
RMAJETTE on PROD1PC67 with RULES1
the year. Quota overages from Quarter I
will be deducted from the allocation in
Quarter III, and any overage from
Quarter II will 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 will be applied to Quarter III.
Comments and Responses
There were five sets of comments
received. Four were from industry
members and associations: Garden State
Seafood Association; the American
Pelagic Association; the East Coast
Pelagic Association, and Atlantic
Pelagic Seafood. The fifth was from a
private citizen.
Comment 1: Four commenters
supported setting JVP and TALFF at
zero.
Response: This action sets JVP and
TALFF for mackerel at zero.
Comment 2: Four commenters were
concerned about NMFS’s ability to use
the FMP’s in-season adjustment
mechanism, should it become necessary
to raise mackerel OY, DAH, and DAP
based on industry performance, and two
of them requested that the final 2006
specifications include a provision that
would enable NMFS to implement a
speedier in-season adjustment.
Response: NMFS will keep close
watch on mackerel catch throughout
2006 so that, should an in-season
adjustment become necessary, NMFS
can get one in place as quickly as
possible. The in-season adjustment
procedure is the only regulatory
mechanism available for making such a
modification to the specifications
outside of the annual specifications
process. This procedure is specified in
the FMP, and Council action would be
required to enact a modification. NMFS
will use all available data sources and
projection techniques to identify the
need for such an adjustment as early as
possible.
Comment 3: One commenter stated
that the proposed Atlantic mackerel
DAH was too low, and should be set at
165,000 mt.
Response: The Atlantic mackerel DAH
is set at 100,000 mt to take into account
the actual performance of the fishery in
recent years, which has never exceeded
60,000 mt, and often has fallen well
below 50,000 mt; and the industry’s
expectation of increased harvests in
2006 as a result of recent investments in
vessels and shoreside processing
facilities. This figure represents a
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:10 Mar 01, 2006
Jkt 208001
balance between actual past harvest and
reasonably expected increases in
harvests for 2006.
Classification
This action is authorized by 50 CFR
part 648 and has been determined to be
not significant for purposes of Executive
Order 12866.
This final rule contains the FRFA
prepared pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 604(a).
The FRFA consists of the IRFA and the
summary of impacts and alternatives
contained in this final rule. No
comments were received on the IRFA or
the economic impacts of the rule. A
copy of the IRFA is available from the
Council (see ADDRESSES). A summary of
the analysis follows:
Statement of Objective and Need
A statement of the need for and
objectives of the rule is contained in the
preamble to the 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. Because all
entities participating in this fishery are
small entities, as defined in Section 601
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 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
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
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
10613
fishery are expected as a result of this
action. However, there is the potential
for an increase in revenues as a result
of this 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 for
which there are 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
this action.
The IOY specification 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 for which there are
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, the
Illex landings for 2004 were 4.4 percent
higher than the approved quota for that
year. Thus, the better comparison to use
in evaluating the impact of the 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 this action
would not represent a potential
reduction in Illex landings. This action
thus represents no constraint on the
fishery in 2006.
Under the final specifications for
butterfish (IOY = 1,681 mt), landings
will not be constrained relative to the
2001–2004 fisheries. During the period
2001–2004, annual 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 action is not expected
to reduce revenues in this fishery, but
could increase those revenues. Based on
2003 data, the value of butterfish was
$1,269 per mt.
The Council analysis evaluated two
additional alternatives for mackerel.
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
preventing overfishing, as defined in the
FMP (the overfishing threshold, F=0.25,
results in a yield estimate of 369,000 mt,
minus the estimated Canadian catch of
34,000 mt, that is less than 347,000 mt).
Both of the alternatives would have set
IOY at 165,000 mt. This IOY would not
represent a constraint on vessels in this
E:\FR\FM\02MRR1.SGM
02MRR1
10614
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
fishery, so no impacts on revenues in
this fishery would be expected as a
result of either of these alternatives.
However, an IOY of 165,000 mt was
rejected by the Council because it was
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 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 that alternative.
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. Both of these amounts exceed
the landings of this species in recent
years. Therefore, neither alternative
would represent a constraint on vessels
in this fishery or would reduce revenues
in the fishery. However, both of these
alternatives were rejected by the
Council because they would likely
result in overfishing and the additional
depletion of the spawning stock biomass
of butterfish.
RMAJETTE on PROD1PC67 with RULES1
Small Entity Compliance Guide
Section 212 of the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996 states that, for each rule, or group
of related rules for which an agency is
required to prepare a FRFA, the agency
shall publish one or more guides to
assist small entities in complying with
the rule and shall designate such
publications as ‘‘small entity
compliance guides.’’ The agency shall
explain the actions a small entity is
required to take to comply with a rule
or group of rules. As part of this
rulemaking process, a small entity
compliance guide will be sent to all
holders of permits issued for the
Atlantic mackerel, squid and butterfish
fisheries. In addition, copies of this final
rule and guide (i.e., permit holder letter)
are available from the Regional
Administrator (see ADDRESSES) and may
be found at the following Web site:
https://www.nero.noaa.gov.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:10 Mar 01, 2006
Jkt 208001
Dated: February 24, 2006.
John Oliver,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Operations, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
[FR Doc. 06–1963 Filed 3–1–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
[Docket No. 050921244–6049–02; I.D.
091305A]
RIN 0648–AP38
Fisheries Off West Coast States and in
the Western Pacific; Pacific Coast
Groundfish Fishery; Limited Entry
Fixed Gear Sablefish Fishery Permit
Stacking Program
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: NMFS is implementing
portions of Amendment 14 to the Pacific
Coast Groundfish Fishery Management
Plan (FMP) for 2007 and beyond.
Amendment 14, approved by NOAA in
August 2001, created a permit stacking
program for limited entry permits with
sablefish endorsements. Amendment 14
was intended to provide greater season
flexibility for sablefish fishery
participants and to improve safety in the
primary sablefish fishery.
DATES: Effective April 3, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Copies of Amendment 14
and its Environmental Assessment/
Regulatory Impact Review (EA/RIR) are
available from Donald McIsaac,
Executive Director, Pacific Fishery
Management Council (Council), 7700
NE Ambassador Place, Portland, OR
97220, phone: 866–806–7204. Copies of
the Finding of No Significant Impact
(FONSI), Supplemental Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA),
Supplemental Final Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (FRFA), and the
Small Entity Compliance Guide (SECG)
are available from D. Robert Lohn,
Administrator, Northwest Region,
NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way NE,
Seattle, WA 98115–0070, phone: 206–
526–6150.
Written comments regarding the
burden-hour estimates or other aspects
of the collection-of-information
requirements contained in this final rule
may be submitted to D. Robert Lohn,
Frm 00010
Fmt 4700
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Electronic Access
50 CFR Part 660
PO 00000
Administrator, Northwest Region,
NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way NE,
Seattle, WA 98115–0070, and by e-mail
to DavidRostker@omb.eop.gov, or by fax
to (202) 395–7285.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jamie Goen or Kevin Ford (Northwest
Region, NMFS), phone: 206–526–4646
or 206–526–6115; fax: 206–526–6736
and; e-mail: jamie.goen@noaa.gov or
kevin.ford@noaa.gov.
Sfmt 4700
This Federal Register document is
also accessible via the internet at the
website of the Office of the Federal
Register: www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/
index.html.
Background
Amendment 14 introduced a permit
stacking program to the limited entry,
fixed gear primary sablefish fishery.
Under this permit stacking program, a
vessel owner may register up to three
sablefish-endorsed permits for use with
their vessel to harvest each of the
primary season sablefish cumulative
limits associated with the stacked
permits. Amendment 14 also allows a
season up to 7 months long, from April
1 through October 31, which allows an
ample period for vessels to pursue their
primary season sablefish cumulative
limits.
This final rule is based on
recommendations of the Council, under
the authority of the Pacific Coast
Groundfish FMP and the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens
Act). The portions of Amendment 14
that were implemented for the 2001
primary sablefish season allowed
individual fishery participants to more
fully use their existing vessel capacity,
reduced overall capacity in the primary
fixed gear sablefish fishery, and
significantly increased safety in the
fishery. This rule does not change any
of those benefits, but further completes
the implementation of Amendment 14
by preventing excessive fleet
consolidation, ensuring processor access
to sablefish landings from the primary
season, and maintaining the character of
the fleet through owner-on-board
requirements. The background and
rationale for the Council’s
recommendations, as well as an
explanation of why NMFS will not be
implementing the Council’s
recommendation for a hail-in
requirement and some modifications to
the permit stacking program that the
Council is considering for future
implementation are summarized in the
E:\FR\FM\02MRR1.SGM
02MRR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 41 (Thursday, March 2, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 10611-10614]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-1963]
[[Page 10612]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Parts 600 and 648
[Docket No. 051209329-6046-02; I.D. 120205A]
RIN 0648-AT19
Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Mackerel,
Squid, and Butterfish Fisheries; 2006 Specifications
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule; 2006 Atlantic mackerel, squid and butterfish
specifications.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS announces final specifications for the 2006 Atlantic
mackerel, squid, and butterfish (MSB) fisheries. The intent of this
final rule is to promote the development and conservation of the MSB
resources.
DATES: Effective April 3, 2006, through December 31, 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)/Final Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (FRFA), 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
specifications document is also accessible via the Internet at https://
www.nero.noaa.gov. The FRFA consists of the Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA)and the summary of impacts and alternatives
contained in this final rule. No comments were received on the IRFA or
the economic impacts of the rule. Copies of the small entity compliance
guide are available from Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator,
Northeast Region, National Marine Fisheries Service, One Blackburn
Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930 2298.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric Jay Dolin, Fishery Policy
Analyst, (978) 281-9259, fax (978) 281-9135.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Proposed 2006 specifications for the MSB fisheries were published
on December 27, 2005 (70 FR 76436), with public comment accepted
through January 11, 2006. These final specifications are unchanged from
those that were proposed (see Table 1). A complete discussion of the
development of the specifications appears in the preamble to the
proposed rule and is not repeated here.
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.
Table 1. Final 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 \1\ 24,000 \2\ 115,000 1,681
16,872.5
DAH 16,872.5 24,000 \3\ 115,000 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 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.
Loligo squid
The Loligo squid quota is divided into quarterly allocations (See
Table 2).
Table 2. Percent Allocations of Loligo Quota
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metric
Quarter Percent 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.
The 2006 directed fishery for Loligo will be closed in Quarters I-
III when 80 percent of the period allocation is harvested, with vessels
thereafter 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 will close when 95 percent of the total annual DAH has
been harvested, with vessels thereafter restricted to a 2,500-lb
(1,134-kg) Loligo squid trip limit per single calender day for the
remainder of
[[Page 10613]]
the year. Quota overages from Quarter I will be deducted from the
allocation in Quarter III, and any overage from Quarter II will 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
will be applied to Quarter III.
Comments and Responses
There were five sets of comments received. Four were from industry
members and associations: Garden State Seafood Association; the
American Pelagic Association; the East Coast Pelagic Association, and
Atlantic Pelagic Seafood. The fifth was from a private citizen.
Comment 1: Four commenters supported setting JVP and TALFF at zero.
Response: This action sets JVP and TALFF for mackerel at zero.
Comment 2: Four commenters were concerned about NMFS's ability to
use the FMP's in-season adjustment mechanism, should it become
necessary to raise mackerel OY, DAH, and DAP based on industry
performance, and two of them requested that the final 2006
specifications include a provision that would enable NMFS to implement
a speedier in-season adjustment.
Response: NMFS will keep close watch on mackerel catch throughout
2006 so that, should an in-season adjustment become necessary, NMFS can
get one in place as quickly as possible. The in-season adjustment
procedure is the only regulatory mechanism available for making such a
modification to the specifications outside of the annual specifications
process. This procedure is specified in the FMP, and Council action
would be required to enact a modification. NMFS will use all available
data sources and projection techniques to identify the need for such an
adjustment as early as possible.
Comment 3: One commenter stated that the proposed Atlantic mackerel
DAH was too low, and should be set at 165,000 mt.
Response: The Atlantic mackerel DAH is set at 100,000 mt to take
into account the actual performance of the fishery in recent years,
which has never exceeded 60,000 mt, and often has fallen well below
50,000 mt; and the industry's expectation of increased harvests in 2006
as a result of recent investments in vessels and shoreside processing
facilities. This figure represents a balance between actual past
harvest and reasonably expected increases in harvests for 2006.
Classification
This action is authorized by 50 CFR part 648 and has been
determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
This final rule contains the FRFA prepared pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
604(a). The FRFA consists of the IRFA and the summary of impacts and
alternatives contained in this final rule. No comments were received on
the IRFA or the economic impacts of the rule. A copy of the IRFA is
available from the Council (see ADDRESSES). A summary of the analysis
follows:
Statement of Objective and Need
A statement of the need for and objectives of the rule is contained
in the preamble to the 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. Because all entities
participating in this fishery are small entities, as defined in Section
601 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 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 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 are expected as a result of this action.
However, there is the potential for an increase in revenues as a result
of this 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 for which there are 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
this action.
The IOY specification 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 for which there are 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, the Illex landings for 2004 were 4.4 percent
higher than the approved quota for that year. Thus, the better
comparison to use in evaluating the impact of the 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 this action would not represent a potential reduction in
Illex landings. This action thus represents no constraint on the
fishery in 2006.
Under the final specifications for butterfish (IOY = 1,681 mt),
landings will not be constrained relative to the 2001-2004 fisheries.
During the period 2001-2004, annual 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 action is not expected to reduce revenues in this
fishery, but could increase those revenues. Based on 2003 data, the
value of butterfish was $1,269 per mt.
The Council analysis evaluated two additional alternatives for
mackerel. 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 preventing overfishing, as defined in the FMP
(the overfishing threshold, F=0.25, results in a yield estimate of
369,000 mt, minus the estimated Canadian catch of 34,000 mt, that is
less than 347,000 mt). Both of the alternatives would have set IOY at
165,000 mt. This IOY would not represent a constraint on vessels in
this
[[Page 10614]]
fishery, so no impacts on revenues in this fishery would be expected as
a result of either of these alternatives. However, an IOY of 165,000 mt
was rejected by the Council because it was 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 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 that alternative. 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. Both of these
amounts exceed the landings of this species in recent years. Therefore,
neither alternative would represent a constraint on vessels in this
fishery or would reduce revenues in the fishery. However, both of these
alternatives were rejected by the Council because they would likely
result in overfishing and the additional depletion of the spawning
stock biomass of butterfish.
Small Entity Compliance Guide
Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
Act of 1996 states that, for each rule, or group of related rules for
which an agency is required to prepare a FRFA, the agency shall publish
one or more guides to assist small entities in complying with the rule
and shall designate such publications as ``small entity compliance
guides.'' The agency shall explain the actions a small entity is
required to take to comply with a rule or group of rules. As part of
this rulemaking process, a small entity compliance guide will be sent
to all holders of permits issued for the Atlantic mackerel, squid and
butterfish fisheries. In addition, copies of this final rule and guide
(i.e., permit holder letter) are available from the Regional
Administrator (see ADDRESSES) and may be found at the following Web
site: https://www.nero.noaa.gov.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
Dated: February 24, 2006.
John Oliver,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Operations, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 06-1963 Filed 3-1-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S
