[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 6 (Monday, January 10, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 1686-1692]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-437]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 648

[Docket No. 041221358-4358-01; I.D. 121504A]
RIN 0648-AR56


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

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

ACTION: Proposed rule, 2005 initial specifications; request for 
comments.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes initial specifications for the 2005 fishing year 
for Atlantic mackerel, squid, and butterfish (MSB). Regulations 
governing these fisheries require NMFS to publish proposed 
specifications for the upcoming fishing year and to provide an 
opportunity for public comment. The intent of this action is to fulfill 
this requirement and to promote the development and conservation of the 
MSB resources.

DATES: Public comments must be received no later than 5 p.m., Eastern 
Standard Time, on February 9, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Copies of supporting documents used by the Mid-Atlantic 
Fishery Management Council (Council), including the Environmental 
Assessment (EA) and Regulatory Impact Review (RIR)/Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), are available from: Daniel Furlong, 
Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Room 2115, 
Federal Building, 300 South New Street, Dover, DE 19904-6790. The EA/
RIR/IRFA is accessible via the Internet at http:/www.nero.noaa.gov.
    Comments on the proposed specifications 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-2005 MSB Specifications.'' Comments also may be sent via 
facsimile (fax) to 978-281-9135. Comments on the specifications may be 
submitted by e-mail as well. The mailbox address for providing e-mail 
comments is [email protected]. Include in the subject line of the 
e-mail comment the following document identifier: ``Comments-2005 MSB 
Specifications.'' Comments may also be submitted electronically through 
the

[[Page 1687]]

Federal e-Rulemaking portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric Jay Dolin, Fishery Policy 
Analyst, 978-281-9259, fax 978-281-9135.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Regulations implementing the Fishery Management Plan for the 
Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fisheries (FMP), prepared by 
the Council, appear at 50 CFR part 648, subpart B. Regulations 
governing foreign fishing appear at 50 CFR part 600, subpart F. These 
regulations, at Sec.  600.516(c) and 648.21, require that NMFS, based 
on the maximum optimum yield (Max OY) of each fishery as established by 
the regulations, annually publish a proposed rule specifying the 
initial amounts of the initial optimum yield (IOY), as well as the 
amounts for allowable biological catch (ABC), domestic annual harvest 
(DAH), domestic annual processing (DAP), total allowable level of 
foreign fishing (TALFF), and joint venture processing (JVP) for the 
affected species managed under the FMP. In addition, these regulations 
allow Loligo squid specifications to be specified for up to 3 years, 
subject to annual review. The regulations found in Sec.  648.20 also 
specify that IOY for squid is equal to the combination of research 
quota and DAH, with no TALFF specified for squid. For butterfish, the 
regulations specify that a butterfish bycatch TALFF will be specified 
only if TALFF is specified for Atlantic mackerel.
    In addition, the regulations at Sec.  648.21(g) allow the 
specification of research set-asides (RSA) to be used for research 
purposes. For 2005, the Council recommended the consideration of RSAs 
of up to 3 percent of IOY for Atlantic mackerel, butterfish, and 
squids. The RSAs would fund research and data collection for those 
species. A Request for Research Proposals was published to solicit 
proposals for 2005 based on research priorities previously identified 
by the Council (69 FR 10990, March 9, 2004). The deadline for 
submission was April 8, 2004. On May 14, 2004, NMFS convened a Review 
Panel to review the comments submitted by technical reviewers. Based on 
discussions between NMFS staff, technical review comments, and Review 
Panel comments, two project proposals requesting Loligo squid set-aside 
landings were recommended for approval and will be forwarded to the 
NOAA Grants Office for award, for a total RSA of 255.1 mt. Consistent 
with the recommendations, the quotas in this proposed rule have been 
adjusted to reflect the projects recommended for approval. If the 
awards are not made by the NOAA Grants Office for any reason, NMFS will 
give notice of an adjustment to the annual quota to return the 
unawarded set-aside amount to the fishery.
    Table 1 contains the proposed initial specifications for the 2005 
Atlantic mackerel, Loligo and Illex squids, and butterfish fisheries.

     Table 1. Proposed Initial Annual Specifications, in Metric Tons (mt), for Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and
                      Butterfish for the Fishing Year January 1 through December 31, 2005.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Specifications                 Loligo               Illex             Mackerel           Butterfish
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Max OY                      26,000              24,000              N/A\1\              12,175
                  ABC                         17,000              24,000             335,000               4,545
                  IOY                    16,744.9\4\              24,000          115,000\2\               1,681
                  DAH                       16,744.9              24,000          115,000\3\               1,681
                  DAP                       16,744.9              24,000             100,000               1,681
                  JVP                              0                   0                   0                   0
                  TALFF                            0                   0                   0                   0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Not applicable.
\2\IOY may be increased during the year, but the total ABC will not exceed 335,000 mt.
\3\Includes 15,000 mt of Atlantic mackerel recreational allocation.
\4\Excludes 255.1 mt for Research Set-Aside.

    NMFS also proposes three clarifications to the Atlantic mackerel, 
squid, and butterfish regulations. The first, in Sec.  648.21, would 
remove references to the dates on which the proposed and final rules 
for the annual specifications must be published by the Administrator, 
Northeast Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), because it is not 
necessary to specify these dates in regulatory text. The second 
clarification, in Sec.  648.23, would revise a confusing sentence to 
make it clearer. The third clarification, in Sec.  648.4(a)(5)(i), 
would clarify that the Illex permit moratorium is in effect until July 
1, 2009. These regulatory language changes are purely administrative 
and reflect previously approved measures in the FMP.

2005 Proposed Specifications

Atlantic Mackerel

    Overfishing for Atlantic mackerel is defined by the FMP to occur 
when the catch associated with a threshold fishing mortality rate (F) 
of FMSY (the F that produces MSY (maximum sustainable 
yield)) is exceeded. When spawning stock biomass (SSB) is greater than 
890,000 mt, the maximum F threshold is FMSY (0.45), and the target F is 
0.25. To avoid low levels of recruitment, the FMP contains a control 
rule whereby the threshold F decreases linearly from 0.45 at 890,000 mt 
SSB to zero at 225,000 mt SSB (1/4 of the biomass level that would 
produce MSY on a continuing basis (BMSY)), and the target F 
decreases linearly from 0.25 at 890,000 mt SSB to zero at 450,000 mt 
SSB (1/2 BMSY). Annual quotas are specified that correspond 
to the target F resulting from this control rule.
    The most recent estimate of Atlantic mackerel stock biomass was 2.1 
million mt. Since SSB is currently above 890,000 mt, the target F for 
2005 is 0.25. According to the Altantic mackerel, squid, and butterfish 
regulations, mackerel ABC must be calculated using the formula ABC = T 
- C, where C is the estimated catch of mackerel in Canadian waters for 
the upcoming fishing year and T is the yield associated with a fishing 
mortality rate that is equal to the target F. The yield associated with 
the target F=0.25 is 369,000 mt. The estimated Canadian catch is 34,000 
mt. Thus, 369,000 mt minus 34,000 mt results in and ABC of 335,000 mt.
    The Council proposed that the IOY and the DAH for the 2005 Atlantic 
mackerel fishery be set at 165,000 mt. The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery

[[Page 1688]]

Conservation and Management Act provides that the specification of 
TALFF, if any, shall be that portion of the optimum yield (OY) of a 
fishery that will not be harvested by vessels of the United States. As 
a result, the Council's proposal to set IOY equal to DAH necessarily 
results in a TALFF of zero. While NMFS agrees that there are legitimate 
and legally defensible reasons to set the IOY at a level that can be 
harvested by the domestic fleet and that would thereby preclude the 
specification of a TALFF, NMFS does not find that the Council's 
analysis justifies the levels of IOY and DAH that it recommends.
    The Council recommended an IOY of 165,000 mt, arguing that this 
level would provide the greatest overall benefit to the Nation with 
respect to food production and recreational opportunities. This level 
of IOY was also adopted because the Council believes that it allows for 
a significant increase in domestic landings, which have increased 
considerably in the last several years due to major investments in the 
domestic mackerel processing sector. This level of IOY represents a 
modification of MSY based on economic and social factors (the mackerel 
regulations at Sec.  648.21(b)(2)(ii) state that, ``IOY is a 
modification of ABC, based on social and economic factors, and must be 
less than or equal to ABC''). The Council expressed its concern, 
supported by industry testimony, that an allocation of TALFF would 
threaten the expansion of the domestic industry. TALFF catches would 
allow foreign vessels to harvest U.S. fish and sell their product on 
the world market, in direct competition with the U.S. industry efforts 
to expand exports. The Council noted that this would prevent the U.S. 
industry from taking advantage of declines in the European production 
of Atlantic mackerel that have resulted in an increase in world demand 
for U.S. fish. In 2003, the primary nations that received the U.S. 
exports were Nigeria, Bulgaria, Romania, and Canada. The only economic 
benefit associated with a TALFF is the foreign fishing fees it 
generates. These fees pale in comparison to the economic benefits 
associated with the development of the domestic mackerel fishery. 
Increased mackerel production generates jobs both for plant workers and 
other support industries. More jobs generate more income for people 
resident in coastal communities and generally enhance the social fabric 
of these communities.
    For these reasons, the Council concluded, and NMFS agrees, that the 
specification of an IOY at a level that can be fully harvested by the 
domestic fleet, thereby precluding the specification of a TALFF, will 
assist the U.S. mackerel industry to expand and will yield positive 
social and economic benefits to both U.S. harvesters and processors. 
NMFS therefore recommends that IOY be specified at 115,000 mt. NMFS 
believes that the commercial and recreational fishery will harvest this 
amount of mackerel in 2005, based on a reasonable projection of the 
commercial sector harvesting capacity. Because IOY=DAH, this 
specification is consistent with the Council's recommendation that the 
level of IOY should not provide for a TALFF.
    The Council's DAH recommendation is composed of commercial landings 
and recreational landings. The specification of DAH at 165,000 mt 
includes an allocation for recreational catch of 15,000 mt, and an 
allocation for commercial landings of 150,000 mt. After reviewing the 
Council's analysis, NMFS concludes that the available data do not 
support a projection of commercial landings at that level in 2005. The 
Council assumes that commercial landings in 2004 will be approximately 
60,000 mt, and that the landings for 2005 could be twice that level. 
The increases in U.S. commercial landings in recent years do not 
support the Council's conclusion that landings could rise to 150,000 
mt. Landings from 2001-2002 more than doubled (increasing 112 percent, 
from 12,308 mt to 26,192 mt). Landings from 2002 to 2003 (30,378 mt) 
rose by roughly 16 percent. As of October 1, 2004, 53,352 mt of 
mackerel had been landed. The final landings for 2004 will likely be 
roughly the same as they were as of October 1, 2004 (historically, a 
very small percentage of mackerel is landed in November and December, 
e.g., roughly 1 percent in 2003). The increase in landings from 2003 
(30,738 mt) to 2004 (53,352 mt) is roughly 74 percent. It appears 
reasonable to project that domestic commercial landings in 2005 could 
approach a doubling of the 2004 landings. The domestic processor sector 
appears to have overcome the ``start-up'' problems associated with new 
investment in additional processing capacity.
    Given all these data, and the upward trend noted, NMFS is proposing 
to set the DAH at 115,000 mt (including 15,000 mt for the recreational 
catch). This specification would allocate 100,000 mt to the commercial 
fishery, allowing room for the fishery to expand in line with its 
recent significant increase in landings. Given the trends in landings, 
and the industry's testimony that the fishery is poised for significant 
growth, NMFS concludes that it is reasonable to assume that in 2005 the 
commercial fishery will harvest 100,000 mt of mackerel.
    The regulations, at Sec.  648.21(e), allow for inseason adjustments 
of the mackerel, squid, and butterfish specifications. Thus, should the 
performance of the mackerel fishery during the 2005 fishing year 
justify increasing the DAH for mackerel, NMFS could use the inseason 
adjustment mechanism to increase both the DAH and the IOY to the levels 
necessary to enable the fishery to perform to its fullest potential. 
Such increases, however, would be constrained by the analysis that the 
Council included in this year's specifications. That means that DAH and 
IOY could be increased to a maximum of 175,000 mt, which are the 
highest levels that the Council originally proposed and analyzed for 
each of these measures. NMFS invites the public to comment on its 
proposed use of the inseason adjustment mechanism to set new levels for 
DAH and IOY during the 2005 fishing year, should such changes be 
warranted based on the performance of the fishery. More specifically, 
NMFS invites the public to comment on the appropriateness of 
potentially increasing DAH and IOY up to the maximum levels of 175,000 
mt through the inseason adjustment mechanism.
    NMFS also agrees with the Council's recommendation to specify JVP 
at zero (as compared with 5,000 mt of JVP in 2004). In previous years, 
the Council specified JVP greater than zero because it believed U.S. 
processors lacked the capability to process the total amount of 
mackerel that U.S. harvesters could land. The Council has been 
systematically reducing JVP because it concluded that the surplus 
between DAH and DAP has been declining as U.S. shoreside processing 
capacity for mackerel has expanded over the last several years. The 
Council received testimony from processors and harvesters that the 
shoreside processing sector of this industry has been undergoing 
significant expansion since 2002-2003. As a result of this expansion, 
the Council concluded that shoreside processing capacity was no longer 
a limiting factor relative to domestic production of mackerel. The 
Council, therefore, concluded that the U.S. mackerel processing sector 
has the potential to process the DAH, so JVP would be specified at 
zero. In coming to this conclusion, the Council assumed that DAH would 
be set at 165,000 mt. The argument for zero JVP specification is even 
stronger for a proposed DAH set at 115,000 mt.

[[Page 1689]]

Atlantic Squids

Loligo

    In 2004, the Council specified the annual quota and other measures 
for Loligo squid for a period of up to 3 years (i.e., 2004 - 2007). 
After a review of available information, the Council recommended no 
change to the Loligo quota or other measures in 2005, and NMFS concurs 
with this recommendation. Based on research projects approved for 2005, 
the Council recommended that the RSA for scientific research for Loligo 
squid not exceed 255.1 mt. The 2005 proposed Max OY for Loligo squid is 
26,000 mt, the recommended ABC for the 2005 fishery is 17,000 mt, and 
the IOY is 16,744.9, which takes into account the 255.1 mt RSA.
    The FMP does not authorize the specification of JVP and TALFF for 
the Loligo squid fishery, because of the domestic industry's capacity 
to harvest and process the OY for this fishery; therefore, JVP and 
TALFF are zero.
Distribution of the Annual Loligo Squid Quota
    Since 2001, the annual DAH for Loligo squid has been allocated into 
quarterly periods. The Council and NMFS recommend no change from the 
2004 quarterly distribution system. Due to the recommendation of two 
research projects that would utilize Loligo squid RSA, this proposed 
rule would adjust the quarterly allocations from those that were 
proposed, based on formulas specified in the FMP. The 2005 quarterly 
allocations would be as follows:

                                   Table 2. Loligo Squid Quarterly Allocations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Quarter                              Percent         Metric Tons\1\    Research Set-aside
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  I (Jan-Mar)                                      33.23             5,564.3                 N/A
                  II (Apr-Jun)                                     17.61             2,948.8                 N/A
                  III (Jul-Sep)                                     17.3             2,896.9                 N/A
                  IV (Oct-Dec)                                     31.86             5,334.9                 N/A
                  Total                                              100            16,744.9               255.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Quarterly allocations after 255.1 mt RSA deduction.

    Also unchanged from 2004, the 2005 directed fishery would be closed 
in Quarters I-III when 80 percent of the period allocation is 
harvested, with vessels restricted to a 2,500-lb (1,134-kg) Loligo 
squid trip limit per single calender day until the end of the 
respective quarter. The directed fishery would close when 95 percent of 
the total annual DAH has been harvested, with vessels restricted to a 
2,500-lb (1,134-kg) Loligo squid trip limit per single calender day for 
the remainder of the year. Quota overages from Quarter I would be 
deducted from the allocation in Quarter III, and any overages from 
Quarter II would be deducted from Quarter IV. By default, quarterly 
underages from Quarters II and III carry over into Quarter IV, because 
Quarter IV does not close until 95 percent of the total annual quota 
has been harvested. Additionally, if the Quarter I landings for Loligo 
squid are less than 80 percent of the Quarter I allocation, the 
underage below 80 percent is applied to Quarter III.

Illex

    The Council recommended maintaining the Illex specifications in 
2005 at the same levels as they were for the 2004 fishing year. NMFS 
concurs with this recommendation; thus, the specification of Max OY, 
IOY, ABC and DAH would be 24,000 mt. The overfishing definition for 
Illex squid states that overfishing for Illex squid occurs when the 
catch associated with a threshold fishing mortality rate of FMSY 
is exceeded. Max OY is specified as the catch associated with a fishing 
mortality rate of FMSY, while DAH is specified as the level 
of harvest that corresponds to a target fishing mortality rate of 75% 
Fmsy. The biomass target is specified as BMSY. 
The minimum biomass threshold is specified as 1/2 BMSY.
    In September 2003, the results of an updated assessment of the 
Illex squid stock (the 37th Northeast Regional Stock Assessment 
Workshop; SAW-37) were released. SAW-37 concluded that overfishing was 
not likely to have occurred during the period 1992-2002. SAW-37 found 
that it was not possible to evaluate the current biomass status for 
Illex squid relative to Bmsy because the size of the stock 
could not be reliably estimated. SAW 37 noted that, since 1999, the 
Northeast Fishery Science Center (NEFSC) autumn survey abundance 
indices have been below the 1982-2002 average, but that it could not 
determine whether this trend is due to low abundance, low availability 
or both. The assessment noted that surface and bottom water 
temperatures in the Mid-Atlantic Bight have been warmer than average 
during recent years, and that Illex abundance and biomass indices from 
the autumn surveys were significantly negatively correlated with bottom 
water temperature anomalies from the autumn surveys. SAW 37 concluded 
that this likely indicates an environmental effect on productivity. 
While landings have been below the 1982-2002 average since 1998, SAW 37 
found that this could be due to the reduced effort observed during the 
time period, low biomass or both factors.
    SAW 37 cautioned that, under current stock conditions, a DAH of 
24,000 mt, which assumes a stock at Bmsy, may not be 
sufficient to prevent overfishing. It also cautioned that the existing 
overfishing definition, which is based on Fmsy, is not only 
difficult to estimate given the available information, but may also 
perform poorly given the stock's production dynamics. In addition, SAW 
37 recommended that, given uncertainties in the stock distribution and 
population biology, the fishery should be managed in relation to the 
proportion of the stock on the continental shelf and available to U.S. 
fisheries. However, SAW 37 did not recommend specific action, and the 
assessment also noted that more knowledge of Illex is necessary to 
respond to these concerns. While cooperative research efforts are 
underway, there is currently no information to use to construct an 
alternative recommendation.
    Despite the cautions within SAW 37, the assessment also concluded 
that it was unlikely that overfishing occurred during 1999-2002 for 
several reasons. Many of these reasons remain applicable to the 
proposal to maintain DAH at 24,000 mt for 2005. The reasons are: (1) 
the current small fleet size and effort levels make it unlikely that 
the fishery could exert the very high fishing mortality rate required 
to exceed the level recommended in the assessment (F50%), 
(2) the short fishing season makes high annual average fishing

[[Page 1690]]

mortality rates unlikely, (3) the restricted geographical distribution 
of the fishery makes high annual average fishing mortality rates for 
the entire stock unlikely, (4) relative exploitation indices have 
declined considerably since 1999 and have been below the 1982-2002 
median since then, and (5) preliminary model results indicate that 
fishing mortality rates as high as F50% are unlikely to have 
occurred even during 1999, when relative fishing mortality was the 
highest in recent years.
    Therefore, NMFS proposes that the annual specifications for Illex 
squid should remain unchanged for 2005, agreeing with the Council that 
there is no basis for concluding that the specifications are likely to 
result in overfishing. As the Council noted, the management program for 
Illex requires the directed fishery to be closed when 95 percent of the 
quota (22,800 mt) is harvested. While incidental landings are allowed 
following this closure, the amount of Illex caught incidentally by 
vessels targeting other species is limited due to the specialized 
nature of the Illex fishery. Illex is harvested offshore near the edge 
of the continental shelf during the summer. The species spoils quickly, 
so freezing or refrigerated seawater equipment must be utilized to 
prevent spoilage. Similar to Loligo squid, when a trip limit is in 
effect, vessels are prohibited from possessing or landing more than the 
specified amount in a single calendar day, which is 10,000 lb (4,536 
kg). Few vessels are expected to invest in the necessary equipment to 
pursue Illex under the incidental catch allowance. Furthermore, if 
evidence were to become available that overfishing was occurring, based 
on stock assessment data gathered in 2005, the current FMP allows for 
in-season adjustments to the IOY.
    The FMP does not authorize the specification of JVP and TALFF for 
the Illex squid fishery because of the domestic fishing industry's 
capacity to harvest and to process the OY from this fishery.

Butterfish

    The proposed specifications would reduce the IOY from 5,900 mt to 
1,681 mt to achieve the target fishing mortality rate (75 percent of 
Fmsy) specified in the FMP based on the most recent stock 
assessment for the species (Stock Assessment Review Committe (SARC) 
38). Based on that assessment and assuming that biomass in 2005 will be 
nominally the same as 2000-2002, then the catch associated with the 
target F would be 2,242 mt, and this forms the basis for the 
specification of butterfish ABC. Assuming that the discard-to-landing 
ratio remains constant, then IOY, DAH, and DAP = 1,681 mt (i.e., the 
allowable landings equals ABC less estimated discards, which are 
roughly twice landings). NMFS supports this recommended level of 
landings because it should achieve the target fishing mortality rate 
and allow for stock rebuilding.
    The Council has recommended, and NMFS supports, implementing a 3.0-
inch (7.62-cm) minimum codend mesh size requirement for butterfish 
otter trawl trips greater than 5,000 lb (2,268 kg), the level that the 
Council concluded would qualify as a directed butterfish trip. The 
purpose of this minimum mesh size requirement is to allow for 
escapement of unmarketable sized butterfish and fish below the size at 
which 50 percent of the butterfish are sexually mature. Based on 
inspection of the size composition of discarded butterfish from 
unpublished sea sampling data, the minimum marketable size for 
butterfish is approximately 5.5 inches (14.0 cm). Based on a 
scientifially supported selection factor of 1.8, the mesh size 
corresponding to an L50 of 14 cm is 7.78 cm, or about 3.0 inches. The 
minimum mesh requirement of 3.0 inches (7.62 cm) in the directed 
butterfish fishery should have a number of positive biological impacts. 
First, discards in the directed fishery should be reduced, which, in 
combination with the reduced quota, should result in reduced fishing 
mortality on the butterfish stock (especially on small, sexually 
immature butterfish). This should result in an increase in spawning 
stock biomass, which will increase the chance of successful recruitment 
and aid in stock rebuilding. In addition, by delaying age at entry to 
the fishery, an increase in yield per recruit should be realized. 
Finally, an increase in mesh size in the butterfish fishery should also 
result in a decrease in bycatch of non-target species in the directed 
butterfish fishery.

Classification

    This action is authorized by 50 CFR part 648 and has been 
determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. 
The Council prepared an IRFA, as required by section 603 of the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act, which describes the economic impacts this 
proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A copy of the 
IRFA can be obtained from the Council or NMFS (see ADDRESSES) or via 
the Internet at http:/www.nero.noaa.gov. A summary of the analysis 
follows:

Statement of Objective and Need

    A description of the reasons why this action is being considered, 
and the objectives of and legal basis for this action, is contained in 
the preamble to this proposed rule and is not repeated here.

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

    The number of potential fishing vessels in the 2005 fisheries are 
381 for Loligo squid/butterfish, 72 for Illex squid, 2,407 for Atlantic 
mackerel, and 2,119 vessels with incidental catch permits for squid/
butterfish, based on vessel permit issuance. There are no large 
entities participating in this fishery, as defined in section 601 of 
the RFA. Therefore, there are no disproportionate economic impacts. 
Many vessels participate in more than one of these fisheries; 
therefore, the numbers are not additive.

Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 
Requirements

    This action does not contain any new collection-of-information, 
reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements. It does not 
duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules.

Minimizing Significant Economic Impacts on Small Entities

    The IOY specification under the proposed action for Atlantic 
mackerel (115,000 mt, with 15,000 mt allocated to recreational catch) 
represents no constraint on vessels in this fishery. This level of 
landings has not been achieved by vessels in this fishery in recent 
years. Mackerel landings for 2001-2003 averaged 24,294 mt; in 2003 they 
were 30,738 mt; and for 2004 they were 53,352 mt (based on preliminary 
data). Therefore, no reductions in revenues for the mackerel fishery is 
expected as a result of the proposed action. However, there is likely 
to be an increase in revenues as a result of the proposed action. Based 
on preliminary 2004 data, the mackerel fishery could increase its 
landings by 46,648 mt in 2005, if it takes the entire IOY. In 2003, the 
last year with complete financial data, the average value for mackerel 
was $234 per mt. Using this value, the mackerel fishery could see an 
increase in revenues of $10,915,632 as a result of the proposed action.
    The IOY specification under the proposed action for Illex (24,000 
mt) represents a slight constraint on revenues in this fishery. Illex 
landings for 2001-2003 averaged 4,350 mt; in

[[Page 1691]]

2003 they were 6,389 mt; and for 2004 they were 25,968 mt (based on 
preliminary data). Therefore, the proposed action represents a 
reduction in landings, from 2004, of 1,968 mt. In 2003, the last year 
with complete financial data, the average value for Illex was $626 per 
mt. Using this value, the Illex fishery could see an decrease in 
revenues of $1,231,968 as a result of the proposed action. But, it is 
important to note that the preliminary Illex landings for 2004 are 8 
per cent more than the quota for that year allowed. Had the fishery 
landed the quota, only, then the proposed action would represent no 
restraint on the fishery in 2005.
    Under the proposed specifications for butterfish (IOY=1,681 mt), 
landings could be constrained relative to the 2001-2003 fisheries. 
During the period 2001-2003, butterfish landings averaged 1,906 mt. 
Compared to this average, the proposed action would reduce landings by 
about 12 percent. However, compared to the most recent 2 years for 
which complete information is available, 2002 and 2003, when landings 
were 873 mt and 473 mt, respectively, the proposed action would not be 
expected to reduce revenues in this fishery, but would rather increase 
those revenues. Based on 2003 data, the value of butterfish was $1,269 
per mt.
    The proposed action would also implement a 3.0-inch (7.62-cm) 
minimum codend mesh size requirement for otter trawl trips landing 
greater than 5,000 lb (2,278 kg) of butterfish. During the period 2001-
2003, there were 16,854 trips that landed butterfish based on 
unpublished NMFS Vessel Trip Report (VTR) data. More than half (57 
percent) of the landings of butterfish during 2001-2003 were taken with 
mesh sizes less than 3.0 inches (7.62 cm). Within this mesh size range, 
most was taken with mesh sizes between 2.5 inches (6.35 cm) and 3.0 
inches (7.62 cm). The trips using this mesh size range (i.e., less than 
3.0 inches) could potentially be affected by the proposed mesh size. 
However, the proposed 3.0-inch (7.62-cm) mesh requirement would only 
apply to otter trawl trips landing 5,000 lb (2,278 kg) or more of 
butterfish. In terms of numerical frequency of trips, the vast majority 
of trips during 2001-2003 landed less than 5,000 lb (2,278 kg) of 
butterfish, based on unpublished NMFS VTR data. While 57 percent of the 
landings by weight were taken on trips of greater than or equal to 
5,000 pounds during the period, less than 1 percent of the trips 
landing butterfish were greater than or equal 5,000 lb (2,278 kg). 
There were only 26 vessels that had trips that included landings of 
butterfish of 5,000 lb (2,278 kg) or more, and also reported using mesh 
sizes less than 3.0 inches (7.62 cm) on those trips. Therefore, it is 
expected that the economic impact of this proposed measure should be 
negligible because the vast majority of trips and vessels would not be 
affected because they land less than 5,000 lb (2,278 kg) per trip. The 
costs for those vessels that do land butterfish on trips larger than 
5,000 lb (2,278 kg) should also be negligible because virtually all of 
those vessels already possess codends 3.0 inches (7.62 cm) mesh or 
greater (because they are fishing for butterfish or in another fishery 
that uses nets of that size, e.g., whiting), so they should not incur 
any additional costs due to the proposed minimum mesh size requirement.
    The Council analysis evaluated three alternatives for mackerel. One 
would have set IOY at 175,000 mt. The two other alternatives would have 
set IOY at 165,000 mt. Neither of these IOYs represents a constraint on 
vessels in these fisheries. Absent such a constraint, no impacts on 
revenues in this fishery would be expected as a result of any of these 
alternatives. Two of these alternatives one setting IOY at 165,000 mt 
and the other setting it at 175,000 mt would have set the ABC at 
347,000 mt. These two alternatives were rejected on biological grounds 
because that level of ABC is not consistent with the overfishing rule 
adopted in Amendment 8 to the FMP (F=0.25 yield estimate of 369,000 mt 
minus the estimated Canadian catch of 34,000 mt). Furthermore, the 
Atlantic mackerel alternative that would set IOY at 175,000 mt was 
rejected because it was set too high in light of social and economic 
concerns relating to TALFF. The specification of TALFF would have 
limited the opportunities for the domestic fishery to expand, and 
therefore would have resulted in negative social and economic impacts 
to both U.S. harvesters and processors (for a full discussion of the 
TALFF issue, please see the earlier section on Atlantic mackerel). The 
Atlantic mackerel alternative that would set IOY at 175,000 mt would 
also would allocate 5,000 mt for JVP. This allocation of JVP was 
rejected because it was concluded that U.S. processing capacity is 
sufficient to process the entire DAH. JVP need only be allocated when 
DAH exceeds DAP, and that is not the case here. The third alternative 
for mackerel considered was one that would have set IOY at 165,000 mt, 
and ABC at 335,000 mt. Although this ABC is the same as in the proposed 
action, this IOY was rejected because it was set too high in light of 
social and economic concerns relating to TALFF. The specification of 
TALFF would have limited the opportunities for the domestic fishery to 
expand, and therefore would have resulted in negative social and 
economic impacts to both U.S. harvesters and processors (for a full 
discussion of the TALFF issue, please see the earlier section on 
Atlantic mackerel).
    For Illex, one alternative considered would have set Max OY, ABC, 
IOY, DAH, and DAP at 30,000 mt. This alternative would allow harvest 
far in excess of recent landings in this fishery. Therefore, there 
would be no constraints and, thus, no revenue reductions, associated 
with these specifications. However, the Council considered this 
alternative unacceptable because an ABC specification of 30,000 mt may 
not prevent overfishing in years of moderate to low abundance of Illex 
squid.
    For butterfish, one alternative considered would have set IOY at 
5,900 mt, while another would have set it at 9,131 mt. These amounts 
exceed the landings of this species in recent years. Therefore, neither 
alternative represents a constraint on vessels in this fishery. In the 
absence of such a constraint, neither of these alternatives would 
reduce revenues in the fishery. However, both of these alternatives 
were rejected because they would likely result in overfishing and the 
additional depletion of the spawning stock biomass.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648

    Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: January 4, 2005.
Rebecca Lent,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.

    For the reasons set out above 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 Sec.  648.4, the introductory text of paragraph (a)(5)(i) is 
revised to read as follows:


Sec.  684.4  Vessel permits.

    (a)* * *
    (5)* * *
    (i) Loligo squid/butterfish and Illex squid moratorium permits 
(Illex squid

[[Page 1692]]

moratorium is in effect until July 1, 2009.
* * * * *
    3. In Sec.  648.14, paragraphs (a)(74) and (p)(5) are revised and 
new paragraph (p)(11) is added to read as follows:


Sec.  648.14  Prohibitions.

    (a) * * *
    (74) Possess nets or netting with mesh not meeting the minimum size 
requirements of Sec.  648.23, and not stowed in accordance with the 
requirements of Sec.  648.23, if in possession of Loligo or butterfish 
harvested in or from the EEZ.
* * * * *
    (p) * * *
    (5) Fish with or possess nets or netting that do not meet the 
minimum mesh requirements for Loligo or butterfish specified in Sec.  
648.23(a), or that are modified, obstructed, or constricted, if subject 
to the minimum mesh requirements, unless the nets or netting are stowed 
in accordance with Sec.  648.23(b) or the vessel is fishing under an 
exemption specified in Sec.  648.23(a).
* * * * *
    (11) Possess 5,000 lb (2.27 mt) or more of butterfish unless the 
vessel meets the minimum mesh size requirement specified in Sec.  
648.23(a)(2).
* * * * *
    4. In Sec.  648.21, paragraph (d) is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  648.21  Procedures for determining initial annual amounts.

* * * * *
    (d) Annual fishing measures. (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 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.
    (2) The Assistant Administrator will make a final determination 
concerning the specifications for each species and any measures 
necessary to assure that the specifications contained in the Federal 
Register notification will not be exceeded. After the Assistant 
Administrator considers all relevant data and any public comments, 
notification of the final specifications and any measures necessary to 
assure that the specifications will not be exceeded and responses to 
the public comments will be published in the Federal Register. If the 
final specification amounts differ from those recommended by the MAFMC, 
the reason(s) for the difference(s) must be clearly stated and the 
revised specifications must be consistent with the criteria set forth 
in paragraph (b) of this section.
* * * * *
    5. In Sec.  648.23, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  648.23  Gear restrictions.

    (a) Mesh restrictions and exemptions. (1) Vessels subject to the 
mesh restrictions outlined in this paragraph (a) may not have available 
for immediate use any net, or any piece of net, with a mesh size 
smaller than that required.
    (2) Owners or operators of otter trawl vessels possessing 5,000 lb 
(2.27 mt) or more of butterfish harvested in or from the EEZ may only 
fish with nets having a minimum codend mesh of 3 inches (76 mm) diamond 
mesh, inside stretch measure, applied throughout the codend for at 
least 100 continuous meshes forward of the terminus of the net, or for 
codends with less than 100 meshes, the minimum mesh size codend shall 
be a minimum of one-third of the net measured from the terminus of the 
codend to the head rope.
    (3) Owners or operators of otter trawl vessels possessing Loligo 
harvested in or from the EEZ may only fish with nets having a minimum 
mesh size of 1 7/8 inches (48 mm) diamond mesh, inside stretch measure, 
applied throughout the codend for at least 150 continuous meshes 
forward of the terminus of the net, or for codends with less than 150 
meshes, the minimum mesh size codend shall be a minimum of one-third of 
the net measured from the terminus of the codend to the head rope, 
unless they are fishing during the months of June, July, August, and 
September for Illex seaward of the following coordinates (copies of a 
map depicting this area are available from the Regional Administrator 
upon request):

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

    (4) Vessels fishing under this exemption may 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 or any net, or any piece of net, with mesh that is rigged 
in a manner that is prohibited by paragraph (c) and (d) of this 
section, when the vessel is landward of the specified coordinates.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 05-437 Filed 1-7-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S