[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 101 (Friday, May 24, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36556-36559]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-13240]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 648

[Docket No. 020508113-2113-01; I.D. 090501D]
RIN 0648-AP12


Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Mackerel, 
Squid and Butterfish Fisheries; Framework Adjustment 2

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

ACTION: Proposed rule, request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes measures contained in Framework Adjustment 2 
(Framework 2) to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fishery 
Management Plan (FMP). This action would extend the limited entry 
program for the Illex squid fishery for an additional year; modify the 
Loligo squid overfishing definition and control rule; allow for the 
roll-over of the annual specifications for these fisheries (with the 
exception of total allowable landings of foreign fishing (TALFF)) in 
the event annual specifications are not published prior to the start of 
the fishing year; and allow Loligo squid specifications to be set for 
up to 3 years, subject to annual review. NMFS has disapproved the 
proposed framework measure to allow Illex squid vessels an exemption 
from the Loligo squid trip limit during an August or September closure 
of the directed Loligo squid fishery. This action is necessary to 
address issues and problems that have developed relative to the 
management of these fisheries and is intended to further the objectives 
of the FMP and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management 
Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).

DATES: Public comments must be received no later than 5 p.m., eastern 
standard time, on June 10, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Copies of Framework 2, including the Environmental 
Assessment (EA) and Regulatory Impact Review (RIR)/Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), are available on request from Daniel T. 
Furlong, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 
300 South New Street, Dover, DE 19904-6790. The EA/RIR/IRFA is 
accessible via the Internet at http:/www.nero.gov/ro/doc/nr.htm.
    Comments on Framework 2 should be sent to: Patricia A. Kurkul, 
Regional Administrator, Northeast Regional Office, NMFS, One Blackburn 
Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930-2298. Please mark the envelope, ``Comments-
SMB Framework Adjustment 2.'' Comments also may be sent via facsimile 
(fax) to 978-281-9135. Comments will not be accepted if submitted via 
e-mail or Internet.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul H. Jones, Fishery Policy Analyst, 
978-281-9273, fax 978-281-9135, e-mail [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 1997, Amendment 5 to the FMP established 
a limited entry program for the Illex squid fishery in response to a 
concern that fishing capacity could otherwise expand to over exploit 
the stock. At the time the program was established, there were concerns 
that the capacity of the limited entry vessels might prove, over time, 
to be insufficient to fully exploit the annual quota. In response to 
this concern, a 5-year sunset provision was placed on the Illex squid 
limited entry program, and it is currently scheduled to end July 1, 
2002. However, in recent years the limited entry fleet has demonstrated 
that it has sufficient capacity to harvest the long-term potential 
yield from this fishery. The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council 
(Council) must prepare an amendment to the FMP to evaluate whether or 
not the limited entry program should be extended permanently. In the 
meantime, this action would extend the Illex squid moratorium through 
July 1, 2003, to prevent overcapitalization while the amendment is 
being prepared and considered by the Council. This extension complies 
with the criteria in section 303(b)(6) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 
Conservation and Management Act. The extension will allow the Council 
additional time to consider long-term management for the Illex squid 
fishery, including the limited entry program. Vessels that took small 
quantities of Illex squid in the past may continue to do so under the 
incidental catch provision of the FMP.
    This action would also authorize the roll-over of the annual 
specifications for the Atlantic mackerel, squid, and butterfish 
fisheries. In recent years, publication of the annual specifications

[[Page 36557]]

 for those fisheries has occurred after the start of the fishing year 
on January 1, resulting in inefficient management and industry 
uncertainty. In particular, late publication has affected business 
entities interested in conducting Joint Venture Processing (JVP) 
operations for Atlantic mackerel, because such operations cannot be 
authorized until there is a final rule that includes a JVP allocation. 
This action would allow the annual Atlantic mackerel, squid, and 
butterfish specifications from the previous fishing year to roll-over 
into the next fishing year (excluding TALFF), in the event that annual 
specifications for that year have not been published. The rolled-over 
specifications would be superceded by the publication of the current 
year's annual specifications.
    While the primary components of the overfishing definition for 
Loligo squid (the maximum fishing mortality rate threshold and the 
minimum biomass threshold) remain unchanged, this proposed action would 
modify the control rules that guide the Council in making harvest 
recommendations based upon those definitions. The fishing mortality 
rate (F) control rule adopted for Loligo squid in Amendment 8 to the 
FMP specified that the target fishing mortality rate (Fmsy) 
must be reduced to zero if biomass falls below 50 percent of the 
biomass target (Bmsy). The target fishing mortality rate 
increases linearly to 75 percent of Fmsy as biomass 
increases to Bmsy. However, the 29\th\ Stock Assessment 
Workshop (SAW 29) indicated that the control rule was not appropriate 
for the stock, and that the target F of zero at 50 percent of the 
biomass target could be overly conservative. SAW 29 concluded that the 
apparent resilience of the stock is high, suggesting that it can 
rebuild quickly from low stock sizes at low to moderate F's. Estimates 
of biomass based on NMFS' Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) 
fall 1999, spring 2000, and fall 2000 survey indices for Loligo squid 
indicate that the stock is currently at or near Bmsy. The 
stock is also no longer listed as overfished in NMFS' Report to 
Congress: Status of the Fisheries of the United States (January 2001). 
However, projections of the 29\th\ SAW indicated that if the Loligo 
quid stock were overfished, the biomass could be rebuilt from the 
minimum biomass threshold ([half] Bmsy) to levels 
approximating Bmsy in as little as 3 years, if F were 
reduced to 75 percent of Fmsy. Based on the above 
information, the Council concluded that the control rule adopted in 
Amendment 8, requiring an F of zero at 1/2Bmsy was too 
conservative.
    This proposed action would allow specification of an annual quota 
associated with a target F of up to 90 percent of Fmsy to be 
specified if stock biomass is greater than one-half Bmsy. If 
stock biomass falls below, or is expected to fall below, one-half 
Bmsy, measures to control fishing mortality would be 
implemented to insure that the stock is rebuilt to Bmsyin a 
time period consistent with the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens 
Act. NMFS is publishing the proposed definition and also reviewing it 
in light of the updated Loligo stock assessment conducted in January 
2002.
    This action also proposes to allow maximum optimum yield (Max OY), 
allowable biological catch (ABC), optimum yield (OY) and domestic 
annual harvest (DAH) for Loligo squid to be specified for up to 3 
years. If the annual review conducted by the Council through its 
Monitoring Committee indicates that it is necessary, such a multi-year 
specification would be revised in the annual specification process.
    This action also proposes an outline for a timeframe to be followed 
for in-season adjustments to the annual specifications for Loligo 
squid. The Council's Monitoring Committee will meet in late spring each 
year to review available NEFSC survey data and to develop 
recommendations for the annual harvest for the following year. In 
addition, at that meeting, the Monitoring Committee will make 
recommendations regarding inseason adjustments to the annual Loligo 
squid specifications for consideration by the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, 
and Butterfish Committee and the Council. Based on an evaluation of the 
most recent NEFSC spring and fall trawl survey data, the OY, DAH, and 
ABC specifications may be adjusted to be consistent with the control 
rule. Upon review of the recommendations from the Council, the 
Administrator, Northeast Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator) may make 
inseason adjustments through publication of notification in the Federal 
Register, to be followed by a 30-day comment period, as specified in 
the current regulations. Inseason adjustment actions may include 
increases or decreases in the OY, DAH and ABC specifications and may 
result in opening or closing the directed fishery for Loligo squid.

Disapproved Measure

    NMFS has disapproved the proposed measure to allow Illex squid 
vessels an exemption from the Loligo squid trip limit during an August 
or September closure of the directed Loligo squid fishery. The proposed 
measure would have allowed vessels fishing in the directed Illex squid 
fishery during a closure of the Loligo fishery to land Loligo squid 
harvested seaward of the 50-fathom (91-m) curve in an amount not to 
exceed 10 percent of the total weight of Illex squid on board the 
vessel. Currently, all vessels are limited to an incidental catch 
allowance of 2,500 lb (1,134 kg) of Loligo squid per trip during a 
closure of the directed Loligo fishery.
    This provision is being disapproved at the proposed rule stage 
because it has been found to be inconsistent with national standards 2 
and 7 under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Because this action would limit 
vessels to a Loligo squid bycatch of 10 percent of the amount of Illex 
squid on board the vessel, and because of the high-volume nature of the 
Illex fishery, NMFS believes it would be impossible to enforce the 
proposed provision. In addition, under this provision, vessels would 
only be permitted to retain an increased bycatch of Loligo squid while 
directing on Illex squid seaward of the 50-fathom (91-m) curve. 
However, it would be difficult for enforcement agents to determine if a 
vessel's Loligo squid bycatch was legally taken, or occurred landward 
of the 50-fathom (9- m) curve. Such a provision would create 
significant enforcement costs and, therefore, would be inconsistent 
with national standard 7.
    Additionally, the Council did not consider the best scientific data 
available to it when it defined the exemption measure; thus the measure 
has been found to be inconsistent with national standard 2. The data 
examined by NMFS indicates that there are factors contributing to the 
Loligo squid bycatch that were not considered by the Council. NMFS is 
also concerned that the analysis of the proposed measure did not use a 
sufficiently long time-series of data to account for the fact that the 
overlap of the Illex and Loligo squid stocks is quite variable from 
year to year. Preliminary review of available data also shows that the 
Council analysis may have under-estimated the amount of Loligo squid 
that could be landed as incidental catch by vessels other than those 
fishing under the Illex squid exemption. As a result, the analysis of 
the measure appears not to properly assess the impact on the Loligo 
squid quota management program.

[[Page 36558]]

Classification

    This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for 
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
    The Council prepared an IRFA that describes the economic impacts 
this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A 
description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal 
basis for this action are contained at in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION 
section of the preamble. This proposed rule does not duplicate, 
overlap, or conflict with other Federal rules. There are no new 
reporting or recordkeeping requirements contained in the Preferred 
Alternatives or any of the alternatives considered for this action. A 
copy of the complete IRFA can be obtained from the Northeast Regional 
Office of NMFS (see ADDRESSES) or via the Internet at http:/
www.nero.nmfs.gov. A summary of the analysis follows.
    In addition to the measures described above, the Council considered 
several alternatives. The non-preferred Illexpermit alternatives 
considered were: (1) To extend the moratorium on entry to the Illex 
fishery for an additional 5 years (through June 30, 2007); and (2) to 
allow the moratorium on entry to the Illex fishery to expire in 2002 
(no action).
    The alternative specification measures were: (1) If annual 
specifications are not published prior to the start of the fishing 
year, the fisheries would operate without specifications and Joint 
Ventures could not be conducted until specifications were published (no 
action/status quo); (2) if annual specifications are not published 
prior to the start of the fishing year, a set of default specifications 
would apply until the specifications are published; (3) if annual 
specifications are not published prior to the start of the fishing 
year, the fisheries would be closed until the final specifications are 
published; (4) if annual specifications for Atlantic mackerel are not 
published prior to the start of the fishing year, the previous year's 
specifications for Atlantic mackerel (excluding TALFF) would apply, 
until final specifications are published; and (5) if annual 
specifications for Atlantic mackerel are not published prior to the 
start of the fishing year, a set of default specifications (excluding 
TALFF) would apply until the specifications are published.
    The alternative Loligo overfishing definitions were: (1) An annual 
quota specified consistent with a target F of up to 90 percent 
Fmsyif stock biomass is greater than the minimum biomass 
threshold ([half] Bmsy). If stock biomass was expected to 
fall below the minimum biomass threshold ([half] Bmsy), measures would 
be implemented to rebuild the stock to Bmsy in 3 to 5 years; (2) an 
annual quota specified consistent with a target F of up to 90 percent 
Fmsy if stock biomass is greater than the minimum biomass threshold 
([half] Bmsy). If stock biomass was below the minimum 
biomass threshold ([half] Bmsy), measures would be 
implemented to rebuild the stock to Bmsy in 3 to 10 years, 
but no longer than 10 years; (3) maintain current control rule and 
quota setting procedure for Loligo (no action/status quo).

Illex Moratorium Extension

    The proposed action would extend the moratorium on entry of new 
vessels into the Illex fishery for one year; therefore no impact is 
expected on vessels in the fishery in 2002 (and the first half of 
2003), compared to individual vessel revenues in 2001. The Council 
assumed that the market and prices are expected to remain stable. Any 
changes in individual vessel revenues would be the result of factors 
outside the scope of the moratorium (e.g., change in fishing practices 
for individual vessels, or changes in abundance and distribution of 
Illex squid).
    New vessels entering the fishery would limit per vessel share of 
the Illex squid quota and reduce revenues for the existing moratorium 
vessels proportionally. Computing the negative impacts of revenue 
losses for the existing moratorium vessels is impossible due to the 
redirection of effort into the Illex squid fishery. Therefore, the 
Council decided to assume three scenarios that presumed revenues 
derived from landings of Illex squid would be reduced by 75, 50, and 25 
percent due to an assumed increase in vessels that have not 
participated in the Illex squid fishery.
    Under alternative 2, the IRFA review of revenue impacts examined 
the landings of vessels in the existing moratorium fishery and presumed 
that revenues derived from landing Illex for these vessels would be 
reduced by 75 percent due to an assumed increase in effort of 75 
percent. A total of 109 vessels were projected to be impacted by 
revenue losses that ranged from less than 5 percent for 79 vessels, to 
a maximum of 40-49 percent for 2 vessels. There were no impacted 
vessels home-ported in Maryland, New Hampshire, or Virginia; a high of 
15 vessels had home ports in New Jersey. Other impacted vessels were 
home ported in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New York, and North 
Carolina. Presumably, other vessels entering the fishery would 
experience gains in revenues.
    Under alternative 3, the IRFA review of revenue impacts presumed 
that vessel revenues derived from landing Illex would be reduced by 50 
percent due to an assumed increase in effort of 50 percent. A total of 
109 vessels were projected to be impacted by revenue losses that ranged 
from less than 5 percent for 84 vessels, to a maximum of 30-39 percent 
for one vessel. There were no impacted vessels home-ported in Maryland, 
New Hampshire, or Virginia; a high of 11 vessels had home ports in New 
Jersey. Others were in Massachusetts, Maine, Rhode Island, and North 
Carolina. Presumably, other vessels entering the fishery would 
experience gains in revenues.
    Under alternative 4, the IRFA review of revenue impacts presumed 
that vessel revenues derived from landing Illex would be reduced by 25 
percent due to an assumed increase in effort of 25 percent. A total of 
109 vessels were projected to be impacted by revenue losses that ranged 
from less than 5 percent, for 88 vessels, to a maximum of 10-19 percent 
for 8 vessels. The number of impacted vessels by home state ranged from 
none in Maryland, New Hampshire, New York, and Virginia, to a high of 
11 in New Jersey. Other impacted vessels were home ported in 
Massachusetts, Maine, Rhode Island, and North Carolina. Presumably, 
other vessels entering the fishery would experience gains in revenues.

Specifications Process

    The only alternative considered concerning quota specifications 
that would be expected to change gross vessel revenues would be the 
option that would close the fisheries if the final specifications are 
not published by the start of the fishing year. This measure would have 
significant negative economic consequences for vessels operating in the 
Atlantic mackerel, Loligo and butterfish fisheries because landings of 
these three species would be prohibited until NMFS publishes the final 
rule for new specifications and significant landings occur early in the 
fishing year. The IRFA analysis assumed that these fisheries would most 
likely be closed during the months of January and February under this 
alternative. The total value of the landings of these three species 
during the first 2 months of 1999 represented about 20 percent of the 
annual revenue generated for all three species in 1999. For Atlantic 
mackerel, 291 vessels landed 12.1 million lb of mackerel valued at $1.7 
million. A closure in January and

[[Page 36559]]

 February would result in a loss of mackerel revenue of $5,842 per 
vessel under this alternative. For Loligo, 281 vessels landed 6.5 
million lb of Loligo valued at $5.1 million. A closure in January and 
February would result in a loss of Loligo revenue of $18,361 per vessel 
under this alternative. For butterfish, 228 vessels landed 1.4 million 
lb of butterfish valued at $0.9 million. A closure in January and 
February would result in a loss of butterfish revenue of $4,067 per 
vessel under this alternative. This measure would be expected to have 
little or no economic impact on the Illex fishery since the directed 
fishery occurs during the summer.

Loligo Overfishing Definition

    None of the alternatives considered concerning the Loligo control 
rule and in-season adjustment are expected to change gross revenues. 
Therefore, the IRFA concluded that neither the preferred nor the non-
preferred alternative represents catch constraints on vessels in these 
fisheries in aggregate or individually. Without such catch constraints, 
there is no impact on revenues.
    However, the no action alternative could have severe economic 
consequences if the stock biomass falls below [half] Bmsy. 
If the Council had followed the control rule implemented in Amendment 8 
for the 2000 fishery, the Loligo fishery would have been closed for the 
entire year. Thus failure to replace the control rule could have 
unwarranted negative economic and social consequences. The best example 
is for fishing year 2000. If the Council had followed the control rule, 
the fishery would have been closed, with significant impacts in 
participant vessels. Preliminary NMFS data show that 525 vessels landed 
34.9 million lb of Loligo in 2000, valued at $27.3 million. A complete 
closure of the fishery in 2000 would have resulted in an economic loss 
of $52,000 per vessel due to loss of Loligo revenue.
    It has been determined that this proposed rule does not contain 
policies with federalism implications as that term is defined in 
Executive Order 13132.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648

    Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: May 22, 2002.
Rebecca Lent,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is 
proposed to be 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 [sect] 648.4, paragraph (a)(5)(i), the introductory text is 
revised to read as follows:


[sect] 648.4  Vessel permits.

    (a) * * *
    (5) * * *
    (i) Loligo squid/butterfish and Illex squid moratorium permits. 
(Illex squid moratorium is applicable from July 1, 1997, until July 1, 
2003).* * *
* * * * *

    3. In [sect] 648.20, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows:


[sect] 648.20  Maximum optimum yields (OYs).

* * * * *
    (b) Loligo--the catch associated with a fishing mortality rate of 
Fmsy, or the best available proxy for Fmsy.
* * * * *

    4. In [sect] 648.21, paragraphs (a)(1) and (d)(1) are revised and 
paragraphs (a)(4) and (a)(5) are added to read as follows:


[sect] 648.21  Procedures for determining initial annual amounts.

    (a) * * *
    (1) Initial OY (IOY), including research quota (RQ), domestic 
annual harvest (DAH), and domestic annual processing (DAP) for Illex 
squid;
* * * * *
    (4) Initial OY (IOY), including research quota (RQ), domestic 
annual harvest (DAH), and domestic annual processing (DAP) for Loligo 
squid, which, subject to annual review, may be specified for a period 
of up to 3 years;
    (5) Inseason adjustment, upward or downward, to the specifications 
for Loligo squid as specified in paragraph (e) of this section.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) The Squid, Mackerel, and Butterfish Committee will review the 
recommendations of the Monitoring Committee. Based on these 
recommendations and any public comment received thereon, the Squid, 
Mackerel, and Butterfish Committee must recommend to the MAFMC 
appropriate specifications and any measures necessary to assure that 
the specifications will not be exceeded. The MAFMC will review these 
recommendations and, based on the recommendations and any public 
comment received thereon, must recommend to the Regional Administrator 
appropriate specifications and any measures necessary to assure that 
the specifications will not be exceeded. The MAFMC's recommendations 
must include supporting documentation, as appropriate, concerning the 
environmental, economic, and social impacts of the recommendations. The 
Regional Administrator will review the recommendations and, on or about 
November 1 of each year, will publish notification in the Federal 
Register proposing specifications and any measures necessary to assure 
that the specifications will not be exceeded and providing a 30-day 
public comment period. If the proposed specifications differ from those 
recommended by the MAFMC, the reasons for any differences must be 
clearly stated and the revised specifications must satisfy the criteria 
set forth in this section. The MAFMC's recommendations will be 
available for inspection at the office of the Regional Administrator 
during the public comment period. If the annual specifications for 
squid, mackerel, and butterfish are not published in the Federal 
Register prior to the start of the fishing year, the previous year's 
annual specifications, excluding specifications of TALFF, will remain 
in effect. The previous year's specifications will be superceded as of 
the effective date of the final rule implementing the current year's 
annual specifications.
[FR Doc. 02-13240 Filed 5-22-02; 2:44 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S