Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fisheries; Specifications and Management Measures, 16472-16481 [2012-6456]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 55 (Wednesday, March 21, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 16472-16481]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-6456]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 648

[Docket No. 110707371-2136-02]
RIN 0648-BB28


Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Mackerel, 
Squid, and Butterfish Fisheries; Specifications and Management Measures

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Final rule; interim specifications; request for comment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: NMFS is implementing final 2012 specifications and management 
measures for Atlantic mackerel (mackerel), and 2012-2014 specifications 
for Illex and longfin squid, and interim final 2012 specifications and 
management measures for butterfish. This is the first year that the 
specifications are being set for Atlantic mackerel and butterfish under 
the provisions of the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council's 
(Council) Annual Catch Limit and Accountability Measure Omnibus 
Amendment. This action also adjusts the closure threshold for the 
commercial mackerel fishery to 95 percent (from 90 percent), and allows 
the use of jigging gear to target longfin squid if the longfin squid 
fishery is closed due to the butterfish mortality cap. Finally, this 
rule makes minor corrections in existing regulatory text to clarify the 
intent of the regulations. These specifications and management measures 
promote the utilization and conservation of the Atlantic Mackerel, 
Squid, and Butterfish (MSB) resource.

DATES: This rule is effective on April 20, 2012. Public comments on the 
interim final butterfish specifications must be received no later than 
5 p.m., eastern standard time, on April 20, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on the butterfish specifications, 
identified by NOAA-NMFS-2011-0245, by any one of the following methods:
     Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public 
comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal https://www.regulations.gov. To submit comments via the e-Rulemaking Portal, 
first click the ``submit a comment'' icon, then enter NMFS-NOAA-2011-
0245 in the keyword search. Locate the document you wish to comment on 
from the resulting list and click on the

[[Page 16473]]

``Submit a Comment'' icon on the right of that line.
     Fax: (978) 281-9135, Attn: Comments on 2012 Butterfish 
Specifications, NMFS-NOAA-2011-0245
     Mail and hand delivery: Daniel S. Morris, Acting Regional 
Administrator, NMFS, Northeast Regional Office, 55 Great Republic 
Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope: 
``Comments on 2012 Interim Butterfish Specifications, NOAA-NMFS-2011-
0245.''
    Instructions: Comments must be submitted by one of the above 
methods to ensure that the comments are received, documented, and 
considered by NMFS. Comments sent by any other method, to any other 
address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, 
may not be considered. All comments received are a part of the public 
record and will generally be posted to https://www.regulations.gov 
without change. All Personal Identifying Information (for example, 
name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be 
publicly accessible. Do not submit Confidential Business Information or 
otherwise sensitive or protected information.
    NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter N/A in the required 
fields, if you wish to remain anonymous). You may submit attachments to 
electronic comments in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF 
file formats only.
    Copies of the 2012 specifications document, including the 
Environmental Assessment (EA), is available from Daniel S. Morris, 
Acting Northeast Regional Administrator, National Marine Fisheries 
Service, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. This document 
is also accessible via the Internet at https://www.nero.noaa.gov. NMFS 
prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA), which is 
contained in the Classification section of this rule. Copies of the 
FRFA and the Small Entity Compliance Guide are available from: Daniel 
S. Morris, Acting Regional Administrator, National Marine Fisheries 
Service, Northeast Region, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 
01930-2276, or via the Internet at https://www.nero.noaa.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Aja Szumylo, Fishery Policy Analyst, 
978-281-9195, fax 978-281-9135.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Specifications, as referred to in this rule, are the combined suite 
of commercial and recreational catch levels established for one or more 
fishing years. The specification process also allows for the 
modification of a select number of management measures, such as closure 
thresholds, gear restrictions, and possession limits. The Council's 
process for establishing specifications relies on provisions within the 
Fishery Management Plan (FMP) and its implementing regulations, as well 
as requirements established by the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
    In developing these specifications, the Council considered the 
recommendations made by its Monitoring Committee and Scientific and 
Statistical Committee (SSC). Generally, the SSC recommends to the 
Council acceptable biological catch (ABC) levels that take into account 
scientific uncertainty regarding stock status and biological reference 
points, and the Council relies on that ABC recommendation to set other 
specifications. Here, in addition to specifications for each of the MSB 
species, the Council recommended adjusting the mackerel closure 
threshold, and adjusting gear requirements for the butterfish and 
longfin squid fisheries. The Council made its specification 
recommendations at its June 14-16, 2011, meeting in Port Jefferson, NY, 
and submitted these draft recommendations, along with the required 
analyses, for agency review on August 9, 2011, with final submission on 
September 15, 2011. A proposed rule for 2012 MSB specifications and 
management measures was published on October 26, 2011 (76 FR 66260), 
and the public comment period for the proposed rule ended on November 
25, 2011. Details concerning the Council's development of these 
measures were presented in the preamble of the proposed rule and are 
not repeated here.
    The structure of specifications for the mackerel and butterfish 
fisheries was revised by the Council's recently finalized regulations 
implementing its Annual Catch Limit and Accountability Measure Omnibus 
Amendment (Omnibus Amendment; 76 FR 60606, September 29, 2011), which 
established annual catch limit (ACL) and accountability measure (AM) 
provisions for all of the Council's FMPs. The ACL/AM requirements do 
not apply to the squid species because they have a life cycle of less 
than 1 year. Following the specification of ABC, the revised 
regulations at Sec.  648.22 require the specification of ACLs, which, 
if exceeded, require payback deductions from the subsequent year's 
catch limit. In order to reduce the chance of ACL overages, and the 
associated paybacks when ACLs are exceeded, the regulations also 
require NMFS to specify annual catch targets (ACTs) to provide a buffer 
for management uncertainty. Several specifications, including domestic 
annual harvest (DAH), domestic annual processing (DAP), total allowable 
level of foreign fishing (TALFF), and joint venture processing for 
mackerel (JVP), were previously required in the implementing 
regulations for the FMP, and were unchanged by the Omnibus Amendment.
    For mackerel, the Omnibus Amendment and Amendment 11 to the MSB FMP 
(76 FR 68642; November 7, 2011) created distinct allocations for the 
commercial and recreational mackerel fisheries. The revised mackerel 
regulations require the specification of ACTs for both the commercial 
and recreational mackerel fisheries. For butterfish, the regulations 
also require specification of the mortality cap on the longfin squid 
fishery.
    The regulations governing specifications for Illex and longfin 
squid are largely unchanged from previous fishing years. For both squid 
species, regulations at Sec.  648.22 require the specification of ABC, 
initial optimum yield (IOY), DAH, and DAP.
    The Mid-Atlantic Research Set-Aside (RSA) Program allows research 
projects to be funded through the sale of fish that has been set aside 
from the total annual quota. The RSA may vary between 0 and 3 percent 
of the overall quota for each species. The Council has recommended that 
up to 3 percent of the total ACL for mackerel and butterfish, and up to 
3 percent of the IOY for Illex and longfin squid, may be set aside to 
fund projects selected under the 2012 Mid-Atlantic RSA. NMFS awarded 
portions of available butterfish and longfin squid RSA to support 
several projects; there were no RSA awards of mackerel and Illex. The 
award amounts are included in the specification descriptions for 
butterfish and longfin squid below. Descriptions of the selected 
projects were published in the proposed rule (76 FR 66260) and are not 
repeated here.

[[Page 16474]]



 Table 1--Final Specifications, in Metric Tons (mt), for Mackerel and Butterfish for the 2012 Fishing Year, and
                           for Illex and Longfin Squid for the 2012-2014 Fishing Years
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Specifications                Mackerel           Butterfish             Illex              Longfin
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OFL.............................  Unknown...........  Unknown...........  Unknown...........  Unknown.
ABC.............................  43,781............  1,811.............  24,000............  23,400.
ACL.............................  43,781............  1,811.............  N/A...............  N/A.
Commercial ACT..................  34,907............  1,630.............  N/A...............  N/A.
Recreational ACT/RHL............  2,443.............  N/A...............  N/A...............  N/A.
IOY.............................  N/A...............  N/A...............  22,915............  22,220.
DAH/DAP.........................  33,821............  485...............  22,915............  22,220.
JVP.............................  0.................  N/A...............  N/A...............  N/A.
TALFF...........................  0.................  0.................  N/A...............  N/A.
RSA.............................  N/A...............  15................  N/A...............  225.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Final 2012 Specifications and Management Measures for Mackerel

    This action specifies the mackerel U.S. ABC at 43,781 mt, based on 
the formula U.S. ABC = T - C. T, or total annual catch, is the yield 
associated with a fishing mortality rate (F) that is equal to the 
target fishing mortality rate. C is the estimated catch of mackerel in 
Canadian waters (36,219 mt) for the 2012 fishing year. The 
Transboundary Resources Assessment Committee (TRAC) could not establish 
biomass reference points or a target F at its March 2010 mackerel stock 
status assessment, and recommended that total annual catches not exceed 
the average total landings (80,000 mt) from 2006-2008 until new 
information is available. Thus, 80,000 mt minus 36,219 mt results in 
the 2012 U.S. ABC of 43,781 mt. The ACL for the mackerel fishery is set 
equal to the U.S. ABC.
    Consistent with MSB Amendment 11, this action allocates 6.2 percent 
of the ACL (2,714 mt) to the recreational mackerel fishery. The 
recreational ACT of 2,443 mt (90 percent of 2,714 mt) is reduced from 
the recreational allocation to account for low precision and time lag 
of recreational catch estimates, as well as lack of recreational 
discard estimates. The recreational ACT is equal to the Recreational 
Harvest Limit (RHL), which is the effective cap on recreational catch.
    The commercial mackerel fishery is allocated 93.8 percent of the 
U.S. ABC (41,067 mt, the portion of the ACL that was not allocated to 
the recreational fishery). The commercial ACT of 34,907 mt (85 percent 
of 41,067) reduces the commercial allocation to address uncertainty in 
estimated 2012 Canadian landings, uncertainty in discard estimates, and 
possible misreporting. The commercial ACT is further reduced by a 
discard rate of 3.11 percent (mean plus one standard deviation of 
discards from 1999-2008), to arrive at a DAH of 33,821 mt. The DAH is 
the effective cap on commercial catch, as it has been in past 
specifications.
    This action maintains joint venture processing (JVP) allocation at 
zero (the most recent allocation was 5,000 mt of JVP in 2004). In the 
past, the Council recommended a JVP greater than zero because it 
believed U.S. processors lacked the ability to process the total amount 
of mackerel that U.S. harvesters could land. However, for the past 8 
years, the Council has recommended zero JVP because U.S. shoreside 
processing capacity for mackerel has expanded. The Council concluded 
that processing capacity was no longer a limiting factor relative to 
domestic production of mackerel.
    While a surplus existed between ABC and the mackerel fleet's 
harvesting capacity for many years, that surplus has disappeared due to 
downward adjustments of the specifications in recent years. Based on 
analysis of the state of global mackerel markets and possible increases 
in U.S. production levels, the Council concluded that specifying a DAH/
DAP resulting in zero TALFF will yield positive social and economic 
benefits to both U.S. harvesters and processors, and to the Nation. For 
these reasons, NMFS is specifying DAH at a level that can be fully 
harvested by the domestic fleet (33,821 mt). TALFF is therefore not 
specified in order to support the U.S. mackerel industry.
    Finally, this action provides that the commercial fishery be closed 
at 95 percent of the DAH. The current closure threshold of 90 percent 
of the DAH was designed to accommodate misreporting in the commercial 
fishery, and the lack of a distinct allocation for the recreational 
fishery. A 95-percent closure threshold is considered sufficient to 
prevent overages, given that a recreational allocation is now required 
by the FMP.

Final 2012-2014 Specifications and Management Measures for Illex Squid 
and Longfin Squid

Illex Squid

    This action specifies the Illex ABC at 24,000 mt for the 2012-2014 
fishing years, subject to annual review. The ABC is reduced by a 
discard rate of 4.52 percent (the mean plus one standard deviation of 
the most recent 10 years of observed discards) to account for discards 
of Illex that result from the operation of commercial fisheries, which 
results in an IOY, DAH, and DAP of 22,915 mt for the 2012-2014 fishing 
years. The FMP does not authorize the specification of JVP and TALFF 
for the Illex fishery because of the domestic fishing industry's 
capacity to harvest and to process the OY from this fishery.

Longfin Squid

    This action specifies a longfin squid ABC of 23,400 mt for the 
2012-2014 fishing years, subject to annual review. The ABC is reduced 
by a discard rate of 4.08 percent (mean plus one standard deviation of 
the most recent 10 years of observed discards) to account for discards 
of longfin squid that result from the operation of commercial 
fisheries, and 226 mt is set aside for RSA, resulting in an IOY, DAH, 
and DAP of 22,219 mt for the 2012-2014 fishing years. The FMP does not 
authorize the specification of JVP and TALFF for the longfin squid 
fishery because of the domestic industry's capacity to harvest and 
process the OY for this fishery.
Distribution of the Longfin DAH
    As was done in all fishing years since 2007, the 2012-2014 longfin 
DAH is allocated into trimesters, according to percentages specified in 
the FMP, as follows:

[[Page 16475]]



      Table 3--Trimester Allocation of Longfin Quota for 2012-2014
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Metric
                     Trimester                       Percent      tons
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I (Jan-Apr).......................................         43      9,555
II (May-Aug)......................................         17      3,777
III (Sep-Dec).....................................         40      8,888
                                                   ---------------------
    Total.........................................        100     22,220
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Longfin Squid Jigging Provision
    This action will allow Longfin Squid/Butterfish moratorium permit 
holders to possess longfin squid in excess of the 2,500-lb (0.93-mt) 
possession limit during any closures of the longfin squid fishery 
resulting from the butterfish mortality cap, provided that all trawl 
gear is stowed and not available for immediate use, in accordance with 
Sec.  648.23(b). The butterfish mortality cap was designed to limit 
butterfish bycatch in the longfin squid trawl fishery, and jigging for 
squid is not expected to result in substantial butterfish bycatch.

Interim Final 2012 Specifications and Management Measures for 
Butterfish

    Compared to 2011, the butterfish specifications in the proposed 
rule would have increased the butterfish ABC by 100 percent (to 3,622 
mt), and would have resulted in a 117-percent increase in the 
butterfish DAH (1,087 mt), and a 70-percent increase in the butterfish 
mortality cap on the longfin squid fishery (2,445 mt). A public comment 
on the proposed rule submitted by the Herring Alliance, an 
environmental group that represents 42 Northeast Coast organizations 
concerned about the status of the Atlantic Coast's forage fish, 
accurately pointed out that the proposed increase to the butterfish ABC 
is prohibited by the Council's risk policy at Sec.  648.21(d), which 
states: ``If an overfishing level (OFL) cannot be determined from the 
stock assessment, or if a proxy is not provided by the SSC during the 
ABC recommendation process, ABC levels may not be increased until such 
time that an OFL has been identified.''
    This provision only applies to species, such as butterfish, that 
are subject to the ACL/AM requirements implemented through the 
Council's Omnibus Amendment, and for which NMFS seeks to raise the ABC. 
Therefore the commenter's objections to the proposed butterfish ABC do 
not apply to the specification for mackerel, which does not reflect an 
increased ABC, nor does it apply to Illex or longfin squid, neither of 
which is subject ACL/AM requirements because they have life cycles of 
less than one year. In response to this comment, NMFS is implementing 
status quo specifications in an interim final rule, and will allow 30 
days for public comments.
    Accordingly, this action specifies the 2012 butterfish ABC and ACL 
at 1,811 mt, and the ACT at 1,630 mt (reduced 10-percent from ACL). 
Butterfish TALFF is only specified to address bycatch by foreign fleets 
targeting mackerel TALFF. Because there is no mackerel TALFF, 
butterfish TALFF is also set at zero. This action allocates just under 
70 percent of the ACT to cover butterfish discards, and 15 mt of 
butterfish RSA to cover discards related to allocated longfin squid 
RSA, which results in a DAH/DAP for butterfish of 485 mt. The 
butterfish mortality cap on the longfin squid fishery is specified at 
1,436 mt. These specifications are consistent with the regulatory 
structure implemented in the Council's Omnibus Amendment, and include 
the same ABC and mortality cap implemented for the 2011 fishing year.

Table 2--Trimester Allocation of Butterfish Mortality Cap on the Longfin
                         Squid Fishery for 2012
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Metric
                    Trimester                       Percent      tons
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I (Jan-Apr).....................................        65         933.4
II (May-Aug)....................................         3.3        47.4
III (Sep-Dec)...................................        31.7       455.2
                                                 -----------------------
    Total.......................................       100       1,436
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the proposed rule contained a provision to require a 3-inch 
(7.62 cm) minimum mesh size for vessels possessing 2,000 lb (907.2 kg) 
or more of butterfish in order to allow some portion of butterfish 
discards to be landed, the interim final rule instead maintains the 
status quo (3-inch (7.62 cm) minimum mesh required to possess 1,000 lb 
(453.6 kg) or more of butterfish).

Comments and Responses

    NMFS received four comments on the proposed specifications: One on 
behalf of Seafreeze, Ltd.; one from the Garden State Seafood 
Association (GSSA); one from Lund's Fisheries Incorporated (Lund's 
Fisheries); and one from the Herring Alliance. Several issues not 
relevant to the specifications were raised by various commenters; only 
the comments relevant to the proposed specifications are addressed 
below.

General

    Comment 1: The Herring Alliance commented that NMFS should 
implement annual specifications, rather than 3-year specifications, for 
all stocks in the MSB fisheries until biological reference points can 
be determined.
    Response: This action implements annual specifications for mackerel 
and butterfish, and 2012-2014 specifications for Illex squid and 
longfin squid. The FMP allows for specifications to be set for up to 3 
years for any of the MSB species. The Council has not recommended 3-
year specifications for any of the MSB species in previous years, but 
did so this year for Illex and longfin squid. Though OFLs are not 
available for either squid species, the SSC determined that the best 
available information on these fisheries suggests that maintaining 
catches at the recommended levels in future years should not have a 
negative impact on the stock. In addition, substantial new information 
is unlikely to be available for the squid species in the intervening 
years because neither squid species is on the assessment schedule for 
2012, 2013 or 2014. Setting the squid specifications for 3 years 
streamlines the regulatory process because the Council will not need to 
take action in the event that the SSC's and Council's squid 
specifications recommendations remain the same for upcoming years, but 
in no way binds the Council to maintain the recommendations. Though 
specifications for the squid species are being implemented for 3 years, 
the SSC must still evaluate the performance of the squid specifications 
each year, and the Council may propose any necessary adjustments 
through annual specifications.

Mackerel

    Comment 2: GSSA and Lund's Fisheries support the proposed U.S. ABC 
of 43,781 mt, but were disappointed that the process of setting the 
U.S. ABC does not provide a mechanism to increase the U.S. ABC if 
Canadian catches are smaller than predicted. Lund's Fisheries suggested 
that Canadian underages should be added to the U.S. ABC as an in-season 
adjustment.
    Response: The addition of a mechanism to increase the U.S. ABC if 
Canadian catches are smaller than predicted represents a significant 
change to the commercial quota system for mackerel. This type of 
mechanism would have to be considered through the Council process in 
order to allow for full development and justification for the 
adjustment, economic and biological analysis, and public comment. If 
the Council were to consider such a mechanism in the future, it could 
only be implemented through a framework adjustment or an amendment to 
the

[[Page 16476]]

FMP, rather than through the specifications process. This is because 
the regulations governing the specifications process do not allow for 
adjustments to the commercial quota system. The Council would therefore 
have to consider such a mechanism in a future action.
    Comment 3: GSSA and Lund's Fisheries support the proposed 
recreational allocation, and the application of a 10-percent management 
buffer to this allocation, but believed that a discard rate should have 
been applied to the recreational allocation.
    Response: As noted in the comment and in the proposed rule, 
reliable discard estimates for the recreational fishery are not 
available. From 2004-2010, the Marine Recreational Fisheries 
Statistical Survey (MRFSS) estimated that recreational landings 
averaged 900 mt, and that 9.2 percent of that mackerel was ``released 
alive.'' Based on release mortality rates for other Mid-Atlantic 
species, the EA provides a conservative assumption that 30 percent of 
released mackerel die. If the recreational ACT of 2,443 mt is fully 
attained, NMFS estimates that 247 mt of mackerel will be released, and 
74 mt of that mackerel will die after release. A 10-percent buffer is 
more than three times the estimated potential dead discards. Given the 
past performance of the recreational fishery, and the 10-percent 
buffer, NMFS believes that the potential for discards is adequately 
accounted for. As improvements to recreational data collection continue 
to be implemented, the MSB Monitoring Committee will re-examine the 
recreational ACT and consider whether discards should be accounted for 
in an explicit deduction.
    Comment 4: GSSA, Lund's Fisheries, and the Herring Alliance oppose 
the 15-percent uncertainty buffer between the commercial allocation 
(93.8 percent of ABC) and the commercial ACT, which was proposed to 
account for uncertainty in estimated 2012 Canadian landings, 
uncertainty in discard estimates, and possible misreporting. GSSA noted 
that it was unclear whether the buffer was applied due to scientific or 
management uncertainty. GSSA and Lund's Fisheries expressed their view 
that this buffer is unnecessary, given that neither the U.S. quota nor 
the projected Canadian landings have been exceeded in recent years. 
Lund's Fisheries suggested that the commercial ACT should have been set 
equal to the commercial ACL (zero buffer). Conversely, the Herring 
Alliance asserted that uncertainty in the status of the mackerel stock 
supports a buffer of 25 percent or greater.
    Response: The buffer between ACL and ACT is intended to address 
management uncertainty, which is the ability of managers to constrain 
catch to a target and the uncertainty in quantifying the true catch. 
NMFS supported the Council's recommendation for a 15-percent buffer 
between the ACL and ACT because of the uncertainty surrounding expected 
Canadian mackerel catch, which can vary significantly from year to 
year. When applied to past years, the method Council staff used to 
estimate 2012 Canadian catch sometimes underestimated Canadian catch by 
as much as 21,000 mt, and sometimes overestimated Canadian catch by as 
much as 25,000 mt. The additional buffer helps reduce the likelihood 
that a severe underestimate of Canadian catch will result in landings 
in excess of the stockwide ABC. The Herring Alliance suggested that a 
larger buffer was needed because of uncertainty in the status of the 
mackerel stock. Uncertainty in stock status is scientific uncertainty, 
which was addressed by the SSC during its deliberation regarding 
specification of the stockwide mackerel ABC. Given recent performance 
of the fishery, NMFS determined that a 15-percent buffer between the 
commercial ACL and ACT is appropriate to prevent overages of both the 
U.S. ABC, and to provide additional protection for the possible event 
that 2012 Canadian catch has been underestimated.

Butterfish

    Comment 5: GSSA and Lund's Fisheries support the proposed 
specifications for butterfish.
    Response: As noted in the preamble, NMFS cannot implement the 
proposed specifications because increasing the butterfish ABC violates 
the Council's risk policy. The status quo specifications are detailed 
above.
    Comment 6: GSSA remains concerned that the ABC for butterfish is 
too low and does not consider the high recruitment possibilities for 
this stock. They expressed concern that continued low estimates may 
cause serious management problems for fisheries that incidentally catch 
butterfish.
    Response: GSSA's concern appears to be in reference to the 
butterfish mortality cap on the longfin squid fishery. Because the 2011 
cap did not result in a closure of the longfin squid fishery during the 
2011 fishing year, NMFS does not have reason to believe the status quo 
butterfish mortality cap will necessarily result in a closure of the 
longfin squid fishery due to the harvest of the mortality cap for the 
2012 fishing year.
    Comment 7: The Herring Alliance recommended that NMFS disapprove 
the butterfish specifications. It argued that the butterfish 
specifications violate National Standards 1 and 2 for because: 
Increases to the butterfish ABC will not ensure that overfishing does 
not occur; increases to the ABC for butterfish without an OFL or OFL 
proxy violates the regulations implementing the Council's Omnibus 
Amendment; the basis upon which the butterfish cap was increased is not 
supported by scientific analyses; and a 10-percent buffer between ABC 
and ACT is insufficient to account for management uncertainty for the 
butterfish fishery.
    Response: The butterfish specifications have been adjusted to 
address the concern that the Council's original ABC recommendation 
violates the regulations implementing the Omnibus Amendment. This 
interim final rule implements the status quo ABC of 1,811 mt.
    NMFS does not agree with the Herring Alliance's assertion that a 
10-percent buffer between ABC and ACT is insufficient to account for 
management uncertainty in the butterfish fishery. Though management 
uncertainty is a concern for the butterfish fishery, the FMP has a 
number of mechanisms to mitigate uncertainties beyond the 10-percent 
buffer between ABC and ACT. The specifications include an explicit 
deduction to account for discards in other fisheries. In addition, the 
butterfish mortality cap, which will be in its second year of operation 
in 2012, is designed to cap butterfish catch in the longfin squid 
fishery--the single largest source of fishing mortality for the 
butterfish stock. The cap acts as an accountability measure to control 
butterfish catch (landings and discards) in the longfin squid fishery, 
and can result in a closure of the longfin squid fishery if it is 
exceeded. Finally, NMFS also closes the directed butterfish fishery 
when 80 percent of the DAH has been attained. Though this level was 
exceeded in the 2010 and 2011 fishing years, the increased DAH should 
reduce the likelihood of an overage in the 2012 fishing year.
    Comment 8: The Herring Alliance commented that the role of 
butterfish as forage should have been taken into account when setting 
specifications. It noted that marine predators switch prey depending on 
relative abundance and distribution of forage species. The Herring 
Alliance concluded that, because the status of stocks such as Atlantic 
herring, Atlantic mackerel, Atlantic menhaden, river herring and

[[Page 16477]]

shad species may be compromised, precautionary protection may be 
warranted.
    Response: The impact of natural mortality on the butterfish stock, 
which includes predation, is taken into account during the butterfish 
assessment process, and is addressed during the specification of the 
ABC. The assessment does not consider potential future changes in 
butterfish predation because information is not available on future 
trends in forage.
    Comment 9: A scientist commented on behalf of Seafreeze, Ltd., 
without submitting any information, that NMFS did not use all available 
scientific information in the assessment, and therefore that butterfish 
specifications neither protect the species nor provide for sufficient 
fishing opportunity.
    Response: The commenter did not provide any evidence that indicates 
that the butterfish assessment used to set these specifications does 
not constitute the best available scientific information.

Longfin and Illex Squid

    Comment 10: GSSA and Lund's Fisheries support the proposed 
specifications for longfin squid and Illex squid for the 2012-2014 
fishing years.
    Response: NMFS is implementing the specifications as proposed.
    Comment 11: Lund's Fisheries requested that the timing of the Illex 
gear exemption should include the month of October due to availability 
of the Illex resource that can occur during that month.
    Response: This rulemaking only clarifies the regulatory text for 
the exemption. An extension of the exemption to include the month of 
October is a change to the regulations that would have to be considered 
by the Council in a future action such as a framework adjustment or an 
amendment to the FMP.
    Comment 12: GSSA and Lund's Fisheries do not support the jigging 
exemption until language detailing trawl gear stowage can be developed.
    Response: The gear stowage provisions that appear at Sec.  
648.23(b) define how trawl gear should be properly stowed below the 
deck, on-deck, or on-reel to show that it is not available for 
immediate use.
    Comment 13: The Herring Alliance commented that NMFS should direct 
the Council to establish OY for Illex squid. They noted that the 
Council cannot appropriately adjust the Illex quota for economic, 
social, or ecological factors because it failed to identify OY.
    Response: Previous iterations of the Atlantic mackerel, squid and 
butterfish FMP specify the framework for establishing OY for Illex. The 
maximum OY is set not to exceed the catch associated with a fishing 
mortality rate of Fmsy. This is assessment driven, and a lower amount 
may be set if warranted by the assessment. The regulations at Sec.  
648.22 contemplate that the ABC will be set annually at the maximum OY 
or a lower amount if the potential yield from the fishery is less than 
this level. Since maximum OY cannot be specified due to the lack of 
reference points for the fishery, an ABC of 24,000 mt was selected, 
since it is a level of yield that has been supported by the fishery 
since 2000. The regulations allow the ABC to be modified annually based 
upon economic and social factors. However, the Council modified the ABC 
simply by deducting estimated discards to arrive at the DAH of 22,915 
mt. In essence, the OY for Illex, is the ABC, as modified by the 
deduction of discards to specify DAH and RSA.

RSA

    Comment 14: GSSA and Lund's Fisheries support setting aside 3 
percent of the mackerel and butterfish ACLs, and 3 percent of the 
longfin squid and Illex IOYs to fund research. They also support the 
three preliminarily approved projects, since the inshore information 
gathered in the projects should add to existing information about 
distribution of key commercial species.
    Response: NFMS issues 497,527 lb (225 mt) of longfin squid and 
33,069 lb (15 mt) of butterfish for the RSA proposals detailed in the 
proposed rule.

Changes From the Proposed Rule

    There are no changes from the proposed rule to the mackerel, 
longfin squid, or Illex squid specifications or management measures. 
Instead of the butterfish specifications and management measures put 
forward in the proposed rule, this interim final rule implements status 
quo butterfish specifications and management measures.

Classification

    The Administrator, Northeast Region, NMFS, determined that these 
specifications are necessary for the conservation and management of the 
Atlantic mackerel, squid, and butterfish fisheries and that they are 
consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 
Management Act and other applicable laws.
    The Council prepared an EA for the 2012 specifications, and the 
NOAA Assistant Administrator for Fisheries concluded that there will be 
no significant impact on the human environment as a result of this 
rule. A copy of the EA is available upon request (see ADDRESSES).
    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).
    NMFS, pursuant to section 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 
has prepared a FRFA, included in the preamble of this final rule, in 
support of the 2012 specifications and management measures. The FRFA 
describes the economic impact that this final rule, along with other 
non-preferred alternatives, will have on small entities.
    The FRFA incorporates the economic impacts and analysis summaries 
in the IRFA, a summary of the significant issues raised by the public 
in response to the IRFA, and NMFS's responses to those comments. A copy 
of the IRFA, the RIR, and the EA are available upon request (see 
ADDRESSES).

Statement of Need for This Action

    This action implements 2012 specifications for mackerel and 
butterfish, and 2012-2014 specifications for Illex and longfin squid. 
It also modifies the closure threshold for the commercial mackerel 
fishery, adjusts the gear requirements for the butterfish fishery, and 
allows for the use of jigs to capture longfin squid, should the longfin 
squid fishery be closed due to reaching the butterfish mortality cap. A 
complete description of the reasons why this action is being 
considered, and the objectives of and legal basis for this action, are 
contained in the preamble to the proposed and final rules and are not 
repeated here.

A Summary of the Significant Issues Raised by the Public Comments in 
Response to the IRFA, a Summary of the Assessment of the Agency of Such 
Issues, and a Statement of Any Changes Made in the Final Rule as a 
Result of Such Comments

    There were no issues related to the IRFA raised in public comments.

Description and Estimate of Number of Small Entities to Which the Rule 
Will Apply

    Based on permit data for 2011, the numbers of potential fishing 
vessels in the 2012 fisheries are as follows: 351 longfin squid/
butterfish moratorium permits; 76 Illex moratorium permits; 2,201 
mackerel permits; 1,904 incidental squid/butterfish permits; and 831 
MSB party/charter permits. Small businesses operating in commercial and 
recreational (i.e., party and charter vessel operations) fisheries have 
been defined by the Small Business

[[Page 16478]]

Administration as firms with gross revenues of up to $4.0 and $6.5 
million, respectively. There are no large entities participating in 
this fishery, as that term is 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, permit numbers are not additive.

Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 
Requirements

    There are no new reporting or recordkeeping requirements contained 
in any of the alternatives considered for this action. In addition, 
there are no Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with 
this final rule.

Description of the Steps the Agency Has Taken To Minimize the 
Significant Economic Impacts on Small Entities Consistent With the 
Stated Objectives of Applicable Statutes, Including a Statement of the 
Factual, Policy, and Legal Reasons for Selecting the Alternative 
Adopted in the Final Rule and Why Each One of the Other Significant 
Alternatives to the Rule Considered by the Agency Which Affect the 
Impact on Small Entities Was Rejected

Actions Implemented With the Final Rule
    The recently finalized Omnibus Amendment, which applies to mackerel 
and butterfish, changes the structure of specifications compared to 
that used in past years. In order to facilitate comparison of 
alternatives, the discussions of mackerel and butterfish specifications 
below will focus on the effective limit on directed harvest, regardless 
of the terminology used for the specification. The specifications and 
terminology for Illex and longfin squid are unchanged from those used 
in 2011.
    The mackerel commercial DAH specified in this action (33,821 mt) 
represents a reduction from status quo (2011 DAH = 46,779 mt). Despite 
the reduction, the DAH is above recent U.S. landings; mackerel landings 
for 2008-2010 averaged 18,830 mt. Thus, the reduction does not pose a 
constraint to vessels relative to the landings in recent years. In 
2011, there was a soft allocation of 15,000 mt of the mackerel DAH for 
the recreational mackerel fishery. The Omnibus Amendment and MSB 
Amendment 11 requires NMFS to establish an explicit allocation for the 
recreational fishery, and this action specifies a Recreational ACT/RHL 
of 2,443 mt. Because recreational harvest from 2008-2010 averaged 738 
mt, it does not appear that the new, explicit allocation for the 
recreational fishery will constrain recreational harvest. Overall, this 
action is not expected to result in any reductions in revenues for 
vessels that participate in either the commercial or recreational 
mackerel fisheries.
    The adjustment to the mackerel closure threshold, which requires 
the closure of the commercial mackerel fishery at 95 percent of the 
DAH, is a preventative measure intended to ensure that the commercial 
catch limit is not exceeded. The economic burden on fishery 
participants associated with this measure is expected to be negligible.
    The butterfish DAH specified in this action (500 mt) is the same as 
status quo. The DAH has been fully attained during the 2010 and 2011 
fishing years.
    The Illex IOY (22,915 mt) specified in this action represents a 
slight decrease compared to status quo (23,328 mt). Though annual Illex 
landings have totaled over \2/3\ of the IOY in the past 3 years (15,900 
mt for 2008, 18,419 mt for 2009, and 15,825 for 2010), the landings 
were lower than the level being proposed. Thus, implementing this 
action should not result in a reduction in revenue or a constraint on 
expansion of the fishery in 2012.
    The longfin squid IOY (22,445 mt) represents an increase from the 
status quo (20,000 mt). Because longfin squid landings from 2008-2010 
averaged 9,182 mt, the specified IOY provides an opportunity to 
increase landings, though if recent trends of low landings continue, 
there may be no increase in landings despite the increase in the 
allocation. No reductions in revenues for the longfin squid fishery are 
expected as a result of this proposed action.
    As discussed in the FRFA for MSB Amendment 10, the butterfish 
mortality cap has a potential for economic impact on fishery 
participants. The longfin squid fishery will close during Trimesters I 
and III if the butterfish mortality cap is reached. If the longfin 
squid fishery is closed in response to butterfish catch before the 
entire longfin squid quota is harvested, then a loss in revenue is 
possible. The potential for longfin squid revenue loss depends upon the 
size of the butterfish mortality cap. This interim final rule maintains 
the 2012 butterfish mortality cap at the level that was specified for 
2011 (1,436 mt). The 2011 butterfish mortality cap did not result in a 
closure of the longfin squid fishery in Trimester I. At the end of 
Trimester III, just over 40 percent of the butterfish mortality cap was 
left unharvested, and the cap did not result in a closure of the 
longfin squid fishery during the 2011 fishing year. Given that the 
status quo cap did not constrain the longfin squid fishery in 2011, 
additional revenue losses are not expected as a result of this interim 
final action.
    The jigging measure will allow Longfin Squid/Butterfish moratorium 
permit holders to possess longfin squid in excess of the possession 
limit during any closures of the longfin squid fishery resulting from 
the butterfish mortality cap. Jigging for longfin squid has been shown 
to be commercially infeasible. However, because butterfish bycatch in 
jig gear is expected to be very minimal, it seems reasonable to allow 
jig fishing for squid. If attempts to use jig gear for commercial 
longfin squid fishing are successful, the use of this gear could help 
mitigate economic impacts on fishery participants if the longfin squid 
fishery is closed due to reaching the mortality cap.
Alternatives to the Actions in the Final Rule for Mackerel, Longfin 
Squid, and Illex Squid
    The Council analysis evaluated four alternatives to the 
specifications for mackerel. The first (status quo) and second non-
selected alternatives were based on the specifications structure that 
existed prior to the implementation of the Omnibus Amendment, and were 
not selected because they no longer comply with the MSB FMP. The other 
alternatives differed in their specification of the stockwide ABC 
(80,000 mt in the preferred alternative). The same amount of expected 
Canadian catch (36,219 mt) was subtracted from the stockwide ABC in 
each alternative. The third alternative (least restrictive) would have 
set the U.S. ABC and ACL at 63,781 mt (100,000 mt stockwide ABC minus 
36,219 mt Canadian catch), the Commercial ACT at 50,853 mt, the DAH and 
DAP at 49,271 mt, and the Recreational ACT at 3,559 mt. The fourth 
alternative (most restrictive) would have set the U.S. ABC and ACL at 
23,781 mt (60,000 mt stockwide ABC minus 36,219 mt Canadian catch), the 
Commercial ACT at 18,961 mt, the DAH and DAP at 18,371 mt, and the 
Recreational ACT at 1,327 mt. These two alternatives were not selected 
because they were all inconsistent with the ABC recommended by the SSC.
    The status quo closure threshold for the commercial mackerel 
fishery (90 percent) was considered overly precautionary when compared 
to the selected closure threshold (95 percent). The status quo closure 
threshold, which was designed in part because there was no distinct 
allocation for the

[[Page 16479]]

recreational mackerel fishery, is no longer considered appropriate.
    Three alternatives to the preferred action were considered for 
Illex, but were not selected by the Council. All alternatives would 
have established specifications for the 2012-2014 fishing years. The 
first alternative (status quo), shared the same 24,000-mt ABC as the 
proposed action. However, a discard rate of 2.8 percent was deducted to 
reach an IOY, DAH, and DAP at 23,328 mt rather than the 22,915 mt 
specified in this proposed action. The Council did not select the 
status quo alternative because it found the updated discard rate of 
4.52 percent to be a more appropriate representation of discards in the 
Illex fishery. The second alternative (least restrictive) would have 
set ABC at 30,000 mt, and IOY, DAH, and DAP at 28,644 mt (ABC reduced 
by 4.52 percent for discards). This alternative was not selected 
because the higher specifications were inconsistent with the results of 
the most recent stock assessment. The third alternative (most 
restrictive) would have set ABC at 18,000 mt, and IOY, DAH, and DAP at 
17,186 mt (ABC reduced by 4.52 percent for discards). The Council 
considered this alternative unnecessarily restrictive.
    There were three alternatives to the selected action evaluated for 
longfin squid. All alternatives would have established specifications 
for the 2012-2014 fishing years. The first alternative (status quo) 
would have set the ABC at 24,000 mt, and the IOY, DAH and DAP at 20,000 
mt. The second alternative (least restrictive) would have set the ABC 
at 29,250 mt, and the IOY, DAH, and DAP at 28,057 mt (ABC reduced by 
4.08 percent for discards). The third alternative (most restrictive) 
would have set the ABC at 17,550 mt, and the IOY, DAH and DAP at 16,834 
mt (ABC reduced by 4.08 percent for discards). These three alternatives 
were not selected because they were all inconsistent with the ABC 
recommended by the SSC.
    The alternatives for longfin squid RSA would have allowed up to 
1.65 percent (status quo) or up to 3 percent (preferred) of the longfin 
squid IOY to be used to fund research projects for the 2012-2014 
fishing years. In 2011, butterfish RSA was only awarded to cover 
butterfish discards by vessels fishing for longfin squid RSA. The small 
amount of butterfish RSA available in 2011 (15 mt, or 3 percent of 500 
mt butterfish DAH) was only sufficient to cover discards for an amount 
of longfin squid RSA equal to 1.65 percent of the IOY. The recommended 
increase in the 2012 butterfish quota will allow for enough butterfish 
RSA (3 percent of the 1,087 mt butterfish DAH) to accommodate discards 
for longfin squid RSA equal to 3 percent of the IOY.
    For the jigging exemption, the status quo alternative prevents 
Longfin squid/Butterfish moratorium permit holders from possessing or 
landing over 2,500 lb (1.13 mt) of longfin squid if the directed 
fishery is closed because of the butterfish mortality cap. The 
preferred alternative would allow such vessel to possess and land over 
2,500 lb (1.13 mt) if using jigging gear. If the use of jigs for 
commercial longfin squid fishery proves successful, the preferred 
alternative may help reduce the economic impacts of closures of the 
longfin squid fishery resulting from the butterfish mortality cap.
Alternatives to the Actions in the Interim Final Rule for Butterfish
    There were six alternatives to the preferred action for butterfish 
that were not selected. The first (status quo) and second non-selected 
were based on the specifications structure that existed prior to the 
implementation of the Omnibus Amendment, and were not selected because 
they no longer comply with the MSB FMP. The third alternative (Council 
preferred) would have set ABC and ACL at 3,622 mt, the ACT at 3,260 mt, 
the DAH and DAP at 1,087 mt, and the butterfish mortality cap at 2,445 
mt. The fourth alternative (least restrictive) would have set the ABC 
and ACL at 4,528 mt, the ACT at 4,075 mt, the DAH and DAP at 1,358 mt, 
and the butterfish mortality cap at 3,056 mt. The fourth alternative 
would have set the ABC and ACL at 2,717 mt, the ACT at 2,445 mt, the 
DAH and DAP at 815 mt, and the butterfish mortality cap at 1,834 mt. 
These three alternatives were not selected because they would increase 
the butterfish ABC, which is prohibited by the Council's risk policy. 
The final non-selected alternative would have set ABC and ACL at 1,811 
mt, the ACT at 1,630 mt, the DAH and DAP at 543 mt, and the butterfish 
mortality cap at 1,222 mt. This alternative was not selected because it 
is inconsistent with status quo.
    There were two alternatives regarding the adjustment to the 
butterfish gear requirement. The status quo alternative (preferred) 
requires vessels possessing 1,000 lb (0.45 mt) or more of butterfish to 
fish with a 3-inch (76-mm) minimum codend mesh. The alternative in the 
proposed rule (3-inch (76-mm) mesh to possess 2,000 lb (0.9 mt)) could 
create some additional revenue in the form of butterfish landings for 
vessels using mesh sizes smaller than 3 inches (76 mm). The higher 
possession limit was contemplated in light of the proposed increases to 
the butterfish specifications, and is no longer appropriate if the 
status quo butterfish specifications are implemented.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648

    Fisheries, Fishing, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

    Dated: March 13, 2012
Alan D. Risenhoover,
Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National 
Marine Fisheries Service.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is amended 
as follows:

PART 648--FISHERIES OF THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES

0
1. The authority citation for part 648 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.


0
2. In Sec.  648.2, remove the definition for ``Loligo,'' revise the 
definition of ``Squid,'' and add the definition for ``Longfin squid'' 
in alphabetical order, to read as follows:


Sec.  648.2  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Longfin squid means Doryteuthis (Amerigo) pealeii (formerly Loligo 
pealeii).
* * * * *
    Squid means longfin squid (Doryteuthis (Amerigo) pealeii, formerly 
Loligo pealeii) or Illex illecebrosus.
* * * * *

0
3. In Sec.  648.23, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  648.23  Mackerel, squid, and butterfish gear restrictions.

    (a) Mesh restrictions and exemptions. Vessels subject to the mesh 
restrictions in this paragraph (a) may not have available for immediate 
use any net, or any piece of net, with a mesh size smaller than that 
specified in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this section.
    (1) Butterfish fishery. Owners or operators of otter trawl vessels 
possessing 1,000 lb (0.45 mt) or more of butterfish harvested in or 
from the EEZ may only fish with nets having a minimum codend mesh of 3 
inches (76 mm) diamond mesh, inside stretch measure, applied throughout 
the codend for at least 100 continuous meshes forward of the terminus 
of the net, or for codends with less than 100 meshes, the minimum mesh 
size codend shall be a minimum of one-third of the net, measured from 
the terminus of the codend to the headrope.

[[Page 16480]]

    (2) Longfin squid fishery. Owners or operators of otter trawl 
vessels possessing longfin squid harvested in or from the EEZ may only 
fish with nets having a minimum mesh size of 2\1/8\ inches (54 mm) 
during Trimesters I (Jan-Apr) and III (Sept-Dec), or 1\7/8\ inches (48 
mm) during Trimester II (May-Aug), diamond mesh, inside stretch 
measure, applied throughout the codend for at least 150 continuous 
meshes forward of the terminus of the net, or, for codends with less 
than 150 meshes, the minimum mesh size codend shall be a minimum of 
one-third of the net measured from the terminus of the codend to the 
headrope, unless they are fishing consistent with exceptions specified 
in paragraph (b) of this section.
    (i) Net obstruction or constriction. Owners or operators of otter 
trawl vessels fishing for and/or possessing longfin squid shall not use 
any device, gear, or material, including, but not limited to, nets, net 
strengtheners, ropes, lines, or chafing gear, on the top of the 
regulated portion of a trawl net that results in an effective mesh 
opening of less than 2\1/8\ inches (54 mm) during Trimesters I (Jan-
Apr) and III (Sept-Dec), or 1\7/8\ inches (48 mm) during Trimester II 
(May-Aug), diamond mesh, inside stretch measure. ``Top of the regulated 
portion of the net'' means the 50 percent of the entire regulated 
portion of the net that would not be in contact with the ocean bottom 
if, during a tow, the regulated portion of the net were laid flat on 
the ocean floor. However, owners or operators of otter trawl vessels 
fishing for and/or possessing longfin squid may use net strengtheners 
(covers), splitting straps, and/or bull ropes or wire around the entire 
circumference of the codend, provided they do not have a mesh opening 
of less than 5 inches (12.7 cm) diamond mesh, inside stretch measure. 
For the purposes of this requirement, head ropes are not to be 
considered part of the top of the regulated portion of a trawl net.
    (ii) Jigging exemption. During closures of the longfin squid 
fishery resulting from the butterfish mortality cap, described in Sec.  
648.26(c)(3), vessels fishing for longfin squid using jigging gear are 
exempt from the closure possession limit specified in Sec.  648.26(b), 
provided that all otter trawl gear is stowed as specified in paragraph 
(b) of this section.
    (3) Illex fishery. Seaward of the following coordinates, otter 
trawl vessels possessing longfin squid harvested in or from the EEZ and 
fishing for Illex during the months of June, July, August, in Trimester 
II, and September in Trimester III are exempt from the longfin squid 
gear requirements specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, 
provided that landward of the specified coordinates they do not have 
available for immediate use, as defined in paragraph (b) of this 
section, any net, or any piece of net, with a mesh size less than 1\7/
8\ inches (48 mm) diamond mesh in Trimester II, and 2\1/8\ inches (54 
mm) diamond mesh in Trimester III, or any piece of net, with mesh that 
is rigged in a manner that is prohibited by paragraph (a)(2) of this 
section.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Point                      N. lat.            W. long.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
M1...............................  43[deg]58.0'        67[deg]22.0'
M2...............................  43[deg]50.0'        68[deg]35.0'
M3...............................  43[deg]30.0'        69[deg]40.0'
M4...............................  43[deg]20.0'        70[deg]00.0'
M5...............................  42[deg]45.0'        70[deg]10.0'
M6...............................  42[deg]13.0'        69[deg]55.0'
M7...............................  41[deg]00.0'        69[deg]00.0'
M8...............................  41[deg]45.0'        68[deg]15.0'
M9...............................  42[deg]10.0'        67[deg]10.0'
M10..............................  41[deg]18.6'        66[deg]24.8'
M11..............................  40[deg]55.5'        66[deg]38.0'
M12..............................  40[deg]45.5'        68[deg]00.0'
M13..............................  40[deg]37.0'        68[deg]00.0'
M14..............................  40[deg]30.0'        69[deg]00.0'
M15..............................  40[deg]22.7'        69[deg]00.0'
M16..............................  40[deg]18.7'        69[deg]40.0'
M17..............................  40[deg]21.0'        71[deg]03.0'
M18..............................  39[deg]41.0'        72[deg]32.0'
M19..............................  38[deg]47.0'        73[deg]11.0'
M20..............................  38[deg]04.0'        74[deg]06.0'
M21..............................  37[deg]08.0'        74[deg]46.0'
M22..............................  36[deg]00.0'        74[deg]52.0'
M23..............................  35[deg]45.0'        74[deg]53.0'
M24..............................  35[deg]28.0'        74[deg]52.0'
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

0
4. In Sec.  648.24, paragraph (b)(1) is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  648.24  Fishery closures and accountability measures.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) Mackerel commercial sector EEZ closure. NMFS shall close the 
commercial mackerel fishery in the EEZ when the Regional Administrator 
projects that 95 percent of the mackerel DAH is harvested, if such a 
closure is necessary to prevent the DAH from being exceeded. The 
closure of the commercial fishery shall be in effect for the remainder 
of that fishing year, with incidental catches allowed as specified in 
Sec.  648.26. When the Regional Administrator projects that the DAH for 
mackerel will be landed, NMFS shall close the commercial mackerel 
fishery in the EEZ, and the incidental catches specified for mackerel 
in Sec.  648.26 will be prohibited.
* * * * *


Sec. Sec.  648.4, 648.13, 648.14, 648.22, 648.24, 648.26, 648.27, and 
648.124  [Amended]

    5. In the table below, for each section in the left column, remove 
the text from whenever it appears throughout the section and add the 
text indicated in the right column.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Section                            Remove                        Add                Frequency
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   648.4(a)(5)(i)...................  Loligo....................  longfin...................               1
Sec.   648.4(a)(5)(i)(A)................  Loligo....................  longfin...................               2
Sec.   648.4(a)(5)(i)(L)(ii)............  Loligo....................  longfin...................               1
Sec.   648.4(a)(10)(iv)(C)(1)(i)........  Loligo....................  longfin...................               1
Sec.   648.4(a)(10)(iv)(C)(1)(ii).......  Loligo....................  longfin...................               1
Sec.   648.13(a)........................  Loligo....................  longfin squid.............               2
Sec.   648.14(g)(1)(ii)(B)..............  Loligo....................  longfin squid.............               2
Sec.   648.14(g)(2)(ii).................  Loligo....................  longfin...................               2
Sec.   648.14(g)(2)(iii)(A).............  Loligo....................  longfin squid.............               1
Sec.   648.14(o)(1)(vi).................  Loligo....................  longfin...................               1
Sec.   648.22(a)(2).....................  Loligo....................  longfin squid.............               1
Sec.   648.22(a)(4).....................  Loligo....................  longfin...................               1
Sec.   648.22(a)(5).....................  Loligo....................  longfin...................               1
Sec.   648.22(b)(1).....................  Loligo....................  longfin...................               1
Sec.   648.22(b)(1)(i)(A)...............  Loligo....................  longfin squid.............               1
Sec.   648.22(b)(3)(v)..................  Loligo....................  longfin squid.............               1
Sec.   648.22(c)(1)(i)..................  Loligo....................  longfin squid.............               1
Sec.   648.22(f)........................  Loligo....................  longfin...................               1
Sec.   648.22(f)(1).....................  Loligo....................  longfin...................               1

[[Page 16481]]

 
Sec.   648.24(a)........................  Loligo....................  longfin squid.............               4
Sec.   648.24(c)(3).....................  Loligo....................  longfin squid.............               2
Sec.   648.26(b)........................  Loligo....................  longfin squid.............               7
Sec.   648.27 (section heading).........  Loligo....................  longfin squid.............               1
Sec.   648.27(a)........................  Loligo....................  longfin squid.............               1
Sec.   648.27(b)........................  Loligo....................  longfin squid.............               5
Sec.   648.27(c)........................  Loligo....................  longfin squid.............               3
Sec.   648.27(d)........................  Loligo....................  longfin squid.............               2
Sec.   648.124(a)(2)....................  Loligo....................  longfin...................               1
Sec.   648.124(b)(2)....................  Loligo....................  longfin...................               1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2012-6456 Filed 3-20-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P