Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fisheries; Specifications and Management Measures, 18834-18844 [2014-07610]
Download as PDF
18834
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 65 / Friday, April 4, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
NMFS finds good cause to waive the
30-day delay in effectiveness and make
this rule effective on filing with the
Office of the Federal Register, pursuant
to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), so that this final
rule may become effective on April 1,
2014. Leaving the 2013 annual
management measures in place could
harm to the halibut stock, because those
measures are not based on the most
current scientific information. Also,
because the 2014 TAC is lower than the
2013 TAC, allowing the 2013 measures
to remain in place could cause drastic
management changes later in the year to
prevent exceeding the lower 2014
subarea allocations once the 2014
measures are implemented and the 2014
Plan is approved. Those measures might
significantly impact the fishery
members by causing them to curtail
effort or possibly lose revenue. Finally,
this final rule approves the Council’s
2014 Plan that responds to the needs of
the fisheries in each state and approves
the portions of the Plan allocating
incidentally caught halibut in the
salmon troll and sablefish primary
fisheries, which start April 1. Therefore,
allowing the 2013 subarea allocations
and Plan to remain in place would not
respond to the needs of the fishery and
would be in conflict with the Council’s
final recommendation for 2014. Finally,
this rule could not be published earlier
due to a delay in completing the
accompanying biological opinion and
environmental assessment. For all of
these reasons, a delay in effectiveness
could ultimately cause economic harm
to the fishing industry and associated
fishing communities by reducing fishing
opportunity later in the year to keep
catch in the subareas within the lower
2014 allocations or result in harvest
levels inconsistent with the best
available scientific information. As a
result of the potential harm to the
halibut stock and fishing communities
that could be caused by delaying the
effectiveness of this final rule, NMFS
finds good cause to waive the 30-day
delay in effectiveness and make this
rule effective upon filing with the Office
of the Federal Register.
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 773 et seq.
Dated: April 1, 2014.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2014–07536 Filed 4–1–14; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:26 Apr 03, 2014
Jkt 232001
[Docket No. 130903775–4276–02]
available from: John K. Bullard,
Regional Administrator, at the address
provided above.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Aja
Szumylo, Fishery Policy Analyst, 978–
281–9195.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
RIN 0648–BD65
Background
Fisheries of the Northeastern United
States; Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and
Butterfish Fisheries; Specifications
and Management Measures
Specifications, as referred to in this
rule, are the combined suite of
commercial and recreational catch
levels established for 1 or more FYs.
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 Mid-Atlantic
Fishery Management Council’s
(Council) process for establishing
specifications relies on provisions
within the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid,
and Butterfish (MSB) Fishery
Management Plan (FMP) and its
implementing regulations, as well as
requirements established by the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act
(Magnuson-Stevens Act). Specifically,
section 302(g)(1)(B) of the MagnusonStevens Act states that the Scientific
and Statistical Committee (SSC) for each
Regional Fishery Management Council
shall provide its Council ongoing
scientific advice for fishery management
decisions, including recommendations
for acceptable biological catch (ABC),
preventing overfishing, maximum
sustainable yield, and achieving
rebuilding targets. The ABC is a level of
catch that accounts for the scientific
uncertainty in the estimate of the stock’s
defined overfishing level (OFL).
The Council’s SSC met on May 15 and
16, 2013, confirming FY 2014
specifications for Illex squid, longfin
squid, and Atlantic mackerel (mackerel)
and recommending ABCs for the FY
2014 butterfish specifications. A
proposed rule for FY 2014 MSB
specifications and management
measures was published on January 10,
2014 (79 FR 1813); the public comment
period for the proposed rule ended
February 10, 2014. NMFS set the
specifications for longfin squid and Illex
squid for 3 years in 2012 (77 FR 51858;
August 27, 2012) and for mackerel in
2013 (78 FR 3346; January 16, 2013).
Information on these specifications is
not included in this action (except for
in Table 1), but can be found in the final
rules for those actions, as referenced
above.
The MSB regulations require the
specification of annual catch limits
(ACL) and accountability measures
(AM) for mackerel and butterfish (both
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 648
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
NMFS is implementing the
specifications for fishing year (FY) 2014
for butterfish, as well as other
management measures for the species
managed under the Atlantic Mackerel,
Squid, and Butterfish Fishery
Management Plan. NMFS previously set
specifications for longfin squid and Illex
squid for 3 years in 2012 (FYs 2012–
2014) and, therefore, new specifications
for these species are not included in this
year’s specification rulemaking.
Likewise, NMFS set specifications for
mackerel for 3 years in 2013 (2013–
2015), so new mackerel specifications
are not included in this action. This
action increases the butterfish
acceptable biological catch by 8 percent
and the butterfish landings limit by 24
percent compared to FY 2013. This
action also increases the butterfish
Phase 3 trip limit from 500 lb (0.23 mt)
to 600 lb (0.27 mt) for longfin squid/
butterfish moratorium permit holders;
establishes a 236-mt cap on river herring
(blueback and alewife) and shad
(American and hickory) catch in the
mackerel fishery; and raises the postclosure possession limit for longfin
squid to 15,000 lb (6.80 mt) for vessels
targeting Illex squid.
DATES: Effective April 4, 2014.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the 2014
specifications document, including the
Environmental Assessment (EA), is
available from John K. Bullard, Regional
Administrator, Greater Atlantic Regional
Fisheries Office (formerly Northeast
Regional Office), 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
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\04APR1.SGM
04APR1
18835
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 65 / Friday, April 4, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
squid species are exempt from the ACL/
AM requirements because they have a
life cycle of less than 1 year). In
addition, the regulations require the
specification of domestic annual harvest
(DAH), domestic annual processing
(DAP), and total allowable level of
foreign fishing (TALFF), along with
joint venture processing for (JVP)
commercial and recreational annual
catch totals (ACT) for mackerel, the
butterfish mortality cap in the longfin
squid fishery, and initial optimum yield
(IOY) for both squid species. Details
concerning the Council’s development
of these measures were presented in the
preamble of the proposed rule and are
not repeated here.
The Council recommended that up to
3 percent of the total ACL for mackerel,
up to 3 percent of the IOY for Illex and
longfin squid, and up to 2 percent of the
butterfish ACT could be set aside to
fund projects selected under the 2014
Mid-Atlantic Research Set-Aside (RSA)
Program. The final RSA allocation for
longfin squid, 635 mt, is subtracted from
the IOY for longfin squid in the table
below. The butterfish award, 115 mt, is
accounted for within the 1,106-mt
unallocated portion of the butterfish
ACT that covers discards in other
fisheries (i.e., the ACL minus the
Commercial ACT), and is thus not
reflected in the table below.
TABLE 1—FINAL SPECIFICATIONS, IN METRIC TONS (MT), FOR MACKEREL FOR 2013–2015, BUTTERFISH FOR FY 2014,
AND LONGFIN AND ILLEX SQUID FOR THE FY 2013–2014 FISHING YEAR
Specifications
Mackerel
OFL ............................................................................................
ABC ............................................................................................
ACL ............................................................................................
Commercial ACT ........................................................................
Recreational ACT/RHL ..............................................................
IOY .............................................................................................
DAH/DAP ...................................................................................
JVP .............................................................................................
TALFF ........................................................................................
RSA ............................................................................................
Butterfish Mortality Cap .............................................................
Butterfish
Unknown
43,781
43,781
34,907
2,443
N/A
33,821
0
0
N/A
Illex
18,200
9,100
9,100
8,190
N/A
N/A
3,200
N/A
0
**
3,884
Unknown
24,000
N/A
N/A
N/A
22,915
22,915
N/A
N/A
N/A
Longfin
Unknown
23,400
N/A
N/A
N/A
21,810
21,810
N/A
N/A
635
** Part of ACT that accounts for discards in other fisheries.
Final FY 2014 Specifications for
Butterfish
Details regarding the derivation of the
Council’s recommended butterfish
specifications were included in the
proposed rule, and are not repeated
here. This action establishes the
butterfish specifications as
recommended by the Council. The
butterfish ACL is set equal to the ABC,
and there is a 10-percent buffer between
ACL and ACT for management
uncertainty, which results in an ACT of
8,190 mt. The DAH and DAP are set at
3,200 mt, and the butterfish discard cap
in the longfin fishery is maintained at
3,884 mt. The remaining 1,106 mt of the
ACT allows for discards in other
fisheries to minimize the likelihood of
an ACL overage, and covers the RSA
allocation of 115 mt. Additionally,
consistent with MSB regulations,
butterfish TALFF is set at zero for FY
2014. Butterfish TALFF is only
specified to address bycatch by foreign
fleets targeting mackerel TALFF.
Because no mackerel TALFF was
allocated for FYs 2013–2015, butterfish
TALFF is also set at zero.
Consistent with FY 2013, the FY 2014
butterfish mortality cap is allocated by
Trimester, as follows:
TABLE 2—TRIMESTER ALLOCATION OF
BUTTERFISH MORTALITY CAP ON
THE LONGFIN SQUID FISHERY FOR
2014
Trimester
Percent
I (Jan–Apr) ....................
II (May–Aug) .................
III (Sep–Dec) ................
Total .......................
65
3.3
31.7
100
Metric
tons
2,525
128
1,231
3,884
This action also increases the
butterfish possession limit in Phase 3 of
the directed butterfish fishery.
Currently, NMFS manages the directed
butterfish fishery in three phases. Table
3 shows the phases and possession
limits, and the fishery moves from
Phase 1, to Phase 2, and to Phase 3
when catch reaches specified thresholds
throughout the year. When NMFS
projects the butterfish harvest to reach
the catch threshold for Phase 3, the trip
limit for all limited access permit
holders is currently reduced to 500 lb
(0.23 mt) to avoid quota overages, but
the incidental trip limit remains at 600
lb (0.27 mt). This action increases the
Phase 3 possession limit from 500 lb
(0.23 mt) to 600 lb (0.27 mt) to be
consistent with the current incidental
butterfish trip limit.
TABLE 3—THREE-PHASE BUTTERFISH MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
Longfin squid/butterfish moratorium permit trip limit
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Phase
≥ 3 inch (7.62 cm) mesh
< 3 inch (7.62 cm) mesh
Unlimited
5,000 lb (2.27 mt)
600 lb (0.27 mt)
2,500 lb (1.13 mt)
2,500 lb (1.13 mt)
600 lb (0.27 mt)
1 ...................................................................................................
2 ...................................................................................................
3 ...................................................................................................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:35 Apr 03, 2014
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\04APR1.SGM
04APR1
Squid/butterfish incidental catch permit trip
limit
600 lb (0.27 mt)
600 lb (0.27 mt)
600 lb (0.27 mt)
18836
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 65 / Friday, April 4, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
This action implements the following
quota thresholds to reduce the trip
limits for Phases 2 and 3 (Tables 4 and
5):
reduce RH/S catches over time,
compared to what would occur without
a cap, given recent data.
Longfin Squid Possession Limit
Increase
TABLE 4—BUTTERFISH THRESHOLDS
This action increases the Trimester II
FOR REDUCING TRIP LIMITS FOR
longfin squid post-closure possession
PHASE 2
limit for longfin squid/butterfish
moratorium permit holders from 2,500
Trip limit
Butterfish
lb (1.13 mt) to 15,000 lb (6.80 mt) of
reduction
Months
harvest
threshold
longfin squid for vessels targeting Illex
(metric tons)
(percent)
squid if they are fishing seaward of the
Illex mesh exemption line and have
Jan–Feb ....
52
1,658
Mar–Apr ....
57
1,838 more than 10,000 lb (4.54 mt) of Illex
May–Jun ...
64
2,044 onboard. In recent years, fishermen are
Jul–Aug .....
70
2,249 reporting that, to remain in compliance
Sept–Oct ...
77
2,455 with longfin squid regulations, they
Nov–Dec ...
82
2,635 sometimes have to discard large
quantities of longfin squid while Illex
TABLE 5—BUTTERFISH THRESHOLDS fishing during longfin squid Trimester II
after that trimester closes (i.e., from July
FOR REDUCING TRIP LIMITS FOR 10-August 31 in 2012). Increasing the
PHASE 3
longfin squid possession limit to
accommodate the multi-day nature of
Trip limit
Butterfish
Illex fishing trips reduces the potential
reduction
Months
harvest
for high levels of regulatory discarding
threshold
(metric tons)
of longfin squid on such trips. Requiring
(percent)
a minimal Illex possession requirement
Jan–Feb ....
66
2,121 of 10,000 lb (4.54 mt) helps ensure that
Mar–Apr ....
71
2,275 vessels are actually Illex fishing when
May–Jun ...
77
2,455
they utilize this provision, and
Jul–Aug .....
82
2,635
Sept–Oct ...
88
2,815 restricting the possession limit increase
Nov–Dec ...
93
2,969 to areas beyond the Illex mesh
exemption line will help prevent vessels
returning from Illex fishing from
Proposed River Herring and Shad
targeting longfin squid in inshore areas
Catch Cap in the Mackerel Fishery
after a Trimester II closure. This action
This action establishes a river herring does not change the post-closure
and shad (RH/S) catch cap in the
possession limit for longfin squid
mackerel fishery. In order to limit RH/
during Trimesters I (January 1–April 30)
S catch, Amendment 14 to the FMP (79
or III (September 1–December 31). The
FR 10029, February 24, 2014) includes
post-closure possession limit for longfin
the provision to allow the Council to set squid remains 2,500 lb (1.13 mt) during
a RH/S cap. However, the actual value
those Trimesters.
of the cap must be set through annual
Corrections
specifications. As such, this action
implements the Council’s recommended
This final rule also makes minor
RH/S catch cap of 236 mt, which
corrections to existing regulations, and
represents the estimated median amount reinstates regulations that were
of RH/S that would have been caught,
inadvertently deleted in previous
had the commercial mackerel fishery
rulemakings. NMFS implements these
landed its current quota of 33,821 mt for adjustments under the authority of
each year during 2005–2012, based on
section 305(d) to the Magnuson-Stevens
analysis of observer and landings. RH/
Act, which provides that the Secretary
S caught on all trips that land 20,000 lb
of Commerce may promulgate
(9.07 mt) or more of mackerel count
regulations necessary to ensure that
against the cap. Once NMFS estimates
amendments to an FMP are carried out
that directed mackerel trips have caught in accordance with the FMP and the
95 percent of the 236-mt RH/S cap, the
Magnuson-Stevens Act. These
directed mackerel fishery will close, and adjustments, which are identified and
NMFS will institute a 20,000-lb (9.07described below, are necessary to clarify
mt) mackerel trip limit, as currently
current regulations or the intent of the
occurs if the directed mackerel fishery
FMP and do not substantively impact
closes. The RH/S cap amount should
any existing regulations.
create a strong incentive for the fleet to
NMFS corrects references to a now
avoid RH/S, allows for the possibility of obsolete section of the regulatory text at
the full mackerel quota to be caught if
§ 648.26(a)(1)(iii). NMFS clarifies the
the fleet can avoid RH/S, and should
coordinates at § 648.23(a)(3) to more
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:26 Apr 03, 2014
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
accurately define the Illex exemption
line. Most significantly, this action
proposes to create a southern boundary
for the exemption by extending the
southernmost point eastward until it
intersects with the boundary of the
Exclusive Economic Zone. In addition,
this rule reinstates the coordinates for
the MSB bottom trawling restricted
areas (i.e., Oceanographer Canyon and
Lydonia Canyon) at § 648.23(a)(4), and
the Tier 3 closure threshold for the
mackerel fishery at § 648.24(b)(1)(ii),
which were inadvertently deleted in
previous rulemakings.
Comments and Responses
NMFS received 101 comments on the
proposed rule. Four were from industry
groups, including the Garden State
Seafood Association (GSSA), Lund’s
Fisheries Incorporated (Lund’s), the
Cape Cod Commercial Fishermen’s
Alliance (CCCFA), and the Angler’s
Conservation Network (ACN). Four were
from environmental groups, including
the Herring Alliance, Wild Oceans, the
Pew Charitable Trusts (Pew), and The
Natural Resources Defense Council
(NRDC). The remaining 93 comments
were from individuals. Only comments
relevant to the measures considered the
2014 Specifications and Management
Measures are addressed below.
Comments related to other fishery
management actions or general fishery
management practices are not addressed
here.
Comments on Butterfish Specifications
and Management Measures
Comment 1: GSSA and Lund’s both
commented in support of the Council’s
recommended butterfish specifications,
including the DAH, the butterfish
mortality cap, and the 3-phase butterfish
management system. Both groups look
forward to the opportunity to for a
directed butterfish fishery in 2014.
Response: NMFS is implementing the
specifications as proposed.
Comment 2: GSSA and Lund’s both
commented in support of the proposed
increase to the Phase 3 butterfish
possession limit for longfin squid/
butterfish moratorium permit holders.
Response: NMFS concurs with the
commenters, and believes that aligning
the incidental butterfish possession
limit and the Phase 3 possession limit
for longfin squid/butterfish moratorium
permit holders will reduce regulatory
confusion.
Comment 3: One individual
commented that there should be no
increase in butterfish catch, and that the
increase has no basis in fact.
Response: NFMS disagrees. As
described in the proposed rule for this
E:\FR\FM\04APR1.SGM
04APR1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 65 / Friday, April 4, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
action, the Council’s recommended
specifications are based on a NMFS
Northeast Fisheries Science Center
(NEFSC) analysis that suggested that
increasing the butterfish ABC to 9,100
mt (from 8,400 mt in 2013) would be
extremely unlikely to cause overfishing
if the 2014 butterfish biomass were
similar to butterfish biomass from 2006–
2012. In addition, the NEFSC recently
completed an assessment for butterfish,
which found that butterfish stock is not
overfished and overfishing is not
occurring (Northeast Fisheries Science
Center. 2014. 58th Northeast Regional
Stock Assessment Workshop (58th
SAW) Assessment Summary Report. US
Dept Commer, Northeast Fish Sci Cent
Ref Doc. 14–03; 44 p. Available from:
National Marine Fisheries Service, 166
Water Street, Woods Hole, MA 02543–
1026, or online at https://nefsc.noaa.gov/
publications/).
Comment 4: One individual
commented that there should be a
commercial cap on butterfish catch. The
commenter stated that trawlers
devastate the butterfish population in
certain areas and ruin fishing for
recreational fisherman. The commenter
went on to state that butterfish are an
important forage species for striped
bass, and that, when butterfish
populations are low, fishing for striped
bass and bluefish are virtually
nonexistent because these predatory fish
migrate to areas where more forage fish
are available.
Response: NMFS notes that total
commercial butterfish catch is limited
by the butterfish ABC. Overall catch
recommendations by the Council and
the SSC are based on fishery stock
assessments, which take natural
mortality (including predation) into
account. Although difficult to account
for with available information, the role
of species like butterfish in the complex
ocean ecosystem is therefore considered
in setting allocations. NMFS conducts
research and investigates ways of
incorporating ecosystem approaches
into management that in the future
could be considered for species like
butterfish.
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Comment on the Post-Closure Longfin
Squid Possession Limit Increase
Comment 5: GSSA commented in
support of the proposed increase to the
Trimester II post-closure longfin squid
possession limit for vessels targeting
Illex squid.
Response: NMFS concurs with the
commenters. Increasing the Trimester II
post-closure longfin squid possession
limit should reduce regulatory
discarding on Illex squid trips.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:26 Apr 03, 2014
Jkt 232001
Comments on the River Herring and
Shad Catch Cap
Comment 6: GSSA and Lund’s
expressed concern that the 236-mt RH/
S catch cap will jeopardize the optimum
yield (OY) of the mackerel fishery if it
returns this winter and spring. They
noted that National Standard 1 requires
the maintenance of OY for the U.S.
fishing industry on a continuing basis.
Response: The Council’s
recommendation of 236 mt represents
the estimated median amount of RH/S
that would have been caught, had the
commercial mackerel fishery landed its
current quota of 33,821 mt for each year
during 2005–2012, based on analysis of
observer and landings. According to the
National Standard 1 guidelines, OY is
achieved by balancing the objectives of
the fishery management plan with the
various interests that comprise the
greatest benefit to the nation, while at
the same time preventing overfishing of
the stock in question. As discussed in
the EA for 2013 MSB Specifications, the
most recent action to set mackerel
specifications, the established mackerel
quotas are designed to prevent
overfishing while allowing for the
fishery to catch the specified quota. As
noted in the Council’s analysis for 2014
MSB Specifications, the recommended
RH/S cap level is intended to allow the
mackerel fishery to catch its full quota
if it achieves a relatively low RH/S
encounter rate. This means that the
selected RH/S quota should allow the
fishery to achieve OY. NMFS agrees that
the RH/S cap amount should create a
strong incentive for the fleet to avoid
RH/S while allowing for the possibility
of the full mackerel quota to be caught.
Comment 7: GSSA and Lund’s
acknowledged the fishing industry’s
responsibility to reduce RH/S catch, as
required by National Standard 9, but
note that the industry has been actively
engaged in bycatch reductions for these
species for several years as part of the
ongoing University of Massachusetts
Dartmouth School of Marine Science
and Technology (SMAST) and
Massachusetts Division of Marine
Fisheries (MADMF) bycatch avoidance
and shoreside monitoring program.
They expressed disappointment that the
bycatch avoidance program is sufficient
to reduce Atlantic sea scallop fleet
interactions with yellowtail flounder,
but that it is not good enough for
managing the region’s pelagic fisheries.
Response: The Atlantic sea scallop
fishery does not depend on the SMAST/
MADMF bycatch avoidance program to
limit yellowtail flounder bycatch.
Rather, the scallop fishery is subject to
a cap on yellowtail catch that, if
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
18837
exceeded, results in area and seasonal
closures of the scallop fishery. Each
fishing year, the New England Fishery
Management Council and NMFS set
limits on the amount of yellowtail
flounder that the scallop fishery can
catch. If the scallop fishery exceeds its
limits, seasonal area closures are
triggered. The avoidance program helps
the scallop fishery remain below the
applicable yellowtail sub-ACL, which is
what the river herring bycatch
avoidance program would help the
mackerel fishery do in the face of the
new RH/S catch cap.
Comment 8: GSSA and Lund’s
asserted that the cap has no biological
foundation and no measurable benefits
to RH/S.
Response: As noted in the
Amendment 14 final rule, data from the
recent Atlantic States Marine Fisheries
Commission (ASMFC) assessments for
RH/S are insufficient to determine a
biologically based catch cap for these
species, and/or the potential effects on
these populations if a catch cap is
implemented on a coast-wide scale. In
the absence of biologically based data,
the cap is based on recent RH/S catch
in the mackerel fishery. The Council
and NMFS believe that capping the
allowed level of RH/S catch in the
mackerel fishery should provide an
incentive for the industry to avoid RH/
S, and may help to minimize, but will
at least limit encounters with these
species. Though it is difficult to
measure the benefits of the catch cap on
RH/S stocks without absolute
abundance estimates, NMFS believes
that, until better stock status
information is available, implementing a
cap will allow for better characterization
of RH/S encounters in the mackerel
fishery, and prevent RH/S catch from
increasing beyond current levels.
Comment 9: GSSA and Lund’s
recommended that the 456-mt cap
considered by the Council be applied
during FY 2014. They believe the higher
cap will increase the chances that the
fleet will be able to target mackerel,
should they return in abundance this
year.
Response: The Council’s analysis
suggested that, by setting the RH/S cap
at 456 mt, the mackerel industry would
only have to avoid RH/S encounter rates
similar to those observed in 2007 and
2012, the 2 recent years with the highest
RH/S encounter rates, in order to catch
the entire mackerel quota without
attaining the RH/S cap. The Council
determined, and NMFS agrees, that the
456-mt cap would not provide sufficient
incentive for industry to continue to
avoid RH/S. The selected 236-mt cap is
expected to allow the fleet to catch the
E:\FR\FM\04APR1.SGM
04APR1
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
18838
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 65 / Friday, April 4, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
entire mackerel quota if RH/S
interactions are kept to a minimum.
Comment 10: GSSA and Lund’s
asserted that the midwater trawl fleet is
being accused of negatively impacting
the region’s RH/S stocks without
evidence, and without attempts to
assign relative mortality to the range of
issues facing RH/S recovery in the
region. They note that the region’s
alewife runs are dramatically improving
as habitat is reclaimed and
environmental factors have provided for
good recruitment in recent years.
Response: The impacts of RH/S catch
in the mackerel fishery are not clear.
Despite some signs of recovery for RH/
S in some regions, the assessments of
these species have concluded that they
are depleted and that commercial
fishing is a contributing factor. The
Council recommended, and NMFS
agrees with, addressing this by
establishing the RH/S cap for the
mackerel fishery. NMFS has also
established a working group to evaluate
all threats to river herring populations
and possible solutions and ways of
protecting river herring, and shad would
benefit from the ultimate measures
aimed at protecting river herring.
Comment 11: The NRDC, Pew, the
Herring Alliance, ACN, CCCFA, Wild
Oceans, and 91 individuals commented
in support of a RH/S cap that would
close the directed mackerel fishery
when 95 percent of the cap has been
reached. Commenters point to the
depleted state of RH/S stocks, and the
importance of these species as food
sources for ocean predators. They also
assert that the cap will provide strong
incentive for offshore trawlers to avoid
these fish in order to catch their target
species.
Response: NMFS concurs with the
commenters, and believes the RH/S cap
should create an incentive for the fleet
to avoid RH/S while allowing for the
operation of the mackerel fishery.
Comment 12: The NRDC, Pew, the
Herring Alliance, and ACN urged NMFS
to retroactively account for all RH/S
catches from January 1, 2014, forward.
These groups also urged NMFS to
implement the RH/S cap as soon as
possible and waive the 30-day delay of
the final rule’s effective date for good
cause. Pew and the Herring Alliance
noted that a majority of mackerel
landings happen from January to April,
and that the greatest incidental catch of
RH/S will likely occur during these
months. Pew and the Herring Alliance
went on to state that, if RH/S catch after
January 1, 2014, meets or exceeds the
cap, NMFS should close the mackerel
fishery immediately to prevent
additional, significant catch. Pew and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:26 Apr 03, 2014
Jkt 232001
the Herring Alliance argued that similar
actions form a strong precedent to waive
the 30-day delay in effectiveness for the
final rule. They cite that NMFS waived
the 30-day delay in effectiveness for
midwater trawl vessels in Closed Area
I (CA I) because a delay would have
failed to increase observer coverage and
control at-sea dumping of unsampled
catch in time for an annual pulse of
effort in CA I, and that this delay would
have pushed back data collection by up
to 1 year (74 FR 56567; November 2,
2009).
Response: NMFS will retroactively
account for RH/S catch in the mackerel
fishery from January 1, 2014, to the
present. Given our intent to
retroactively account for RH/S catch, we
believe a waiver of the 30-day delay in
effectiveness is justified so that NMFS is
able to enforce a closure of the mackerel
fishery related to the RH/S cap, should
that become necessary.
Comment 13: Wild Oceans asked that,
in lieu of Wild Oceans’ preferred course
of managing RH/S in a Federal FMP,
NMFS devote the resources necessary to
facilitate comprehensive conservation of
RH/S throughout state and Federal
waters, by coordinating management
across Council jurisdictions (MidAtlantic and New England) and
overlapping fisheries (Atlantic herring
and mackerel).
Response: NMFS is committed to
engaging in proactive, coordinated
conservation efforts for RH/S. NMFS
considers river herring to be a species of
concern, but recently (78 FR 48944,
August 12, 2013) determined that listing
river herring as either threatened or
endangered under the Endangered
Species Act is not warranted at this
time. Following this determination,
NMFS established a technical working
group and continues to work closely
with the ASMFC and other partners to
develop a long-term, dynamic
conservation plan for river herring from
Canada to Florida. The working group
will evaluate the impact of ongoing
restoration and conservation efforts
(e.g., the RH/S caps in the mackerel and
Atlantic herring fisheries), as well as
new fisheries management measures,
which should benefit the species. It will
also review new information produced
from ongoing research, including
genetic analyses, ocean migration
pattern research, and climate change
impact studies, to assess whether recent
reports showing higher river herring
counts in the last 2 years represent
sustained trends. NMFS is also
committed to working with partners and
tribal governments to continue
implementing important conservation
efforts and fund needed research for
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
river herring. NMFS intends to revisit
its river herring status determination
within the next 5 years.
Comment 14: The Herring Alliance,
Pew, and ACN also requested
management of RH/S in a Federal FMP,
and argued that, while the proposed
catch cap is a first step, it is ultimately
insufficient to prevent further
population declines. They stated that
the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires all
stocks in need of conservation and
management to be added to an FMP,
and that an FMP would align Federal
management more closely with state
moratoria and sustainable fishery plans.
Response: The issue of Federal
management of RH/S in an FMP is not
considered in this action. The Council
initiated Amendment 15 to the MSB
FMP to explore the need for
conservation and management of RH/S,
and analyze all of the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (MSA) provisions (i.e.,
management reference points,
description and delineation of essential
fish habitat, etc.) required for a Federal
FMP. Scoping for MSB Amendment 15
began in October 2012 (77 FR 65867).
The Council completed a document that
examined a range of issues related to
Federal management for RH/S. The
document presented legal requirements
for managing species under the MSA,
the existing management and protection
of RH/S, and the potential benefits of
managing them under the MSA in
contrast to the other authorities already
providing protection. After reviewing
the document, the Council determined
at its October 2013 meeting that it
should not go forward with the
development of Amendment 15 at this
time. The Council’s decision was based
on a range of considerations related to
ongoing RH/S conservation and
management efforts, including
conservation efforts for RH/S at the
local, state and Federal level, the
pending incidental catch caps for RH/S
in the Atlantic mackerel and Atlantic
herring fisheries, the recent
determination by NMFS that river
herring are not endangered or
threatened, and the NMFS commitment
to expand engagement in river herring
conservation following the ESA
determination. The Council also
decided to re-evaluate Federal
management of RH/S in 3 years after a
number of other actions related to RH/
S conservation have been implemented.
Comment 15: Wild Oceans, Pew, the
Herring Alliance, and ACN expressed
concerns about the ability of NMFS to
monitor and enforce the cap, given that
key measures in MSB Amendment 14
were disapproved. They state that 100-
E:\FR\FM\04APR1.SGM
04APR1
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 65 / Friday, April 4, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
percent observer coverage on large
capacity vessels and accountability
measures to curtail the discarding of
catch at-sea (slippage) are essential to an
effective RH/S cap, given the fleet’s
fishing capacity and its demonstrated
propensity for episodic, high impact
bycatch events.
Response: While increases to observer
coverage may improve the quality of
data used to determine the rate of RH/
S bycatch in the mackerel fishery,
NMFS disagrees that the RH/S catch cap
cannot be administered without the
observer coverage and slippage cap
measures disapproved in Amendment
14. Several key measures approved in
Amendment 14 will be instrumental in
administration of the cap. Amendment
14 implemented a pre-trip notification
requirement for the mackerel fishery to
help with the identification of directed
mackerel trips and the placement of
observers on those trips. Amendment 14
also expanded sampling requirements to
assist observers in the successful and
complete collection of data on observed
trips, and instituted a prohibition on
slippage on observed mackerel trips.
In addition, the Council and NMFS
are moving forward with the
development of actions to address the
disapproved observer coverage
measures and the slippage cap. To
address the disapproved observer
coverage measures, NMFS has taken the
lead on an omnibus amendment that
would create the framework for
industry-funded monitoring programs
for all Northeast FMPs. The amendment
will activate industry-funded observer
coverage when NMFS has funding
available to cover its costs to administer
these programs. The omnibus
amendment also includes coverage
targets for the Atlantic mackerel fishery.
To address the disapproved slippage
cap, the Council recently took final
action on Framework Adjustment 9 to
the MSB FMP at its February 2014
meeting. The Council selected an
alternative that would require vessels to
return to port if they release catch prior
to making it available for sampling by
an observer for reasons other than safety
concerns, mechanical failure, or dogfish
clogging the pump. The Council is
finalizing the analysis supporting its
recommendation, after which it will
submit Framework 9 for NMFS review.
Comment 16: The Herring Alliance
commented that, even with 100-percent
coverage, slippage would hinder the
goals of the cap by skewing observer
and landings data. They cited the
midwater trawl CA I provisions again in
saying that NMFS has already
acknowledged that accurate catch
composition records cannot be obtained
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:26 Apr 03, 2014
Jkt 232001
for dumped catch (75 FR 73979,
November 30, 2010). In addition, the
Herring Alliance asserted that NMFS
documented slippage as a problem that
directly affects the administration of the
butterfish mortality cap on the longfin
squid fishery, where longfin squid hauls
have been slipped due to the presence
of butterfish.
Response: NMFS agrees with the
commenter that the best way to obtain
catch composition information is
through full sampling of hauls by
observers. As noted in the previous
response, NMFS will address the issue
of discarding of unsampled catch on
observed trips by implementing a
prohibition on slippage through
Amendment 14. In addition, the Council
recently took final action on a measure
to further deter slippage events. NMFS
believes that these requirements should
improve the quality of data used to
estimate the RH/S catch caps.
NMFS reiterates that the slippage
prohibition and the requirement that
captains submit released catch affidavit
to document all slippage events (also
implemented in Amendment 14) are
also a requirement for longfin squid
permit holders, which can help address
any issues with the administration of
the butterfish mortality cap that may
have resulted from past slippage events.
Comment 17: Wild Oceans expressed
disappointment that NMFS
representative who participated in MSB
Amendment 14 did not, in their view,
proactively help the Council resolve the
agency’s concerns about observer
coverage and slippage. They praised the
Mid-Atlantic Council for continuing to
pursue these issues in new actions in
spite of the disapprovals, and
encouraged NMFS to work
constructively with the Council to
improve monitoring of the mackerel
fishery.
Response: This comment
misrepresents the events that led up to
the partial approval of Amendment 14.
NMFS staff provided guidance and
input on Amendment 14 throughout the
process and warned the Council of the
problems associated with its observer
coverage and slippage alternatives on
several occasions. NMFS has clearly
explained the reasons for disapproving
measures in Amendment 14 (79 FR
10029; February 24, 2014) and that
discussion is not included in this rule.
NMFS is working with Council to
resolve the issues and has taken the lead
on resolving the observer coverage
issues disapproved in Amendment 14.
Comment 18: The NRDC, Pew, the
Herring Alliance, CCCFA, and ACN
supported transitioning towards a
biologically based cap on RH/S as soon
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
18839
as possible. The Herring Alliance and
Pew went on to say that a biologically
based cap should include an analysis of
the status of river populations of RH/S
in discrete geographic regions, and
should also account for directed and
incidental catch of RH/S in state waters.
The Herring Alliance and Pew also
advocated for review of the cap by the
Council’s SSC to improve oversight of
cap determination, and that there be an
annual review of the cap, similar to the
review conducted on the butterfish
mortality cap on the longfin squid
fishery.
Response: Both NMFS and the
Council would like to move towards a
biologically based RH/S catch cap as
soon as possible. As noted above, NMFS
plans to work with state and Federal
partners over the coming 3–5 years to
support research that will fill important
data gaps that limited recent
assessments for these species. In
addition, the Council has already
indicated it is interested in involving its
SSC in the determination of RH/S catch
caps in the future. In the meantime, the
cap will be reviewed annually during
the specifications setting process, and
the best available scientific information
will be used to adjust the cap level. The
annual evaluation and re-specification
of the cap may include certain elements
of the periodic reviews done for the
butterfish mortality cap on the longfin
squid fishery, including estimates of
scientific uncertainty of the catch cap
estimate, and estimates of RH/S
mortality in the mackerel fishery.
The ASMFC continues to manage RH/
S catch in state waters. At this time,
there is no coordination between the
Federal cap on RH/S in the mackerel
fishery, and catch limits in state waters
set by the ASMFC. As noted in the
Council analysis for 2014 specifications,
Council and NMFS technical staffs
continue to investigate the application
of a regional cap spanning multiple
fisheries and jurisdictions. However, the
scope of this action and Amendment 14
are limited to RH/S catch in the
mackerel fishery.
Comment 19: While they support
implementation of the cap, Wild Oceans
and the Herring Alliance asserted that a
more effective cap, in terms of reducing
mortality, would have been set at the
median of recent actual RH/S catch,
rather than what catch would have been
had the mackerel fishery landed its full
quota from 2005–2012. The Herring
Alliance went further in suggesting that
NMFS should scale back catch based on
the advice in the NMFS report for data
poor stocks, and that the cap should be
adjusted annually as scientific
information becomes available through
E:\FR\FM\04APR1.SGM
04APR1
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
18840
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 65 / Friday, April 4, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
better monitoring, in accordance with
National Standard 2.
Response: The Council and NMFS are
committed to minimizing RH/S
encounters in the mackerel fishery.
However, data do not appear to be
robust enough to determine a
biologically based catch cap for RH/S,
and/or the potential effects on these
populations if a catch cap is
implemented on a coast-wide scale.
Given these limitations, the Council
chose to balance its goal of minimizing
RH/S catch in the mackerel fishery, with
the goal of allowing the mackerel fishery
the potential to attain its full quota. The
Council’s preferred 2014 RH/S catch cap
of 236 mt is reflective of these goals.
The commenters reference NOAA
Technical Memorandum NMFS–
SEFSC–616 (Calculating Acceptable
Biological Catch for Stocks that Have
Reliable Catch Data Only (Only Reliable
Catch Stocks—ORCS; 2011)). The
memorandum was developed by a
Working Group comprised of
representatives from seven of the eight
SSCs, five of the six NMFS Science
Centers, NMFS Headquarters, academic
institutions, a state agency, and an NGO
to offer guidance that can be used to set
ABCs for managed stocks that only have
reliable catch data, are lightly fished,
and appear to have stable or increasing
trends. The report recommends
doubling catch during a stable period to
create an OFL, setting the ABC at 50 to
90 percent of the OFL, and then tracking
the stock to see how the adjusted catch
levels affect abundance. The Council
did not evaluate the appropriateness of
this method for establishing the 2014
RH/S cap because RH/S are not
managed species, and because the focus
of the cap is limiting RH/S catch in the
mackerel fishery rather than the
establishment of total catch levels for
the entire RH/S stock. Instead, the
Council found it most appropriate to set
the cap based on recent catch in the
mackerel fishery. The Council may
choose to consider the applicability of
the guidance in the ORCS Technical
Memorandum when setting the RH/S
catch cap in future years, if it desires.
Comment 20: While they supported
the 95-percent closure threshold, the
Herring Alliance and Pew point to
analysis in Amendment 14 that suggests
that earlier closures of the mackerel
fishery could lead to relatively higher
benefits to RH/S populations. They
discussed that the 95-percent threshold
will need to be evaluated based on
fishery performance, and if the cap is
exceeded, that the threshold must be
adjusted to prevent the mackerel fishery
from exceeding the cap in the future.
They asserted that a lower threshold
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:26 Apr 03, 2014
Jkt 232001
may be needed if observer coverage is
not available to accurately monitor the
cap.
Response: The Amendment 14
analysis discusses the RH/S cap
conceptually because the actual
establishment of the RH/S cap was
deferred to the annual specifications
process. In evaluating the concept of the
cap, the Council concluded that,
compared to setting the cap at a high
level, setting the cap lower could result
in earlier closures of the mackerel
fishery, which could lead to
comparatively higher benefits to RH/S
populations. In contrast, the
commenters imply that the Council’s
Amendment 14 analysis suggests that
lower closure thresholds, rather than a
lower overall cap level, would lead to
higher benefits for RH/S. Lowering the
closure threshold would have the same
effect as lowering the overall cap, and
thus is likely to result in similar
potential benefits to RH/S populations.
However, the closure threshold is only
a means to ensuring that the overall cap
is not exceeded. The overall cap should
be set to reach the desired conservation
benefit, and the closure threshold
should be set secondarily in support of
ensuring the cap is not exceeded. The
Council will likely evaluate the
effectiveness of the closure threshold in
ensuring that the cap is not exceeded,
and make any necessary adjustments, as
part of the specifications process for
upcoming fishing years. At that time,
the Council can also evaluate whether
observer coverage levels are sufficient to
monitor the cap, and may recommend
additional management measures to
ensure appropriate cap implementation.
Comment 21: The Herring Alliance
suggests that, as an accountability
measure, any overages of the RH/S catch
cap in a given year should be deducted
from the catch cap for the subsequent
year, but that underages of the catch cap
should not be carried over.
Response: The Council did not
contemplate accountability measures for
the RH/S cap in Amendment 14 or the
2014 specifications, and would need to
consider this type of measure in a
separate action.
Comment 22: Pew and the Herring
Alliance advocate for coordination
between the RH/S caps between the
mackerel and herring fisheries. In
particular, they suggest that the
implementing language should be
revised so that measures apply to trips
‘‘fishing for, catching, possessing,
transferring, or landing’’ the specified
amount of mackerel to be consistent
with the Atlantic Herring FMP.
Response: NMFS has added text to the
regulations to clarify that the cap
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
applies to trips that land over 20,000 lb
(9.08 mt) of mackerel. The commenter
referenced language in the Atlantic
Herring FMP that describes the
possession restrictions for fishing
vessels following a closure of the
directed herring fishery. Similar
language (e.g., fish for, possess, or land)
is already used to describe possession
restrictions for the Atlantic mackerel
fishery at § 648.26(a)(2).
Comment 23: Several individuals
commented that the relationship
between predator species and RH/S
should be more fully considered and
analyzed. While some focused on
making commercial mackerel fishery
restrictions more similar to recreational
measures (bans on fishing, regional
caps), others noted that the actions for
commercial fisheries should take into
account the impacts on recreational
fisheries. One commenter noted that
NMFS should consider the impacts on
tourism and the overall economy.
Response: NMFS recognizes these
concerns but notes that such analyses
and holistic consideration stretch
beyond the capabilities of current
analytical tools and the mandates of the
MSA. Through Federal fishery
management plans, we are responsible
for managing fisheries to OY, which is
the maximum yield one can harvest
while taking into account ecological
factors such as habitat protection,
bycatch considerations, and to the
extent we understand it, the ecological
role of the managed species. The
relationships between commercial and
recreational fisheries are complex; the
economic relationships even more so.
Nevertheless, NMFS strives to improve
its data and understanding of such
relationships. With more understanding,
more holistic analyses may be possible
in the future.
Changes From the Proposed Rule
The proposed rule presented two
tables (Tables 4 and 5 in the proposed
rule) listing quota thresholds to reduce
the trip limits for Phases 2 and 3 in the
butterfish fishery. Though the tables
presented the correct butterfish harvest
amounts at which trip limit changes
would be triggered, the tables
incorrectly listed the percentages for the
trip limit reductions. The correct
percentages are presented in Tables 4
and 5 in this final rule, and will be
presented to industry in the small entity
compliance guide sent to longfin squid/
butterfish permit holders after the
publication of this final rule.
The proposed rule did not include
regulatory text that clearly outlines the
trips to which the RH/S cap apply.
Similarly, the regulatory text regarding
E:\FR\FM\04APR1.SGM
04APR1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 65 / Friday, April 4, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
the butterfish mortality cap did not
clearly state the trips to which the cap
applies. Clarifying text is added for both
caps in this rule.
Classification
Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS
Assistant Administrator (AA) has
determined that this final rule is
consistent with the MSB FMP, other
provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens
Act, and other applicable laws.
The Council prepared an EA for the
2014 specifications, and the AA
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).
The AA finds good cause under 5
U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to waive the 30-day
delay in effectiveness for this action.
This action increases the butterfish
harvest available to the fishing industry
for FY 2014. The primary butterfish
market available to the butterfish fishing
industry occurs in late December
through April due to the high fat
content of the fish after feeding during
the early winter. Under the 2013
butterfish allocations, the Phase 2 trip
limit reduction threshold is exceeded
when the fishery has landed 47 percent
of the 2013 allocation (1,208 mt) of the
butterfish allocation in March/April.
Once the Phase 2 trip limit reduction
threshold is exceeded, the butterfish
possession limit is reduced from
unlimited down to 5,000 lb (2.28 mt).
The 2014 butterfish allocations increase
the Phase 2 trip limit reduction
threshold to 57 percent of the 2014
butterfish allocation (1,838 mt) for
March/April.
NMFS has already issued a Phase 1 to
Phase 2 trip limit reduction on March
18, 2014. As of March 26, 2014, NMFS
determined that only 45 percent of the
butterfish quota has been harvested
relative to the 2014 specifications,
meaning that the fishery could still be
operating under Phase 1 for 2014. If the
effectiveness of this rule were delayed
for 30 days from the date of publication,
the possession limit for butterfish would
remain at 5,000 lb (2.28 mt) at a time of
year when the value of butterfish is
highest. Increasing the Phase 2 trip limit
reduction threshold immediately will
allow NMFS to temporarily return the
butterfish fishery to Phase 1, and
ensures that the butterfish fleet can
continue operation with the highest
possible possession limit during this
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:26 Apr 03, 2014
Jkt 232001
critical time of year when the market is
available. Vessels fishing for butterfish
would only be able to obtain the
increased economic opportunity
provided by this final rule if the 30-day
delay in effectiveness is waived. Failure
to make this final rule effective
immediately will cause economic harm
to the butterfish fleet and undermine the
intent of the rule, which is to promote
the utilization and conservation of the
Atlantic mackerel, squid, and butterfish
resource. Therefore, good cause exists to
waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness
under 5 U.S.C. Section 553(d)(3).
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 2013
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 establishes 2014
specifications for butterfish, along with
management measures for the longfin
squid, butterfish, and mackerel
fisheries. A complete description of the
reasons why this action was considered,
and the objectives of and legal basis for
this action, are contained in the
preamble to this rule 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
None of the public comments raised
issues related to the IRFA or the
economic impacts of the rule on affected
entities.
Description and Estimate of Number of
Small Entities To Which the Rule Will
Apply
On June 20, 2013, the Small Business
Administration (SBA) issued a final rule
revising the small business size
standards for several industries effective
July 22, 2013 (78 FR 37398). The rule
increased the size standard for Finfish
Fishing from $4.0 to $19.0 million,
Shellfish Fishing from $4.0 to $5.0
million, and Other Marine Fishing from
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
18841
$4.0 to $7.0 million. NMFS has
reviewed the analyses prepared for this
action in light of the new size standards.
Under the former, lower size standards,
all entities subject to this action were
considered small entities, thus they all
would continue to be considered small
under the new standards.
The proposed measures in the 2014
MSB Specifications and Management
Measures could affect any vessel
holding an active Federal permit to fish
for Atlantic mackerel, longfin squid,
Illex squid, or butterfish. Having
different size standards for different
types of marine fishing activities creates
difficulties in categorizing businesses
that participate in more than one of
these activities. For now, the short-term
approach is to classify a business entity
into the SBA defined categories based
on which activity produced the highest
gross revenue. In this case, Atlantic
mackerel is the only species with
significant recreational fishing, and in
2012, the charter boat industry
harvested only 10,000 lb (4.54 mt).
Based on these assumptions, the finfish
size standard would apply, and the
business is considered large, only if
revenues are greater than $19 million.
As such, all of the potentially affected
businesses are considered small entities
under the standards described in NMFS
guidelines, because they have gross
receipts that do not exceed $19 million
annually. Based on permit data for 2013,
2,441 commercial or charter vessels
possessed MSB permits for FY 2013,
and similar numbers of vessels are
expected to have MSB permits for 2014.
Many vessels participate in more than
one of these fisheries; therefore, permit
numbers are not additive.
Although it is possible that some
entities, based on rules of affiliation,
would qualify as large business entities,
due to lack of reliable ownership
affiliation data NMFS cannot apply the
business size standard at this time.
NMFS is currently compiling data on
vessel ownership that should permit a
more refined assessment and
determination of the number of large
and small entities for future actions. For
this action, since available data are not
adequate to identify affiliated vessels,
each operating unit is considered a
small entity for purposes of the RFA,
and, therefore, there is no differential
impact between small and large entities.
Therefore, there are no disproportionate
economic impacts on small entities.
Section 6.7 in Amendment 14 describes
the vessels, key ports, and revenue
information for the MSB fisheries;
therefore, that information is not
repeated here.
E:\FR\FM\04APR1.SGM
04APR1
18842
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 65 / Friday, April 4, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
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 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
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Actions Implemented With the Final
Rule
The RH/S catch cap in the mackerel
fishery has the potential to limit the
fishery from achieving its full mackerel
quota if the RH/S encounter rates are
high, but it is very unlikely that the
fishery would close before exceeding
the levels of landings experienced since
2010, when landings have been less
than 11,000 mt. Limiting catches of RH/
S has the potential to benefit those
species, although the extent of this
benefit is unknown because overall
abundance information for these species
is not available.
The butterfish DAH implemented in
this action (3,200 mt) represents a 24percent increase over the 2013 DAH
(2,570 mt). The increase in the DAH has
the potential to slightly increase
revenue for permitted vessels.
This action also implements slightly
higher trip limit in Phase 3 of the
directed butterfish fishery, in order to
simplify the regulations and have this
limit match the incidental trip limit of
600 lb (0.27 mt). This increase should
also have positive economic impacts on
the fishery.
The only adjustment to the longfin
squid fishery is an increase to the
Trimester II longfin squid post-closure
possession limit for longfin squid/
butterfish moratorium permit holders
from 2,500 lb (1.13 mt) to 15,000 lb
(6.80 mt) for vessels targeting Illex. This
measure should reduce regulatory
discarding and provide a small amount
of additional revenue; thus, it would
have positive economic impacts to the
Illex fishery.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:35 Apr 03, 2014
Jkt 232001
Alternatives to Actions in the Final
Rule
The Council analysis evaluated four
alternatives to the specifications for
butterfish. Of the three the Council did
not select, two alternatives would have
resulted in lower 2014 specifications.
The first of these is the No Action
alternative (status quo), which would
have set the butterfish ABC at 8,400 mt
and resulted in an ACT of 7,560 mt, a
DAH and DAP of 2,570 mt, and a
butterfish mortality cap at 3,884 mt. The
other alternative (the most restrictive)
would have set the ABC at 25 percent
lower than the proposed alternative
(6,825 mt), resulting in an ACT of 6,143
mt, a DAH and DAP of 2,400 mt, and a
butterfish mortality cap at 2,913 mt.
These alternatives could generate the
lowest revenues of all of the considered
alternatives. The fourth alternative (the
least restrictive) would have set the ABC
at 25 percent higher than the proposed
alternative (11,375 mt), resulting in an
ACT of 10,238 mt, a DAH and DAP of
5,248 mt, and a butterfish mortality cap
at 3,884 mt. This alternative could
generate increased revenue if more
butterfish became available to the
fishery. These three alternatives were
not selected because they were all
inconsistent with the ABC
recommended by the SSC.
The Council considered four
alternatives for the RH/S catch cap in
the mackerel fishery. Aside from the No
Action (status quo) alternative, which
would not have implemented a catch
cap in the fishery because there is
currently no cap in place, the Council
considered one alternative that would
have set the RH/S catch cap at 119 mt
(most restrictive) and one alternative
that would have set the RH/S catch cap
at 456 mt (least restrictive). If the catch
cap were set at 119 mt, there would be
the greatest likelihood that the cap level
could restrict mackerel fishing, whereas
setting the RH/S cap at 456 mt would be
the least likely to be restrictive. Any cap
would be more likely to close the
fishery compared to no cap (status quo),
the selected alternative (RH/S cap of 236
mt) would most likely assist in the
recovery of RH/S stocks while allowing
the mackerel fishery to continue,
assuming low RH/S catch rates.
With regards to matching Phase 3 and
the incidental trip limits in the
butterfish fishery, the Council
considered two other alternatives in
addition to the selected alternative (i.e.,
increasing the Phase 3 trip limit from
500 lb (0.23 mt) to 600 lb (0.27 mt), to
match the incidental limit). One
alternative was the No Action
alternative, which would have
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
unnecessarily continued the regulatory
confusion by requiring two different
possession limits based on permit type.
The other alternative would have
lowered the incidental limit to 500 lb
(0.23 mt) to match the current Phase 3
limit, which potentially could have the
effect of converting currently retained
butterfish catch into discards. The
selected alternative resolves this
confusion over different trip limits,
while continuing to discourage directed
fishing.
The Council considered three
alternatives related to the post-closure
possession limit of longfin squid in the
Illex fishery. The most restrictive
alternative considered was the No
Action (status quo) alternative, which
would continue the current longfin
squid trip limit of 2,500 lb (1.13 mt) in
Trimester 3. The selected alternative,
which would increase the possession
limit to 15,000 lb (6.80 mt), is the least
restrictive alternative. The other
alternative considered would have
increased the longfin squid possession
limit to 10,000 lb (4.54 mt). Compared
to the other two alternatives, the status
quo alternative would continue to result
in high levels of regulatory discards of
longfin squid and would result in lower
revenues than the other alternatives
considered. Although the other two
alternatives would both result in
previously discarded longfin squid
being landed, the selected alternative,
with its higher possession limit, results
in the highest potential revenue.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR part 648
Fisheries, Fishing, Recordkeeping and
reporting requirements.
Dated: March 31, 2014.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
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
1. The authority citation for part 648
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
2. In § 648.23, paragraph (a)(3) is
revised and paragraph (a)(4) is added to
read as follows:
■
§ 648.23 Mackerel, squid, and butterfish
gear restrictions.
*
*
*
*
*
(a) * * *
(3) Illex fishery. Seaward of the
following coordinates, connected in the
E:\FR\FM\04APR1.SGM
04APR1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 65 / Friday, April 4, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
order listed by straight lines except
otherwise noted, 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 17⁄8 inches (48 mm) diamond
mesh in Trimester II, and 21⁄8 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
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
M0 ................
M1 ................
M2 ................
M3 ................
M4 ................
M5 ................
M6 ................
M7 ................
M8 ................
M9 ................
M10 ..............
M11 ..............
M12 ..............
M13 ..............
M14 ..............
M15 ..............
M16 ..............
M17 ..............
M18 ..............
M19 ..............
M20 ..............
M21 ..............
M22 ..............
M23 ..............
M24 ..............
M25 ..............
N. lat.
43°58.0′
43°58.0′
43°50.0′
43°30.0′
43°20.0′
42°45.0′
42°13.0′
41°00.0′
41°45.0′
42°10.0′
41°18.6′
40°55.5′
40°45.5′
40°37.0′
40°30.0′
40°22.7′
40°18.7′
40°21.0′
39°41.0′
38°47.0′
38°04.0′
37°08.0′
36°00.0′
35°45.0′
35°28.0′
35°28.0′
W. long.
[1]
67°22.0′
68°35.0′
69°40.0′
70°00.0′
70°10.0′
69°55.0′
69°00.0′
68°15.0′
67°10.0′ [2]
66°24.8′ [2]
66°38.0′
68°00.0′
68°00.0′
69°00.0′
69°00.0′
69°40.0′
71°03.0′
72°32.0′
73°11.0′
74°06.0′
74°46.0′
74°52.0′
74°53.0′
74°52.0′
[3]
available from the Regional
Administrator upon request):
Oceanographer Canyon
Point
OC1
OC2
OC3
OC4
OC1
.............
.............
.............
.............
.............
N. lat.
40°10.0′
40°24.0′
40°24.0′
40°10.0′
40°10.0′
W. long.
68°12.0′
68°09.0′
68°08.0′
67°59.0′
68°12.0′
(ii) Lydonia Canyon. No permitted
mackerel, squid, or butterfish vessel
may fish with bottom trawl gear in the
Lydonia Canyon or be in the Lydonia
Canyon unless transiting. Vessels may
transit this area provided the bottom
trawl gear is stowed in accordance with
the provisions of paragraph (b) of this
section. Lydonia Canyon is defined by
straight lines connecting the following
points in the order stated (copies of a
chart depicting this area are available
from the Regional Administrator upon
request):
Lydonia Canyon
Point
LC1
LC2
LC3
LC4
LC5
LC1
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
N. lat.
40°16.0′
40°16.0′
40°20.0′
40°27.0′
40°27.0′
40°16.0′
W. long.
67°34.0′
67°42.0′
67°43.0′
67°40.0′
67°38.0′
67°34.0′
*
*
*
*
*
3. In § 648.24, paragraphs (b)(1),
(c)(1)(iii) and (c)(3) are revised and
paragraph (b)(6) is added to read as
follows:
■
§ 648.24 Fishery closures and
accountability measures.
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
[1] The intersection of 43°58.0′N. latitude
(i) Mackerel commercial sector EEZ
and the US-Canada Maritime Boundary.
[2] Points M9 and M10 are intended to fall closure. NMFS will close the
along and are connected by the US-Canada commercial mackerel fishery in the EEZ
Maritime Boundary.
when the Regional Administrator
[3] The intersection of 35°28.0′N. latitude
projects that 95 percent of the mackerel
and the outward limit of the U.S. EEZ.
DAH is harvested, if such a closure is
necessary to prevent the DAH from
(4) Mackerel, squid, and butterfish
being exceeded. The closure of the
bottom trawling restricted areas. (i)
commercial fishery shall be in effect for
Oceanographer Canyon. No permitted
the remainder of that fishing year, with
mackerel, squid, or butterfish vessel
incidental catches allowed as specified
may fish with bottom trawl gear in the
in § 648.26. When the Regional
Oceanographer Canyon or be in the
Administrator projects that the DAH for
Oceanographer Canyon unless
mackerel will be landed, NMFS shall
transiting. Vessels may transit this area
close the commercial mackerel fishery
provided the bottom trawl gear is
in the EEZ, and the incidental catches
stowed in accordance with the
specified for mackerel in § 648.26 will
provisions of paragraph (b) of this
be prohibited.
section. Oceanographer Canyon is
(ii) NMFS will close the Tier 3
defined by straight lines connecting the
commercial mackerel fishery in the EEZ
following points in the order stated
(copies of a chart depicting this area are when the Regional Administrator
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:26 Apr 03, 2014
Jkt 232001
*
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
18843
projects that 90 percent of the Tier 3
mackerel allocation will be harvested, if
such a closure is necessary to prevent
the DAH from being exceeded. The
closure of the Tier 3 commercial
mackerel fishery will be in effect for the
remainder of that fishing period, with
incidental catches allowed as specified
in § 648.26.
*
*
*
*
*
(6) River herring and shad catch cap.
The river herring and shad cap on the
mackerel fishery applies to all trips that
land more than 20,000 lb (9.08 mt) of
mackerel. NMFS shall close the directed
mackerel fishery in the EEZ when the
Regional Administrator projects that 95
percent of the river herring/shad catch
cap has been harvested. Following
closures of the directed mackerel
fishery, vessels must adhere to the
possession restrictions specified in
§ 648.26.
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) Phase 3. NMFS shall
subsequently reduce the trip limit for
vessels issued longfin squid/butterfish
moratorium permits to 600 lb (0.27 mt),
regardless of minimum mesh size, when
butterfish harvest is projected to reach
the relevant phase 3 trip limit reduction
threshold. The NMFS Regional
Administrator may adjust the butterfish
trip limit during phase 3 of the directed
butterfish fishery anywhere from 250 lb
(0.11 mt) to 750 lb (0.34 mt) to ensure
butterfish harvest does not exceed the
specified DAH.
*
*
*
*
*
(3) Butterfish mortality cap on the
longfin squid fishery. The butterfish
mortality cap on the longfin squid
fishery applies to all trips that land
more than 20,000 lb (9.08 mt) of
mackerel. NMFS shall close the directed
fishery in the EEZ for longfin squid
when the Regional Administrator
projects that 80 percent of the Trimester
I butterfish mortality cap allocation has
been harvested in Trimester I, when 75
percent of the annual butterfish
mortality cap has been harvested in
Trimester II, and/or when 90 percent of
the butterfish mortality cap has been
harvested in Trimester III. Following
closures of the directed longfin squid
fishery, vessels must adhere to the
possession restrictions specified in
§ 648.26.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 4. In § 648.26, paragraphs (a)(1)(iii),
(b) and (d)(3) are revised to read as
follows:
§ 648.26 Mackerel, squid, and butterfish
possession restrictions.
*
E:\FR\FM\04APR1.SGM
*
*
04APR1
*
*
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
18844
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 65 / Friday, April 4, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) A vessel issued a Tier 3 Limited
Access Mackerel Permit is authorized to
fish for, possess, or land up to 100,000
lb (45.36 mt) of Atlantic mackerel in the
EEZ per trip, and may only land
Atlantic mackerel once on any calendar
day, which is defined as the 24-hr
period beginning at 0001 hours and
ending at 2400 hours, provided that the
fishery has not been closed because 90
percent of the Tier 3 allocation has been
harvested, or 95 percent of the DAH has
been harvested, as specified in
§ 648.24(b)(1)(i) and (ii).
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Longfin squid. (1) Unless specified
in paragraph (b)(2) of this section,
during a closure of the directed fishery
for longfin squid vessels may not fish
for, possess, or land more than 2,500 lb
(1.13 mt) of longfin squid per trip at any
time, and may only land longfin squid
once on any calendar day, which is
defined as the 24-hr period beginning at
0001 hours and ending at 2400 hours. If
a vessel has been issued a longfin squid
incidental catch permit (as specified at
§ 648.4(a)(5)(ii)), then it may not fish for,
possess, or land more than 2,500 lb
(1.13 mt) of longfin squid per trip at any
time and may only land longfin squid
once on any calendar day, unless such
a vessel meets the criteria outlined in
paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
(2) During a closure of the directed
fishery for longfin squid for Trimester II,
a vessel with a longfin squid/butterfish
moratorium permit that is on a directed
Illex squid fishing trip (i.e., possess over
10,000 lb (4.54 mt) of Illex) and is
seaward of the coordinates specified at
§ 648.23 (a)(3), may possess up to 15,000
lb (6.80 mt) of longfin squid. Once
landward of the coordinates specified at
§ 648.23 (a)(3), such vessels must stow
all fishing gear, as specified at
§ 648.23(b), in order to possess more
than 2,500 lb (1.13 mt) of longfin squid
per trip.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) * * *
(3) Phase 3. When butterfish harvest
is projected to reach the trip limit
reduction threshold for phase 3 (as
described in § 648.24), all vessels issued
a longfin squid/butterfish moratorium
permit, regardless of mesh size used,
may not fish for, possess, or land more
than 600 lb (0.27 mt) of butterfish per
trip at any time, and may only land
butterfish once on any calendar day,
which is defined as the 24-hr period
beginning at 0001 hours and ending at
2400 hours. If a vessel has been issued
a longfin squid/butterfish incidental
catch permit (as specified at
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:26 Apr 03, 2014
Jkt 232001
§ 648.4(a)(5)(ii)), it may not fish for,
possess, or land more than 600 lb (0.27
mt) of butterfish per trip at any time.
[FR Doc. 2014–07610 Filed 4–3–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 648
[Docket No. 130903775–4276–02]
RIN 0648–XD205
Fisheries of the Northeastern United
States; Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and
Butterfish Fisheries; Phase 1
Reopening for the Directed Butterfish
Fishery
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Temporary rule.
AGENCY:
NMFS announces that phase
1 of the directed butterfish fishery will
be reopened to provide the opportunity
for vessels targeting butterfish to fish
with a higher possession limit. Vessels
issued a longfin squid/butterfish
moratorium permit may fish for, catch,
possess, or land unlimited amounts of
butterfish when using greater than or
equal to 3-inch (76-mm) mesh. The
possession limit remains 2,500-lb (1.13
mt) per trip or calendar day for vessels
fishing less than 3-inch (76-mm) mesh.
The incidental possession limit also
remains unchanged at 600 lb (0.27 mt).
DATES: Effective April 4, 2014, through
December 31, 2014.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Aja
Szumylo, Fishery Policy Analyst, 978–
281–9195, Fax 978–281–9135.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulations at 50 CFR part 648 govern
the butterfish fishery. The regulations
require specifications for maximum
sustainable yield, initial optimum yield,
allowable biological catch, annual catch
limit (ACL), domestic annual harvest
(DAH), domestic annual processing
(DAP), joint venture processing, and
total allowable levels of foreign fishing
for the species managed under the
Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish
(MSB) Fishery Management Plan (FMP).
The procedures for setting the annual
initial specifications are described in
§ 648.22.
Due to the increase in the butterfish
DAH from previous years, the 2013 MSB
specifications implemented a 3-phase
butterfish management system to allow
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
for maximum utilization of the
butterfish resource without exceeding
the stock-wide ACL. In phase 1, there is
no trip limit for vessels issued longfin
squid/butterfish moratorium permits
using mesh greater than or equal to 3
inches (76 mm), a 2,500-lb (1.13-mt) trip
limit for longfin squid/butterfish
moratorium permits using mesh less
than 3 inches (76 mm), and a trip limit
of 600 lb (0.27 mt) for vessels issued
squid/butterfish incidental catch
permits. Once butterfish harvest reaches
the trip hold reduction threshold to
move from phase 1 to phase 2, the trip
limit for longfin squid/butterfish
moratorium permit holders will be
reduced while in phase 2 to 5,000 lb
(2.27 mt) for vessels using greater than
or equal to 3-inch (7.62 cm) mesh. The
limit remains unchanged at 2,500-lb
(1.13 mt) per trip or calendar day for
vessels issued a Federal longfin squid/
butterfish moratorium permits and
fishing with less than 3-inch (76-mm);
and the incidental limit remains at 600
lb (0.27 mt). When we project butterfish
harvest to reach the trip hold reduction
thresholds to move from phase 2 to
phase 3, the trip limit for all longfin
squid/butterfish moratorium permit
holders will be reduced while in phase
3 to 500 lb (0.23 mt) to avoid quota
overages. For phases 2 and 3, the quota
thresholds to reduce the trip limits will
vary bimonthly throughout the year.
The 2013 MSB specifications set the
2013 butterfish DAH at 2,570 mt (77 FR
3346, January 16, 2013). The regulations
at § 648.22(d) state that, if annual
specifications for the MSB fisheries are
not published in the Federal Register
prior to the start of the fishing year
(January 1), the previous year’s annual
specifications, will remain in effect. On
March 18, 2014 (79 FR 15046), NMFS
announced a trip limit reduction for the
butterfish fishery based on the phase 2
trip limit reduction threshold for the
2013 butterfish quota.
The final rule for 2014 MSB
specifications and management
measures is published elsewhere in this
issue. The 2014 butterfish specifications
were implemented upon publication of
that action, and immediately
superseded the 2013 specifications. The
2014 butterfish specifications increase
the butterfish quota by 630 mt. Relative
to the increased 2014 butterfish quota,
only 45 percent of the butterfish quota
has been harvested. Because the 2014
March/April phase 2 trip limit
reduction threshold for butterfish is 57
percent, effective April 4, 2014, the
butterfish fishery can return to phase 1.
Longfin squid/butterfish moratorium
permit holders using mesh sizes greater
than 3 inches (76 mm) may fish for,
E:\FR\FM\04APR1.SGM
04APR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 65 (Friday, April 4, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18834-18844]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-07610]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 648
[Docket No. 130903775-4276-02]
RIN 0648-BD65
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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS is implementing the specifications for fishing year (FY)
2014 for butterfish, as well as other management measures for the
species managed under the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish
Fishery Management Plan. NMFS previously set specifications for longfin
squid and Illex squid for 3 years in 2012 (FYs 2012-2014) and,
therefore, new specifications for these species are not included in
this year's specification rulemaking. Likewise, NMFS set specifications
for mackerel for 3 years in 2013 (2013-2015), so new mackerel
specifications are not included in this action. This action increases
the butterfish acceptable biological catch by 8 percent and the
butterfish landings limit by 24 percent compared to FY 2013. This
action also increases the butterfish Phase 3 trip limit from 500 lb
(0.23 mt) to 600 lb (0.27 mt) for longfin squid/butterfish moratorium
permit holders; establishes a 236-mt cap on river herring (blueback and
alewife) and shad (American and hickory) catch in the mackerel fishery;
and raises the post-closure possession limit for longfin squid to
15,000 lb (6.80 mt) for vessels targeting Illex squid.
DATES: Effective April 4, 2014.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the 2014 specifications document, including the
Environmental Assessment (EA), is available from John K. Bullard,
Regional Administrator, Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office
(formerly Northeast Regional Office), 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: John K.
Bullard, Regional Administrator, at the address provided above.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Aja Szumylo, Fishery Policy Analyst,
978-281-9195.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Specifications, as referred to in this rule, are the combined suite
of commercial and recreational catch levels established for 1 or more
FYs. 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 Mid-Atlantic Fishery
Management Council's (Council) process for establishing specifications
relies on provisions within the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and
Butterfish (MSB) Fishery Management Plan (FMP) and its implementing
regulations, as well as requirements established by the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).
Specifically, section 302(g)(1)(B) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act states
that the Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) for each Regional
Fishery Management Council shall provide its Council ongoing scientific
advice for fishery management decisions, including recommendations for
acceptable biological catch (ABC), preventing overfishing, maximum
sustainable yield, and achieving rebuilding targets. The ABC is a level
of catch that accounts for the scientific uncertainty in the estimate
of the stock's defined overfishing level (OFL).
The Council's SSC met on May 15 and 16, 2013, confirming FY 2014
specifications for Illex squid, longfin squid, and Atlantic mackerel
(mackerel) and recommending ABCs for the FY 2014 butterfish
specifications. A proposed rule for FY 2014 MSB specifications and
management measures was published on January 10, 2014 (79 FR 1813); the
public comment period for the proposed rule ended February 10, 2014.
NMFS set the specifications for longfin squid and Illex squid for 3
years in 2012 (77 FR 51858; August 27, 2012) and for mackerel in 2013
(78 FR 3346; January 16, 2013). Information on these specifications is
not included in this action (except for in Table 1), but can be found
in the final rules for those actions, as referenced above.
The MSB regulations require the specification of annual catch
limits (ACL) and accountability measures (AM) for mackerel and
butterfish (both
[[Page 18835]]
squid species are exempt from the ACL/AM requirements because they have
a life cycle of less than 1 year). In addition, the regulations require
the specification of domestic annual harvest (DAH), domestic annual
processing (DAP), and total allowable level of foreign fishing (TALFF),
along with joint venture processing for (JVP) commercial and
recreational annual catch totals (ACT) for mackerel, the butterfish
mortality cap in the longfin squid fishery, and initial optimum yield
(IOY) for both squid species. Details concerning the Council's
development of these measures were presented in the preamble of the
proposed rule and are not repeated here.
The Council recommended that up to 3 percent of the total ACL for
mackerel, up to 3 percent of the IOY for Illex and longfin squid, and
up to 2 percent of the butterfish ACT could be set aside to fund
projects selected under the 2014 Mid-Atlantic Research Set-Aside (RSA)
Program. The final RSA allocation for longfin squid, 635 mt, is
subtracted from the IOY for longfin squid in the table below. The
butterfish award, 115 mt, is accounted for within the 1,106-mt
unallocated portion of the butterfish ACT that covers discards in other
fisheries (i.e., the ACL minus the Commercial ACT), and is thus not
reflected in the table below.
Table 1--Final Specifications, in Metric Tons (mt), for Mackerel for
2013-2015, Butterfish for FY 2014, and Longfin and Illex Squid for the
FY 2013-2014 Fishing Year
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specifications Mackerel Butterfish Illex Longfin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OFL........................... Unknown 18,200 Unknow Unknown
n
ABC........................... 43,781 9,100 24,000 23,400
ACL........................... 43,781 9,100 N/A N/A
Commercial ACT................ 34,907 8,190 N/A N/A
Recreational ACT/RHL.......... 2,443 N/A N/A N/A
IOY........................... N/A N/A 22,915 21,810
DAH/DAP....................... 33,821 3,200 22,915 21,810
JVP........................... 0 N/A N/A N/A
TALFF......................... 0 0 N/A N/A
RSA........................... N/A ** N/A 635
Butterfish Mortality Cap...... 3,884
------------------------------------------------------------------------
** Part of ACT that accounts for discards in other fisheries.
Final FY 2014 Specifications for Butterfish
Details regarding the derivation of the Council's recommended
butterfish specifications were included in the proposed rule, and are
not repeated here. This action establishes the butterfish
specifications as recommended by the Council. The butterfish ACL is set
equal to the ABC, and there is a 10-percent buffer between ACL and ACT
for management uncertainty, which results in an ACT of 8,190 mt. The
DAH and DAP are set at 3,200 mt, and the butterfish discard cap in the
longfin fishery is maintained at 3,884 mt. The remaining 1,106 mt of
the ACT allows for discards in other fisheries to minimize the
likelihood of an ACL overage, and covers the RSA allocation of 115 mt.
Additionally, consistent with MSB regulations, butterfish TALFF is set
at zero for FY 2014. Butterfish TALFF is only specified to address
bycatch by foreign fleets targeting mackerel TALFF. Because no mackerel
TALFF was allocated for FYs 2013-2015, butterfish TALFF is also set at
zero.
Consistent with FY 2013, the FY 2014 butterfish mortality cap is
allocated by Trimester, as follows:
Table 2--Trimester Allocation of Butterfish Mortality Cap on the Longfin
Squid Fishery for 2014
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metric
Trimester Percent tons
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I (Jan-Apr)......................................... 65 2,525
II (May-Aug)........................................ 3.3 128
III (Sep-Dec)....................................... 31.7 1,231
Total........................................... 100 3,884
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This action also increases the butterfish possession limit in Phase
3 of the directed butterfish fishery. Currently, NMFS manages the
directed butterfish fishery in three phases. Table 3 shows the phases
and possession limits, and the fishery moves from Phase 1, to Phase 2,
and to Phase 3 when catch reaches specified thresholds throughout the
year. When NMFS projects the butterfish harvest to reach the catch
threshold for Phase 3, the trip limit for all limited access permit
holders is currently reduced to 500 lb (0.23 mt) to avoid quota
overages, but the incidental trip limit remains at 600 lb (0.27 mt).
This action increases the Phase 3 possession limit from 500 lb (0.23
mt) to 600 lb (0.27 mt) to be consistent with the current incidental
butterfish trip limit.
Table 3--Three-Phase Butterfish Management System
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Longfin squid/butterfish moratorium permit trip
limit Squid/butterfish
Phase -------------------------------------------------- incidental catch permit
>= 3 inch (7.62 cm) < 3 inch (7.62 cm) trip limit
mesh mesh
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.................................... Unlimited 2,500 lb (1.13 mt) 600 lb (0.27 mt)
2.................................... 5,000 lb (2.27 mt) 2,500 lb (1.13 mt) 600 lb (0.27 mt)
3.................................... 600 lb (0.27 mt) 600 lb (0.27 mt) 600 lb (0.27 mt)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 18836]]
This action implements the following quota thresholds to reduce the
trip limits for Phases 2 and 3 (Tables 4 and 5):
Table 4--Butterfish Thresholds for Reducing Trip Limits for Phase 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trip limit
reduction Butterfish
Months threshold harvest
(percent) (metric tons)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jan-Feb................................. 52 1,658
Mar-Apr................................. 57 1,838
May-Jun................................. 64 2,044
Jul-Aug................................. 70 2,249
Sept-Oct................................ 77 2,455
Nov-Dec................................. 82 2,635
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 5--Butterfish Thresholds for Reducing Trip Limits for Phase 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trip limit
reduction Butterfish
Months threshold harvest
(percent) (metric tons)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jan-Feb................................. 66 2,121
Mar-Apr................................. 71 2,275
May-Jun................................. 77 2,455
Jul-Aug................................. 82 2,635
Sept-Oct................................ 88 2,815
Nov-Dec................................. 93 2,969
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed River Herring and Shad Catch Cap in the Mackerel Fishery
This action establishes a river herring and shad (RH/S) catch cap
in the mackerel fishery. In order to limit RH/S catch, Amendment 14 to
the FMP (79 FR 10029, February 24, 2014) includes the provision to
allow the Council to set a RH/S cap. However, the actual value of the
cap must be set through annual specifications. As such, this action
implements the Council's recommended RH/S catch cap of 236 mt, which
represents the estimated median amount of RH/S that would have been
caught, had the commercial mackerel fishery landed its current quota of
33,821 mt for each year during 2005-2012, based on analysis of observer
and landings. RH/S caught on all trips that land 20,000 lb (9.07 mt) or
more of mackerel count against the cap. Once NMFS estimates that
directed mackerel trips have caught 95 percent of the 236-mt RH/S cap,
the directed mackerel fishery will close, and NMFS will institute a
20,000-lb (9.07-mt) mackerel trip limit, as currently occurs if the
directed mackerel fishery closes. The RH/S cap amount should create a
strong incentive for the fleet to avoid RH/S, allows for the
possibility of the full mackerel quota to be caught if the fleet can
avoid RH/S, and should reduce RH/S catches over time, compared to what
would occur without a cap, given recent data.
Longfin Squid Possession Limit Increase
This action increases the Trimester II longfin squid post-closure
possession limit for longfin squid/butterfish moratorium permit holders
from 2,500 lb (1.13 mt) to 15,000 lb (6.80 mt) of longfin squid for
vessels targeting Illex squid if they are fishing seaward of the Illex
mesh exemption line and have more than 10,000 lb (4.54 mt) of Illex
onboard. In recent years, fishermen are reporting that, to remain in
compliance with longfin squid regulations, they sometimes have to
discard large quantities of longfin squid while Illex fishing during
longfin squid Trimester II after that trimester closes (i.e., from July
10-August 31 in 2012). Increasing the longfin squid possession limit to
accommodate the multi-day nature of Illex fishing trips reduces the
potential for high levels of regulatory discarding of longfin squid on
such trips. Requiring a minimal Illex possession requirement of 10,000
lb (4.54 mt) helps ensure that vessels are actually Illex fishing when
they utilize this provision, and restricting the possession limit
increase to areas beyond the Illex mesh exemption line will help
prevent vessels returning from Illex fishing from targeting longfin
squid in inshore areas after a Trimester II closure. This action does
not change the post-closure possession limit for longfin squid during
Trimesters I (January 1-April 30) or III (September 1-December 31). The
post-closure possession limit for longfin squid remains 2,500 lb (1.13
mt) during those Trimesters.
Corrections
This final rule also makes minor corrections to existing
regulations, and reinstates regulations that were inadvertently deleted
in previous rulemakings. NMFS implements these adjustments under the
authority of section 305(d) to the Magnuson-Stevens Act, which provides
that the Secretary of Commerce may promulgate regulations necessary to
ensure that amendments to an FMP are carried out in accordance with the
FMP and the Magnuson-Stevens Act. These adjustments, which are
identified and described below, are necessary to clarify current
regulations or the intent of the FMP and do not substantively impact
any existing regulations.
NMFS corrects references to a now obsolete section of the
regulatory text at Sec. 648.26(a)(1)(iii). NMFS clarifies the
coordinates at Sec. 648.23(a)(3) to more accurately define the Illex
exemption line. Most significantly, this action proposes to create a
southern boundary for the exemption by extending the southernmost point
eastward until it intersects with the boundary of the Exclusive
Economic Zone. In addition, this rule reinstates the coordinates for
the MSB bottom trawling restricted areas (i.e., Oceanographer Canyon
and Lydonia Canyon) at Sec. 648.23(a)(4), and the Tier 3 closure
threshold for the mackerel fishery at Sec. 648.24(b)(1)(ii), which
were inadvertently deleted in previous rulemakings.
Comments and Responses
NMFS received 101 comments on the proposed rule. Four were from
industry groups, including the Garden State Seafood Association (GSSA),
Lund's Fisheries Incorporated (Lund's), the Cape Cod Commercial
Fishermen's Alliance (CCCFA), and the Angler's Conservation Network
(ACN). Four were from environmental groups, including the Herring
Alliance, Wild Oceans, the Pew Charitable Trusts (Pew), and The Natural
Resources Defense Council (NRDC). The remaining 93 comments were from
individuals. Only comments relevant to the measures considered the 2014
Specifications and Management Measures are addressed below. Comments
related to other fishery management actions or general fishery
management practices are not addressed here.
Comments on Butterfish Specifications and Management Measures
Comment 1: GSSA and Lund's both commented in support of the
Council's recommended butterfish specifications, including the DAH, the
butterfish mortality cap, and the 3-phase butterfish management system.
Both groups look forward to the opportunity to for a directed
butterfish fishery in 2014.
Response: NMFS is implementing the specifications as proposed.
Comment 2: GSSA and Lund's both commented in support of the
proposed increase to the Phase 3 butterfish possession limit for
longfin squid/butterfish moratorium permit holders.
Response: NMFS concurs with the commenters, and believes that
aligning the incidental butterfish possession limit and the Phase 3
possession limit for longfin squid/butterfish moratorium permit holders
will reduce regulatory confusion.
Comment 3: One individual commented that there should be no
increase in butterfish catch, and that the increase has no basis in
fact.
Response: NFMS disagrees. As described in the proposed rule for
this
[[Page 18837]]
action, the Council's recommended specifications are based on a NMFS
Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) analysis that suggested that
increasing the butterfish ABC to 9,100 mt (from 8,400 mt in 2013) would
be extremely unlikely to cause overfishing if the 2014 butterfish
biomass were similar to butterfish biomass from 2006-2012. In addition,
the NEFSC recently completed an assessment for butterfish, which found
that butterfish stock is not overfished and overfishing is not
occurring (Northeast Fisheries Science Center. 2014. 58th Northeast
Regional Stock Assessment Workshop (58th SAW) Assessment Summary
Report. US Dept Commer, Northeast Fish Sci Cent Ref Doc. 14-03; 44 p.
Available from: National Marine Fisheries Service, 166 Water Street,
Woods Hole, MA 02543-1026, or online at https://nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/).
Comment 4: One individual commented that there should be a
commercial cap on butterfish catch. The commenter stated that trawlers
devastate the butterfish population in certain areas and ruin fishing
for recreational fisherman. The commenter went on to state that
butterfish are an important forage species for striped bass, and that,
when butterfish populations are low, fishing for striped bass and
bluefish are virtually nonexistent because these predatory fish migrate
to areas where more forage fish are available.
Response: NMFS notes that total commercial butterfish catch is
limited by the butterfish ABC. Overall catch recommendations by the
Council and the SSC are based on fishery stock assessments, which take
natural mortality (including predation) into account. Although
difficult to account for with available information, the role of
species like butterfish in the complex ocean ecosystem is therefore
considered in setting allocations. NMFS conducts research and
investigates ways of incorporating ecosystem approaches into management
that in the future could be considered for species like butterfish.
Comment on the Post-Closure Longfin Squid Possession Limit Increase
Comment 5: GSSA commented in support of the proposed increase to
the Trimester II post-closure longfin squid possession limit for
vessels targeting Illex squid.
Response: NMFS concurs with the commenters. Increasing the
Trimester II post-closure longfin squid possession limit should reduce
regulatory discarding on Illex squid trips.
Comments on the River Herring and Shad Catch Cap
Comment 6: GSSA and Lund's expressed concern that the 236-mt RH/S
catch cap will jeopardize the optimum yield (OY) of the mackerel
fishery if it returns this winter and spring. They noted that National
Standard 1 requires the maintenance of OY for the U.S. fishing industry
on a continuing basis.
Response: The Council's recommendation of 236 mt represents the
estimated median amount of RH/S that would have been caught, had the
commercial mackerel fishery landed its current quota of 33,821 mt for
each year during 2005-2012, based on analysis of observer and landings.
According to the National Standard 1 guidelines, OY is achieved by
balancing the objectives of the fishery management plan with the
various interests that comprise the greatest benefit to the nation,
while at the same time preventing overfishing of the stock in question.
As discussed in the EA for 2013 MSB Specifications, the most recent
action to set mackerel specifications, the established mackerel quotas
are designed to prevent overfishing while allowing for the fishery to
catch the specified quota. As noted in the Council's analysis for 2014
MSB Specifications, the recommended RH/S cap level is intended to allow
the mackerel fishery to catch its full quota if it achieves a
relatively low RH/S encounter rate. This means that the selected RH/S
quota should allow the fishery to achieve OY. NMFS agrees that the RH/S
cap amount should create a strong incentive for the fleet to avoid RH/S
while allowing for the possibility of the full mackerel quota to be
caught.
Comment 7: GSSA and Lund's acknowledged the fishing industry's
responsibility to reduce RH/S catch, as required by National Standard
9, but note that the industry has been actively engaged in bycatch
reductions for these species for several years as part of the ongoing
University of Massachusetts Dartmouth School of Marine Science and
Technology (SMAST) and Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries
(MADMF) bycatch avoidance and shoreside monitoring program. They
expressed disappointment that the bycatch avoidance program is
sufficient to reduce Atlantic sea scallop fleet interactions with
yellowtail flounder, but that it is not good enough for managing the
region's pelagic fisheries.
Response: The Atlantic sea scallop fishery does not depend on the
SMAST/MADMF bycatch avoidance program to limit yellowtail flounder
bycatch. Rather, the scallop fishery is subject to a cap on yellowtail
catch that, if exceeded, results in area and seasonal closures of the
scallop fishery. Each fishing year, the New England Fishery Management
Council and NMFS set limits on the amount of yellowtail flounder that
the scallop fishery can catch. If the scallop fishery exceeds its
limits, seasonal area closures are triggered. The avoidance program
helps the scallop fishery remain below the applicable yellowtail sub-
ACL, which is what the river herring bycatch avoidance program would
help the mackerel fishery do in the face of the new RH/S catch cap.
Comment 8: GSSA and Lund's asserted that the cap has no biological
foundation and no measurable benefits to RH/S.
Response: As noted in the Amendment 14 final rule, data from the
recent Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) assessments
for RH/S are insufficient to determine a biologically based catch cap
for these species, and/or the potential effects on these populations if
a catch cap is implemented on a coast-wide scale. In the absence of
biologically based data, the cap is based on recent RH/S catch in the
mackerel fishery. The Council and NMFS believe that capping the allowed
level of RH/S catch in the mackerel fishery should provide an incentive
for the industry to avoid RH/S, and may help to minimize, but will at
least limit encounters with these species. Though it is difficult to
measure the benefits of the catch cap on RH/S stocks without absolute
abundance estimates, NMFS believes that, until better stock status
information is available, implementing a cap will allow for better
characterization of RH/S encounters in the mackerel fishery, and
prevent RH/S catch from increasing beyond current levels.
Comment 9: GSSA and Lund's recommended that the 456-mt cap
considered by the Council be applied during FY 2014. They believe the
higher cap will increase the chances that the fleet will be able to
target mackerel, should they return in abundance this year.
Response: The Council's analysis suggested that, by setting the RH/
S cap at 456 mt, the mackerel industry would only have to avoid RH/S
encounter rates similar to those observed in 2007 and 2012, the 2
recent years with the highest RH/S encounter rates, in order to catch
the entire mackerel quota without attaining the RH/S cap. The Council
determined, and NMFS agrees, that the 456-mt cap would not provide
sufficient incentive for industry to continue to avoid RH/S. The
selected 236-mt cap is expected to allow the fleet to catch the
[[Page 18838]]
entire mackerel quota if RH/S interactions are kept to a minimum.
Comment 10: GSSA and Lund's asserted that the midwater trawl fleet
is being accused of negatively impacting the region's RH/S stocks
without evidence, and without attempts to assign relative mortality to
the range of issues facing RH/S recovery in the region. They note that
the region's alewife runs are dramatically improving as habitat is
reclaimed and environmental factors have provided for good recruitment
in recent years.
Response: The impacts of RH/S catch in the mackerel fishery are not
clear. Despite some signs of recovery for RH/S in some regions, the
assessments of these species have concluded that they are depleted and
that commercial fishing is a contributing factor. The Council
recommended, and NMFS agrees with, addressing this by establishing the
RH/S cap for the mackerel fishery. NMFS has also established a working
group to evaluate all threats to river herring populations and possible
solutions and ways of protecting river herring, and shad would benefit
from the ultimate measures aimed at protecting river herring.
Comment 11: The NRDC, Pew, the Herring Alliance, ACN, CCCFA, Wild
Oceans, and 91 individuals commented in support of a RH/S cap that
would close the directed mackerel fishery when 95 percent of the cap
has been reached. Commenters point to the depleted state of RH/S
stocks, and the importance of these species as food sources for ocean
predators. They also assert that the cap will provide strong incentive
for offshore trawlers to avoid these fish in order to catch their
target species.
Response: NMFS concurs with the commenters, and believes the RH/S
cap should create an incentive for the fleet to avoid RH/S while
allowing for the operation of the mackerel fishery.
Comment 12: The NRDC, Pew, the Herring Alliance, and ACN urged NMFS
to retroactively account for all RH/S catches from January 1, 2014,
forward. These groups also urged NMFS to implement the RH/S cap as soon
as possible and waive the 30-day delay of the final rule's effective
date for good cause. Pew and the Herring Alliance noted that a majority
of mackerel landings happen from January to April, and that the
greatest incidental catch of RH/S will likely occur during these
months. Pew and the Herring Alliance went on to state that, if RH/S
catch after January 1, 2014, meets or exceeds the cap, NMFS should
close the mackerel fishery immediately to prevent additional,
significant catch. Pew and the Herring Alliance argued that similar
actions form a strong precedent to waive the 30-day delay in
effectiveness for the final rule. They cite that NMFS waived the 30-day
delay in effectiveness for midwater trawl vessels in Closed Area I (CA
I) because a delay would have failed to increase observer coverage and
control at-sea dumping of unsampled catch in time for an annual pulse
of effort in CA I, and that this delay would have pushed back data
collection by up to 1 year (74 FR 56567; November 2, 2009).
Response: NMFS will retroactively account for RH/S catch in the
mackerel fishery from January 1, 2014, to the present. Given our intent
to retroactively account for RH/S catch, we believe a waiver of the 30-
day delay in effectiveness is justified so that NMFS is able to enforce
a closure of the mackerel fishery related to the RH/S cap, should that
become necessary.
Comment 13: Wild Oceans asked that, in lieu of Wild Oceans'
preferred course of managing RH/S in a Federal FMP, NMFS devote the
resources necessary to facilitate comprehensive conservation of RH/S
throughout state and Federal waters, by coordinating management across
Council jurisdictions (Mid-Atlantic and New England) and overlapping
fisheries (Atlantic herring and mackerel).
Response: NMFS is committed to engaging in proactive, coordinated
conservation efforts for RH/S. NMFS considers river herring to be a
species of concern, but recently (78 FR 48944, August 12, 2013)
determined that listing river herring as either threatened or
endangered under the Endangered Species Act is not warranted at this
time. Following this determination, NMFS established a technical
working group and continues to work closely with the ASMFC and other
partners to develop a long-term, dynamic conservation plan for river
herring from Canada to Florida. The working group will evaluate the
impact of ongoing restoration and conservation efforts (e.g., the RH/S
caps in the mackerel and Atlantic herring fisheries), as well as new
fisheries management measures, which should benefit the species. It
will also review new information produced from ongoing research,
including genetic analyses, ocean migration pattern research, and
climate change impact studies, to assess whether recent reports showing
higher river herring counts in the last 2 years represent sustained
trends. NMFS is also committed to working with partners and tribal
governments to continue implementing important conservation efforts and
fund needed research for river herring. NMFS intends to revisit its
river herring status determination within the next 5 years.
Comment 14: The Herring Alliance, Pew, and ACN also requested
management of RH/S in a Federal FMP, and argued that, while the
proposed catch cap is a first step, it is ultimately insufficient to
prevent further population declines. They stated that the Magnuson-
Stevens Act requires all stocks in need of conservation and management
to be added to an FMP, and that an FMP would align Federal management
more closely with state moratoria and sustainable fishery plans.
Response: The issue of Federal management of RH/S in an FMP is not
considered in this action. The Council initiated Amendment 15 to the
MSB FMP to explore the need for conservation and management of RH/S,
and analyze all of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (MSA) provisions (i.e., management reference points,
description and delineation of essential fish habitat, etc.) required
for a Federal FMP. Scoping for MSB Amendment 15 began in October 2012
(77 FR 65867). The Council completed a document that examined a range
of issues related to Federal management for RH/S. The document
presented legal requirements for managing species under the MSA, the
existing management and protection of RH/S, and the potential benefits
of managing them under the MSA in contrast to the other authorities
already providing protection. After reviewing the document, the Council
determined at its October 2013 meeting that it should not go forward
with the development of Amendment 15 at this time. The Council's
decision was based on a range of considerations related to ongoing RH/S
conservation and management efforts, including conservation efforts for
RH/S at the local, state and Federal level, the pending incidental
catch caps for RH/S in the Atlantic mackerel and Atlantic herring
fisheries, the recent determination by NMFS that river herring are not
endangered or threatened, and the NMFS commitment to expand engagement
in river herring conservation following the ESA determination. The
Council also decided to re-evaluate Federal management of RH/S in 3
years after a number of other actions related to RH/S conservation have
been implemented.
Comment 15: Wild Oceans, Pew, the Herring Alliance, and ACN
expressed concerns about the ability of NMFS to monitor and enforce the
cap, given that key measures in MSB Amendment 14 were disapproved. They
state that 100-
[[Page 18839]]
percent observer coverage on large capacity vessels and accountability
measures to curtail the discarding of catch at-sea (slippage) are
essential to an effective RH/S cap, given the fleet's fishing capacity
and its demonstrated propensity for episodic, high impact bycatch
events.
Response: While increases to observer coverage may improve the
quality of data used to determine the rate of RH/S bycatch in the
mackerel fishery, NMFS disagrees that the RH/S catch cap cannot be
administered without the observer coverage and slippage cap measures
disapproved in Amendment 14. Several key measures approved in Amendment
14 will be instrumental in administration of the cap. Amendment 14
implemented a pre-trip notification requirement for the mackerel
fishery to help with the identification of directed mackerel trips and
the placement of observers on those trips. Amendment 14 also expanded
sampling requirements to assist observers in the successful and
complete collection of data on observed trips, and instituted a
prohibition on slippage on observed mackerel trips.
In addition, the Council and NMFS are moving forward with the
development of actions to address the disapproved observer coverage
measures and the slippage cap. To address the disapproved observer
coverage measures, NMFS has taken the lead on an omnibus amendment that
would create the framework for industry-funded monitoring programs for
all Northeast FMPs. The amendment will activate industry-funded
observer coverage when NMFS has funding available to cover its costs to
administer these programs. The omnibus amendment also includes coverage
targets for the Atlantic mackerel fishery.
To address the disapproved slippage cap, the Council recently took
final action on Framework Adjustment 9 to the MSB FMP at its February
2014 meeting. The Council selected an alternative that would require
vessels to return to port if they release catch prior to making it
available for sampling by an observer for reasons other than safety
concerns, mechanical failure, or dogfish clogging the pump. The Council
is finalizing the analysis supporting its recommendation, after which
it will submit Framework 9 for NMFS review.
Comment 16: The Herring Alliance commented that, even with 100-
percent coverage, slippage would hinder the goals of the cap by skewing
observer and landings data. They cited the midwater trawl CA I
provisions again in saying that NMFS has already acknowledged that
accurate catch composition records cannot be obtained for dumped catch
(75 FR 73979, November 30, 2010). In addition, the Herring Alliance
asserted that NMFS documented slippage as a problem that directly
affects the administration of the butterfish mortality cap on the
longfin squid fishery, where longfin squid hauls have been slipped due
to the presence of butterfish.
Response: NMFS agrees with the commenter that the best way to
obtain catch composition information is through full sampling of hauls
by observers. As noted in the previous response, NMFS will address the
issue of discarding of unsampled catch on observed trips by
implementing a prohibition on slippage through Amendment 14. In
addition, the Council recently took final action on a measure to
further deter slippage events. NMFS believes that these requirements
should improve the quality of data used to estimate the RH/S catch
caps.
NMFS reiterates that the slippage prohibition and the requirement
that captains submit released catch affidavit to document all slippage
events (also implemented in Amendment 14) are also a requirement for
longfin squid permit holders, which can help address any issues with
the administration of the butterfish mortality cap that may have
resulted from past slippage events.
Comment 17: Wild Oceans expressed disappointment that NMFS
representative who participated in MSB Amendment 14 did not, in their
view, proactively help the Council resolve the agency's concerns about
observer coverage and slippage. They praised the Mid-Atlantic Council
for continuing to pursue these issues in new actions in spite of the
disapprovals, and encouraged NMFS to work constructively with the
Council to improve monitoring of the mackerel fishery.
Response: This comment misrepresents the events that led up to the
partial approval of Amendment 14. NMFS staff provided guidance and
input on Amendment 14 throughout the process and warned the Council of
the problems associated with its observer coverage and slippage
alternatives on several occasions. NMFS has clearly explained the
reasons for disapproving measures in Amendment 14 (79 FR 10029;
February 24, 2014) and that discussion is not included in this rule.
NMFS is working with Council to resolve the issues and has taken the
lead on resolving the observer coverage issues disapproved in Amendment
14.
Comment 18: The NRDC, Pew, the Herring Alliance, CCCFA, and ACN
supported transitioning towards a biologically based cap on RH/S as
soon as possible. The Herring Alliance and Pew went on to say that a
biologically based cap should include an analysis of the status of
river populations of RH/S in discrete geographic regions, and should
also account for directed and incidental catch of RH/S in state waters.
The Herring Alliance and Pew also advocated for review of the cap by
the Council's SSC to improve oversight of cap determination, and that
there be an annual review of the cap, similar to the review conducted
on the butterfish mortality cap on the longfin squid fishery.
Response: Both NMFS and the Council would like to move towards a
biologically based RH/S catch cap as soon as possible. As noted above,
NMFS plans to work with state and Federal partners over the coming 3-5
years to support research that will fill important data gaps that
limited recent assessments for these species. In addition, the Council
has already indicated it is interested in involving its SSC in the
determination of RH/S catch caps in the future. In the meantime, the
cap will be reviewed annually during the specifications setting
process, and the best available scientific information will be used to
adjust the cap level. The annual evaluation and re-specification of the
cap may include certain elements of the periodic reviews done for the
butterfish mortality cap on the longfin squid fishery, including
estimates of scientific uncertainty of the catch cap estimate, and
estimates of RH/S mortality in the mackerel fishery.
The ASMFC continues to manage RH/S catch in state waters. At this
time, there is no coordination between the Federal cap on RH/S in the
mackerel fishery, and catch limits in state waters set by the ASMFC. As
noted in the Council analysis for 2014 specifications, Council and NMFS
technical staffs continue to investigate the application of a regional
cap spanning multiple fisheries and jurisdictions. However, the scope
of this action and Amendment 14 are limited to RH/S catch in the
mackerel fishery.
Comment 19: While they support implementation of the cap, Wild
Oceans and the Herring Alliance asserted that a more effective cap, in
terms of reducing mortality, would have been set at the median of
recent actual RH/S catch, rather than what catch would have been had
the mackerel fishery landed its full quota from 2005-2012. The Herring
Alliance went further in suggesting that NMFS should scale back catch
based on the advice in the NMFS report for data poor stocks, and that
the cap should be adjusted annually as scientific information becomes
available through
[[Page 18840]]
better monitoring, in accordance with National Standard 2.
Response: The Council and NMFS are committed to minimizing RH/S
encounters in the mackerel fishery. However, data do not appear to be
robust enough to determine a biologically based catch cap for RH/S,
and/or the potential effects on these populations if a catch cap is
implemented on a coast-wide scale. Given these limitations, the Council
chose to balance its goal of minimizing RH/S catch in the mackerel
fishery, with the goal of allowing the mackerel fishery the potential
to attain its full quota. The Council's preferred 2014 RH/S catch cap
of 236 mt is reflective of these goals.
The commenters reference NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-616
(Calculating Acceptable Biological Catch for Stocks that Have Reliable
Catch Data Only (Only Reliable Catch Stocks--ORCS; 2011)). The
memorandum was developed by a Working Group comprised of
representatives from seven of the eight SSCs, five of the six NMFS
Science Centers, NMFS Headquarters, academic institutions, a state
agency, and an NGO to offer guidance that can be used to set ABCs for
managed stocks that only have reliable catch data, are lightly fished,
and appear to have stable or increasing trends. The report recommends
doubling catch during a stable period to create an OFL, setting the ABC
at 50 to 90 percent of the OFL, and then tracking the stock to see how
the adjusted catch levels affect abundance. The Council did not
evaluate the appropriateness of this method for establishing the 2014
RH/S cap because RH/S are not managed species, and because the focus of
the cap is limiting RH/S catch in the mackerel fishery rather than the
establishment of total catch levels for the entire RH/S stock. Instead,
the Council found it most appropriate to set the cap based on recent
catch in the mackerel fishery. The Council may choose to consider the
applicability of the guidance in the ORCS Technical Memorandum when
setting the RH/S catch cap in future years, if it desires.
Comment 20: While they supported the 95-percent closure threshold,
the Herring Alliance and Pew point to analysis in Amendment 14 that
suggests that earlier closures of the mackerel fishery could lead to
relatively higher benefits to RH/S populations. They discussed that the
95-percent threshold will need to be evaluated based on fishery
performance, and if the cap is exceeded, that the threshold must be
adjusted to prevent the mackerel fishery from exceeding the cap in the
future. They asserted that a lower threshold may be needed if observer
coverage is not available to accurately monitor the cap.
Response: The Amendment 14 analysis discusses the RH/S cap
conceptually because the actual establishment of the RH/S cap was
deferred to the annual specifications process. In evaluating the
concept of the cap, the Council concluded that, compared to setting the
cap at a high level, setting the cap lower could result in earlier
closures of the mackerel fishery, which could lead to comparatively
higher benefits to RH/S populations. In contrast, the commenters imply
that the Council's Amendment 14 analysis suggests that lower closure
thresholds, rather than a lower overall cap level, would lead to higher
benefits for RH/S. Lowering the closure threshold would have the same
effect as lowering the overall cap, and thus is likely to result in
similar potential benefits to RH/S populations. However, the closure
threshold is only a means to ensuring that the overall cap is not
exceeded. The overall cap should be set to reach the desired
conservation benefit, and the closure threshold should be set
secondarily in support of ensuring the cap is not exceeded. The Council
will likely evaluate the effectiveness of the closure threshold in
ensuring that the cap is not exceeded, and make any necessary
adjustments, as part of the specifications process for upcoming fishing
years. At that time, the Council can also evaluate whether observer
coverage levels are sufficient to monitor the cap, and may recommend
additional management measures to ensure appropriate cap
implementation.
Comment 21: The Herring Alliance suggests that, as an
accountability measure, any overages of the RH/S catch cap in a given
year should be deducted from the catch cap for the subsequent year, but
that underages of the catch cap should not be carried over.
Response: The Council did not contemplate accountability measures
for the RH/S cap in Amendment 14 or the 2014 specifications, and would
need to consider this type of measure in a separate action.
Comment 22: Pew and the Herring Alliance advocate for coordination
between the RH/S caps between the mackerel and herring fisheries. In
particular, they suggest that the implementing language should be
revised so that measures apply to trips ``fishing for, catching,
possessing, transferring, or landing'' the specified amount of mackerel
to be consistent with the Atlantic Herring FMP.
Response: NMFS has added text to the regulations to clarify that
the cap applies to trips that land over 20,000 lb (9.08 mt) of
mackerel. The commenter referenced language in the Atlantic Herring FMP
that describes the possession restrictions for fishing vessels
following a closure of the directed herring fishery. Similar language
(e.g., fish for, possess, or land) is already used to describe
possession restrictions for the Atlantic mackerel fishery at Sec.
648.26(a)(2).
Comment 23: Several individuals commented that the relationship
between predator species and RH/S should be more fully considered and
analyzed. While some focused on making commercial mackerel fishery
restrictions more similar to recreational measures (bans on fishing,
regional caps), others noted that the actions for commercial fisheries
should take into account the impacts on recreational fisheries. One
commenter noted that NMFS should consider the impacts on tourism and
the overall economy.
Response: NMFS recognizes these concerns but notes that such
analyses and holistic consideration stretch beyond the capabilities of
current analytical tools and the mandates of the MSA. Through Federal
fishery management plans, we are responsible for managing fisheries to
OY, which is the maximum yield one can harvest while taking into
account ecological factors such as habitat protection, bycatch
considerations, and to the extent we understand it, the ecological role
of the managed species. The relationships between commercial and
recreational fisheries are complex; the economic relationships even
more so. Nevertheless, NMFS strives to improve its data and
understanding of such relationships. With more understanding, more
holistic analyses may be possible in the future.
Changes From the Proposed Rule
The proposed rule presented two tables (Tables 4 and 5 in the
proposed rule) listing quota thresholds to reduce the trip limits for
Phases 2 and 3 in the butterfish fishery. Though the tables presented
the correct butterfish harvest amounts at which trip limit changes
would be triggered, the tables incorrectly listed the percentages for
the trip limit reductions. The correct percentages are presented in
Tables 4 and 5 in this final rule, and will be presented to industry in
the small entity compliance guide sent to longfin squid/butterfish
permit holders after the publication of this final rule.
The proposed rule did not include regulatory text that clearly
outlines the trips to which the RH/S cap apply. Similarly, the
regulatory text regarding
[[Page 18841]]
the butterfish mortality cap did not clearly state the trips to which
the cap applies. Clarifying text is added for both caps in this rule.
Classification
Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the
NMFS Assistant Administrator (AA) has determined that this final rule
is consistent with the MSB FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-
Stevens Act, and other applicable laws.
The Council prepared an EA for the 2014 specifications, and the AA
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).
The AA finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to waive the 30-
day delay in effectiveness for this action. This action increases the
butterfish harvest available to the fishing industry for FY 2014. The
primary butterfish market available to the butterfish fishing industry
occurs in late December through April due to the high fat content of
the fish after feeding during the early winter. Under the 2013
butterfish allocations, the Phase 2 trip limit reduction threshold is
exceeded when the fishery has landed 47 percent of the 2013 allocation
(1,208 mt) of the butterfish allocation in March/April. Once the Phase
2 trip limit reduction threshold is exceeded, the butterfish possession
limit is reduced from unlimited down to 5,000 lb (2.28 mt). The 2014
butterfish allocations increase the Phase 2 trip limit reduction
threshold to 57 percent of the 2014 butterfish allocation (1,838 mt)
for March/April.
NMFS has already issued a Phase 1 to Phase 2 trip limit reduction
on March 18, 2014. As of March 26, 2014, NMFS determined that only 45
percent of the butterfish quota has been harvested relative to the 2014
specifications, meaning that the fishery could still be operating under
Phase 1 for 2014. If the effectiveness of this rule were delayed for 30
days from the date of publication, the possession limit for butterfish
would remain at 5,000 lb (2.28 mt) at a time of year when the value of
butterfish is highest. Increasing the Phase 2 trip limit reduction
threshold immediately will allow NMFS to temporarily return the
butterfish fishery to Phase 1, and ensures that the butterfish fleet
can continue operation with the highest possible possession limit
during this critical time of year when the market is available. Vessels
fishing for butterfish would only be able to obtain the increased
economic opportunity provided by this final rule if the 30-day delay in
effectiveness is waived. Failure to make this final rule effective
immediately will cause economic harm to the butterfish fleet and
undermine the intent of the rule, which is to promote the utilization
and conservation of the Atlantic mackerel, squid, and butterfish
resource. Therefore, good cause exists to waive the 30-day delay in
effectiveness under 5 U.S.C. Section 553(d)(3).
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 2013 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 establishes 2014 specifications for butterfish, along
with management measures for the longfin squid, butterfish, and
mackerel fisheries. A complete description of the reasons why this
action was considered, and the objectives of and legal basis for this
action, are contained in the preamble to this rule 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
None of the public comments raised issues related to the IRFA or
the economic impacts of the rule on affected entities.
Description and Estimate of Number of Small Entities To Which the Rule
Will Apply
On June 20, 2013, the Small Business Administration (SBA) issued a
final rule revising the small business size standards for several
industries effective July 22, 2013 (78 FR 37398). The rule increased
the size standard for Finfish Fishing from $4.0 to $19.0 million,
Shellfish Fishing from $4.0 to $5.0 million, and Other Marine Fishing
from $4.0 to $7.0 million. NMFS has reviewed the analyses prepared for
this action in light of the new size standards. Under the former, lower
size standards, all entities subject to this action were considered
small entities, thus they all would continue to be considered small
under the new standards.
The proposed measures in the 2014 MSB Specifications and Management
Measures could affect any vessel holding an active Federal permit to
fish for Atlantic mackerel, longfin squid, Illex squid, or butterfish.
Having different size standards for different types of marine fishing
activities creates difficulties in categorizing businesses that
participate in more than one of these activities. For now, the short-
term approach is to classify a business entity into the SBA defined
categories based on which activity produced the highest gross revenue.
In this case, Atlantic mackerel is the only species with significant
recreational fishing, and in 2012, the charter boat industry harvested
only 10,000 lb (4.54 mt). Based on these assumptions, the finfish size
standard would apply, and the business is considered large, only if
revenues are greater than $19 million. As such, all of the potentially
affected businesses are considered small entities under the standards
described in NMFS guidelines, because they have gross receipts that do
not exceed $19 million annually. Based on permit data for 2013, 2,441
commercial or charter vessels possessed MSB permits for FY 2013, and
similar numbers of vessels are expected to have MSB permits for 2014.
Many vessels participate in more than one of these fisheries;
therefore, permit numbers are not additive.
Although it is possible that some entities, based on rules of
affiliation, would qualify as large business entities, due to lack of
reliable ownership affiliation data NMFS cannot apply the business size
standard at this time. NMFS is currently compiling data on vessel
ownership that should permit a more refined assessment and
determination of the number of large and small entities for future
actions. For this action, since available data are not adequate to
identify affiliated vessels, each operating unit is considered a small
entity for purposes of the RFA, and, therefore, there is no
differential impact between small and large entities. Therefore, there
are no disproportionate economic impacts on small entities. Section 6.7
in Amendment 14 describes the vessels, key ports, and revenue
information for the MSB fisheries; therefore, that information is not
repeated here.
[[Page 18842]]
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 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 RH/S catch cap in the mackerel fishery has the potential to
limit the fishery from achieving its full mackerel quota if the RH/S
encounter rates are high, but it is very unlikely that the fishery
would close before exceeding the levels of landings experienced since
2010, when landings have been less than 11,000 mt. Limiting catches of
RH/S has the potential to benefit those species, although the extent of
this benefit is unknown because overall abundance information for these
species is not available.
The butterfish DAH implemented in this action (3,200 mt) represents
a 24-percent increase over the 2013 DAH (2,570 mt). The increase in the
DAH has the potential to slightly increase revenue for permitted
vessels.
This action also implements slightly higher trip limit in Phase 3
of the directed butterfish fishery, in order to simplify the
regulations and have this limit match the incidental trip limit of 600
lb (0.27 mt). This increase should also have positive economic impacts
on the fishery.
The only adjustment to the longfin squid fishery is an increase to
the Trimester II longfin squid post-closure possession limit for
longfin squid/butterfish moratorium permit holders from 2,500 lb (1.13
mt) to 15,000 lb (6.80 mt) for vessels targeting Illex. This measure
should reduce regulatory discarding and provide a small amount of
additional revenue; thus, it would have positive economic impacts to
the Illex fishery.
Alternatives to Actions in the Final Rule
The Council analysis evaluated four alternatives to the
specifications for butterfish. Of the three the Council did not select,
two alternatives would have resulted in lower 2014 specifications. The
first of these is the No Action alternative (status quo), which would
have set the butterfish ABC at 8,400 mt and resulted in an ACT of 7,560
mt, a DAH and DAP of 2,570 mt, and a butterfish mortality cap at 3,884
mt. The other alternative (the most restrictive) would have set the ABC
at 25 percent lower than the proposed alternative (6,825 mt), resulting
in an ACT of 6,143 mt, a DAH and DAP of 2,400 mt, and a butterfish
mortality cap at 2,913 mt. These alternatives could generate the lowest
revenues of all of the considered alternatives. The fourth alternative
(the least restrictive) would have set the ABC at 25 percent higher
than the proposed alternative (11,375 mt), resulting in an ACT of
10,238 mt, a DAH and DAP of 5,248 mt, and a butterfish mortality cap at
3,884 mt. This alternative could generate increased revenue if more
butterfish became available to the fishery. These three alternatives
were not selected because they were all inconsistent with the ABC
recommended by the SSC.
The Council considered four alternatives for the RH/S catch cap in
the mackerel fishery. Aside from the No Action (status quo)
alternative, which would not have implemented a catch cap in the
fishery because there is currently no cap in place, the Council
considered one alternative that would have set the RH/S catch cap at
119 mt (most restrictive) and one alternative that would have set the
RH/S catch cap at 456 mt (least restrictive). If the catch cap were set
at 119 mt, there would be the greatest likelihood that the cap level
could restrict mackerel fishing, whereas setting the RH/S cap at 456 mt
would be the least likely to be restrictive. Any cap would be more
likely to close the fishery compared to no cap (status quo), the
selected alternative (RH/S cap of 236 mt) would most likely assist in
the recovery of RH/S stocks while allowing the mackerel fishery to
continue, assuming low RH/S catch rates.
With regards to matching Phase 3 and the incidental trip limits in
the butterfish fishery, the Council considered two other alternatives
in addition to the selected alternative (i.e., increasing the Phase 3
trip limit from 500 lb (0.23 mt) to 600 lb (0.27 mt), to match the
incidental limit). One alternative was the No Action alternative, which
would have unnecessarily continued the regulatory confusion by
requiring two different possession limits based on permit type. The
other alternative would have lowered the incidental limit to 500 lb
(0.23 mt) to match the current Phase 3 limit, which potentially could
have the effect of converting currently retained butterfish catch into
discards. The selected alternative resolves this confusion over
different trip limits, while continuing to discourage directed fishing.
The Council considered three alternatives related to the post-
closure possession limit of longfin squid in the Illex fishery. The
most restrictive alternative considered was the No Action (status quo)
alternative, which would continue the current longfin squid trip limit
of 2,500 lb (1.13 mt) in Trimester 3. The selected alternative, which
would increase the possession limit to 15,000 lb (6.80 mt), is the
least restrictive alternative. The other alternative considered would
have increased the longfin squid possession limit to 10,000 lb (4.54
mt). Compared to the other two alternatives, the status quo alternative
would continue to result in high levels of regulatory discards of
longfin squid and would result in lower revenues than the other
alternatives considered. Although the other two alternatives would both
result in previously discarded longfin squid being landed, the selected
alternative, with its higher possession limit, results in the highest
potential revenue.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR part 648
Fisheries, Fishing, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
Dated: March 31, 2014.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
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. 648.23, paragraph (a)(3) is revised and paragraph (a)(4) is
added to read as follows:
Sec. 648.23 Mackerel, squid, and butterfish gear restrictions.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(3) Illex fishery. Seaward of the following coordinates, connected
in the
[[Page 18843]]
order listed by straight lines except otherwise noted, 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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
M0............................. 43[deg]58.0[min] [\1\]
M1............................. 43[deg]58.0[min] 67[deg]22.0[min]
M2............................. 43[deg]50.0[min] 68[deg]35.0[min]
M3............................. 43[deg]30.0[min] 69[deg]40.0[min]
M4............................. 43[deg]20.0[min] 70[deg]00.0[min]
M5............................. 42[deg]45.0[min] 70[deg]10.0[min]
M6............................. 42[deg]13.0[min] 69[deg]55.0[min]
M7............................. 41[deg]00.0[min] 69[deg]00.0[min]
M8............................. 41[deg]45.0[min] 68[deg]15.0[min]
M9............................. 42[deg]10.0[min] 67[deg]10.0[min]
[\2\]
M10............................ 41[deg]18.6[min] 66[deg]24.8[min]
[\2\]
M11............................ 40[deg]55.5[min] 66[deg]38.0[min]
M12............................ 40[deg]45.5[min] 68[deg]00.0[min]
M13............................ 40[deg]37.0[min] 68[deg]00.0[min]
M14............................ 40[deg]30.0[min] 69[deg]00.0[min]
M15............................ 40[deg]22.7[min] 69[deg]00.0[min]
M16............................ 40[deg]18.7[min] 69[deg]40.0[min]
M17............................ 40[deg]21.0[min] 71[deg]03.0[min]
M18............................ 39[deg]41.0[min] 72[deg]32.0[min]
M19............................ 38[deg]47.0[min] 73[deg]11.0[min]
M20............................ 38[deg]04.0[min] 74[deg]06.0[min]
M21............................ 37[deg]08.0[min] 74[deg]46.0[min]
M22............................ 36[deg]00.0[min] 74[deg]52.0[min]
M23............................ 35[deg]45.0[min] 74[deg]53.0[min]
M24............................ 35[deg]28.0[min] 74[deg]52.0[min]
M25............................ 35[deg]28.0[min] [\3\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[\1\] The intersection of 43[deg]58.0[min]N. latitude and the US-Canada
Maritime Boundary.
[\2\] Points M9 and M10 are intended to fall along and are connected by
the US-Canada Maritime Boundary.
[\3\] The intersection of 35[deg]28.0[min]N. latitude and the outward
limit of the U.S. EEZ.
(4) Mackerel, squid, and butterfish bottom trawling restricted
areas. (i) Oceanographer Canyon. No permitted mackerel, squid, or
butterfish vessel may fish with bottom trawl gear in the Oceanographer
Canyon or be in the Oceanographer Canyon unless transiting. Vessels may
transit this area provided the bottom trawl gear is stowed in
accordance with the provisions of paragraph (b) of this section.
Oceanographer Canyon is defined by straight lines connecting the
following points in the order stated (copies of a chart depicting this
area are available from the Regional Administrator upon request):
Oceanographer Canyon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point N. lat. W. long.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OC1............................ 40[deg]10.0[min] 68[deg]12.0[min]
OC2............................ 40[deg]24.0[min] 68[deg]09.0[min]
OC3............................ 40[deg]24.0[min] 68[deg]08.0[min]
OC4............................ 40[deg]10.0[min] 67[deg]59.0[min]
OC1............................ 40[deg]10.0[min] 68[deg]12.0[min]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(ii) Lydonia Canyon. No permitted mackerel, squid, or butterfish
vessel may fish with bottom trawl gear in the Lydonia Canyon or be in
the Lydonia Canyon unless transiting. Vessels may transit this area
provided the bottom trawl gear is stowed in accordance with the
provisions of paragraph (b) of this section. Lydonia Canyon is defined
by straight lines connecting the following points in the order stated
(copies of a chart depicting this area are available from the Regional
Administrator upon request):
Lydonia Canyon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point N. lat. W. long.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LC1............................ 40[deg]16.0[min] 67[deg]34.0[min]
LC2............................ 40[deg]16.0[min] 67[deg]42.0[min]
LC3............................ 40[deg]20.0[min] 67[deg]43.0[min]
LC4............................ 40[deg]27.0[min] 67[deg]40.0[min]
LC5............................ 40[deg]27.0[min] 67[deg]38.0[min]
LC1............................ 40[deg]16.0[min] 67[deg]34.0[min]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
0
3. In Sec. 648.24, paragraphs (b)(1), (c)(1)(iii) and (c)(3) are
revised and paragraph (b)(6) is added to read as follows:
Sec. 648.24 Fishery closures and accountability measures.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) Mackerel commercial sector EEZ closure. NMFS will 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.
(ii) NMFS will close the Tier 3 commercial mackerel fishery in the
EEZ when the Regional Administrator projects that 90 percent of the
Tier 3 mackerel allocation will be harvested, if such a closure is
necessary to prevent the DAH from being exceeded. The closure of the
Tier 3 commercial mackerel fishery will be in effect for the remainder
of that fishing period, with incidental catches allowed as specified in
Sec. 648.26.
* * * * *
(6) River herring and shad catch cap. The river herring and shad
cap on the mackerel fishery applies to all trips that land more than
20,000 lb (9.08 mt) of mackerel. NMFS shall close the directed mackerel
fishery in the EEZ when the Regional Administrator projects that 95
percent of the river herring/shad catch cap has been harvested.
Following closures of the directed mackerel fishery, vessels must
adhere to the possession restrictions specified in Sec. 648.26.
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) Phase 3. NMFS shall subsequently reduce the trip limit for
vessels issued longfin squid/butterfish moratorium permits to 600 lb
(0.27 mt), regardless of minimum mesh size, when butterfish harvest is
projected to reach the relevant phase 3 trip limit reduction threshold.
The NMFS Regional Administrator may adjust the butterfish trip limit
during phase 3 of the directed butterfish fishery anywhere from 250 lb
(0.11 mt) to 750 lb (0.34 mt) to ensure butterfish harvest does not
exceed the specified DAH.
* * * * *
(3) Butterfish mortality cap on the longfin squid fishery. The
butterfish mortality cap on the longfin squid fishery applies to all
trips that land more than 20,000 lb (9.08 mt) of mackerel. NMFS shall
close the directed fishery in the EEZ for longfin squid when the
Regional Administrator projects that 80 percent of the Trimester I
butterfish mortality cap allocation has been harvested in Trimester I,
when 75 percent of the annual butterfish mortality cap has been
harvested in Trimester II, and/or when 90 percent of the butterfish
mortality cap has been harvested in Trimester III. Following closures
of the directed longfin squid fishery, vessels must adhere to the
possession restrictions specified in Sec. 648.26.
* * * * *
0
4. In Sec. 648.26, paragraphs (a)(1)(iii), (b) and (d)(3) are revised
to read as follows:
Sec. 648.26 Mackerel, squid, and butterfish possession restrictions.
* * * * *
[[Page 18844]]
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) A vessel issued a Tier 3 Limited Access Mackerel Permit is
authorized to fish for, possess, or land up to 100,000 lb (45.36 mt) of
Atlantic mackerel in the EEZ per trip, and may only land Atlantic
mackerel once on any calendar day, which is defined as the 24-hr period
beginning at 0001 hours and ending at 2400 hours, provided that the
fishery has not been closed because 90 percent of the Tier 3 allocation
has been harvested, or 95 percent of the DAH has been harvested, as
specified in Sec. 648.24(b)(1)(i) and (ii).
* * * * *
(b) Longfin squid. (1) Unless specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this
section, during a closure of the directed fishery for longfin squid
vessels may not fish for, possess, or land more than 2,500 lb (1.13 mt)
of longfin squid per trip at any time, and may only land longfin squid
once on any calendar day, which is defined as the 24-hr period
beginning at 0001 hours and ending at 2400 hours. If a vessel has been
issued a longfin squid incidental catch permit (as specified at Sec.
648.4(a)(5)(ii)), then it may not fish for, possess, or land more than
2,500 lb (1.13 mt) of longfin squid per trip at any time and may only
land longfin squid once on any calendar day, unless such a vessel meets
the criteria outlined in paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
(2) During a closure of the directed fishery for longfin squid for
Trimester II, a vessel with a longfin squid/butterfish moratorium
permit that is on a directed Illex squid fishing trip (i.e., possess
over 10,000 lb (4.54 mt) of Illex) and is seaward of the coordinates
specified at Sec. 648.23 (a)(3), may possess up to 15,000 lb (6.80 mt)
of longfin squid. Once landward of the coordinates specified at Sec.
648.23 (a)(3), such vessels must stow all fishing gear, as specified at
Sec. 648.23(b), in order to possess more than 2,500 lb (1.13 mt) of
longfin squid per trip.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(3) Phase 3. When butterfish harvest is projected to reach the trip
limit reduction threshold for phase 3 (as described in Sec. 648.24),
all vessels issued a longfin squid/butterfish moratorium permit,
regardless of mesh size used, may not fish for, possess, or land more
than 600 lb (0.27 mt) of butterfish per trip at any time, and may only
land butterfish once on any calendar day, which is defined as the 24-hr
period beginning at 0001 hours and ending at 2400 hours. If a vessel
has been issued a longfin squid/butterfish incidental catch permit (as
specified at Sec. 648.4(a)(5)(ii)), it may not fish for, possess, or
land more than 600 lb (0.27 mt) of butterfish per trip at any time.
[FR Doc. 2014-07610 Filed 4-3-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P