[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 63 (Wednesday, April 2, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18478-18481]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-07416]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 648
[Docket No. 130716623-4275-02]
RIN 0648-BD50
Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Mackerel,
Squid, and Butterfish Fisheries; Framework Adjustment 8
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Framework Adjustment 8 (Framework 8) implements several
changes to improve operation of the butterfish discard cap in the
longfin squid fishery and the directed butterfish fishery. Framework 8
allocates the butterfish discard cap among trimesters in the same
percentages used for the trimester allocations for longfin squid: 43
percent to Trimester I (January to April), 17 percent to Trimester II
(May to August), and 40 percent to Trimester III (September to
December). Each trimester will close when it is estimated that 95
percent of the butterfish discard cap has been taken. In addition,
Framework 8 allows NMFS to transfer, in either direction, up to 50
percent of unused quota between the butterfish landing allocation and
the discard cap on the longfin squid fishery. This would occur near the
end of the year in order to optimally utilize the butterfish that is
available for fishing each year.
DATES: Effective May 2, 2014.
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: Dr. Christopher M.
Moore, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 800
North State Street, Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901, telephone (302) 674-
2331. The EA/RIR/IRFA is also accessible via the Internet at http://www.nero.noaa.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Aja Szumylo, Fishery Policy Analyst,
978-281-9195.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
A proposed rule for Framework 8 was published on January 31, 2014
(79 FR 5365), with a comment period ending March 3, 2014. Additional
background information and detail on why and how Framework Adjustment 6
was developed were in the proposed rule, and are not repeated here.
Framework 8 adjusts the trimester allocations for the butterfish
discard cap and creates distinct closure thresholds for each trimester.
Beginning January 2014, this action sets the initial allocation
Trimester I at 43 percent (down from 65 percent), the initial
allocation for Trimester II at 17 percent (up from 3.3 percent), and
the initial allocation for Trimester III at 40 percent (up from 31.7
percent). These adjusted trimester allocations for the butterfish
discard cap match the trimester allocations for the directed longfin
squid fishery. Framework 8 also requires that each trimester will close
when the longfin squid fishery has
[[Page 18479]]
harvested an estimated 95 percent of the butterfish discard cap.
Framework 8 also allows NMFS to transfer unused butterfish quota in
either direction, between the butterfish domestic annual harvest
allocation (DAH or landings quota) and the butterfish discard cap on
the longfin squid fishery. Prior to November each year, NMFS will make
a projection regarding the likely trajectories of butterfish landings
and the butterfish discard cap. If the butterfish DAH appears likely to
constrain the directed butterfish fishery or the butterfish discard cap
appears likely to constrain the longfin squid fishery, and the other
fishery appears unlikely to be impacted by a shift in quota, NMFS could
transfer up to 50 percent of the total butterfish DAH or total
butterfish discard cap to optimize the use of the overall butterfish
quota. NMFS would make this transfer on or about November 15 each
fishing year, in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act, in
order to optimally utilize the butterfish that is available for fishing
each year.
Comments and Responses
NMFS received one comment on the proposed rule for Framework 8 from
the Garden State Seafood Association (GSSA), a New Jersey-based
commercial fishing industry group.
Comment 1: GSSA supports the proposed trimester allocations, the 95
percent closure threshold for all trimesters, and the transfer of
unused butterfish quota, in either direction, between the butterfish
landings quota and the butterfish discard cap on the longfin squid
fishery.
Response: NMFS concurs, and is implementing the measures in
Framework 8 as proposed.
Classification
The Administrator, Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office,
NMFS, determined that the approved measures in Framework Adjustment 8
to the MSB FMP are necessary for the conservation and management of the
MSB fisheries and that they are consistent with the MSA and other
applicable laws.
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
A final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) was prepared. The
FRFA incorporates the initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA), a
summary of significant issues raised by public comments in response to
the IRFA, and NMFS' responses to those comments. A copy of the IRFA,
the RIR, and the EA are available on request (see ADDRESSES). A summary
of the FRFA follows.
Statement of Objective and Need
This action implements management measures to facilitate the
operation of the butterfish fishery, and the butterfish discard cap on
the longfin squid fishery. A complete description of the reasons why
this action was considered, and the objectives of and legal basis for
this action, was in the proposed rule and is not repeated here.
A Summary of the Significant Issues Raised by the Public Comments in
Response to the IRFA, a Summary of the Assessment of the Agency of Such
Issues, and a Statement of Any Changes Made in the Final Rule as a
Result of Such Comments
There were no issues related to the IRFA or the economic impacts of
the rule on affected entities raised in public comments.
Description and Estimate of Number of Small Entities To Which the Rule
Will Apply
Subsequent to Council action related to this proposed rule, the
Small Business Administration revised its small business size standards
for several industries in a final rule effective July 22, 2013. 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. Longfin
squid is technically a shellfish, and would fall under the lower
shellfish fishing standard of $ 5.0 million. Nonetheless, all entities
subject to this action were considered small entities under the former,
lower size standards, and they all would continue to be considered
small under the new standards. Thus, all of the approximately 375
vessels with limited access butterfish/longfin squid permits would
qualify as small businesses.
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 most gross revenue. In
this case, it is very likely the revenue from finfishing was greater
than revenue (if any) from shellfishing, and greater than the revenue
from charterboat fishing. Based on these assumptions, the finfish size
standard would apply to all entities subject to this rule. Under that
standard, a business is considered large only if revenues are greater
than $19 million. Section 5.6 in the Framework 8 EA describes the
vessels, key ports, and revenue information for the longfin squid and
butterfish fisheries; therefore, that information is not repeated here.
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 determine whether any
affected entity is in fact ``large,'' according to SBA's size
standards. 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.
The measures in this action could have some impact on the
approximately 375 vessels with limited access butterfish/longfin squid
permits, all of which qualify as small businesses because their gross
revenues are less than $19 million annually. With a longfin squid price
of approximately $1,600/mt, the fishery's FY 2012 landings totaled 671
mt and generated $1.1 million in ex-vessel revenues.
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.
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
The Council conducted a comprehensive evaluation of the potential
socioeconomic impacts of Framework 8 in the EA (see ADDRESSES), and a
discussion of this evaluation follows.
[[Page 18480]]
Framework 8 adjusts the trimester allocations for the butterfish
cap (Trimester I: 43 percent; Trimester II: 17 percent; Trimester III:
40 percent), and establishes a mechanism that will close each trimester
when it is projected that 95 percent of the trimester allocation has
been harvested (Alternative 2). In addition to the no action
alternative (Alternative 1), Framework 8 also considered allocating 54
percent of the butterfish cap to Trimester I, 10.15 percent to
Trimester II, and 35.85 percent to Trimester III, with 95 percent
closure thresholds for each trimester (Alternative 3). Similar to the
status quo alternative, both of the adjusted allocations considered in
the action alternatives would allow rollovers of quota not used during
trimesters early in the year, and would deduct overages from later
trimesters when the trimester allocations have been exceeded early in
the year.
The alternatives to amend in-season Trimester II closure authority
would result in positive long-term socioeconomic impacts compared to
the status quo because they would: (1) Reduce the chance of acceptable
biological catch (ABC) overages that could reduce long-term butterfish
productivity; (2) avoid distributional issues in the longfin squid
fishery that would occur if Trimester II harvested most (75 percent) of
the butterfish cap; and (3) avoid future disruptions of the fishery if
the status quo led to an ABC overage that had to be repaid.
Compared to the status quo, it is possible that either of the
action alternatives could result in vessel owners losing some squid
revenues in the short term if NMFS closes Trimester II earlier than it
would under the status quo, especially if those revenues are not
recouped later in the year because squid are unavailable. The amount of
potential relative losses is not clear because there have been no
closures at current cap levels on which to base potential economic
impacts. However, the longer-term benefits of reducing the likelihood
of exceeding ABC each year would offset any occasional short-term
losses of revenue.
There are distributional issues in the longfin squid fishery that
would occur if most (75 percent) of the butterfish cap was harvested in
Trimester II. The disparity of allocation percentages between the
current butterfish cap and the longfin squid allocation could cause
unnecessary closures that would be avoided if the allocation
percentages were the same. Under the status quo, Trimester I receives a
large percentage of the cap (65 percent), but Trimester II is not
limited by the cap until 75 percent of the entire annual cap is
reached. This means that no catch might be available in Trimester III
if the combined Trimester I and Trimester II usage of the cap nears 75
percent. The preferred alternative, Alternative 2, would provide
vessels with the opportunity to maximize their longfin squid catch
while avoiding closures due to the butterfish cap. Maximized catch with
no closures would allow for increased and steady revenues for vessels
and the fishery as a whole.
At current cap quota levels, none of the proposed allocations would
be expected to cause a closure as long as the longfin squid fleet
maintains relatively low butterfish discard rates. To ensure that
Trimester III has a reasonable amount of quota, some quota must be
reallocated from Trimesters I and II. At the same time, Trimester II
needs to retain a reasonable quota allocation. The status quo
alternative (Alternative 1) was rejected because it does not reallocate
quota. While both Alternatives 2 and 3 reallocate quota to Trimester
II, Alternative 2 was chosen because it aligns the cap allocation with
the squid allocation. Alternative 3 was rejected because the proposed
allocation scheme could continue regulatory confusion about butterfish
cap allocation levels. Under the preferred alternative, each longfin
squid Trimester is responsible for its butterfish cap, and each
trimester starts with a butterfish cap that matches its longfin squid
allocation. This provides good incentive for vessels to avoid
discarding butterfish each trimester and does not penalize a vessel
fishing in a trimester that had low historical butterfish discards by
giving it a very low quota. By avoiding closures and discouraging
discards, Alternative 2 would maximize potential revenues for the
fishery.
Among the alternatives, Trimester I has the most cap allocation
under the status quo, less under Alternative 3, and least under the
preferred Alternative 2. However, since the offshore fleet fishes in
Trimesters I and III, and the overall purpose is to ensure that a
reasonable amount of cap remains for Trimester III, any disadvantage
from losing cap quota in Trimester I for the offshore fleet may be made
up by improved access to Trimester III.
Framework 8 considered two alternatives to shift quota between the
butterfish cap and butterfish landings: Status quo (Alternative 4) and
the proposed alternative, which would allow for transfers between these
two allocations late in the year in order to optimally utilize the
available butterfish allocation (Alternative 5). The alternative to
shift quota at the end of the year could facilitate some additional
butterfish fishing or additional longfin squid fishing compared to the
status quo, which would have positive economic effects for the
fisheries. The maximum transfer amount is 50 percent of the original
quota, i.e., 50 percent of one could be transferred to the other (50
percent of the landings quota to the cap quota or 50 percent of the cap
quota to landings). As there has been no directed butterfish fishery in
the past, it is not possible to predict the exact amount of landings
this could result in over time, but because the transfer would occur
near the end of the FY, they would probably be limited. Since the
transfer would only be in place after November 15, (or approximately 12
percent of the FY) a substantial amount of effort would have already
taken place earlier in the year, but a transfer could still offer
additional fishing opportunity compared to the status quo. The status
quo alternative (Alternative 4) was rejected because, in certain years,
it could prevent optimal use of the butterfish allocation.
Since the 2013 butterfish landings quota was 2,570 mt, this
provides a starting point for examining the range of benefits that
could accrue from a transfer from butterfish landings to the cap. At
most, one half of the landings quota (1,285 mt) could be transferred.
It is possible that such a transfer could result in reopening of the
longfin fishery for the last 6 weeks of the year, or the longfin squid
fishery staying open when it would have otherwise closed. While the
last 6 weeks of the year have seen relatively low longfin squid
landings recently, late season catches in 2004-2007 demonstrate that
catches of 1-2 million lb (453.6 to 907.1 mt) per week of longfin squid
are possible in the last 6 weeks of the year, which could theoretically
result in additional revenues of approximately $6-$12 million, given
recent longfin squid prices, though this would likely be the high end
of the range.
With the butterfish cap in 2013 set at 3,884 mt, half of that
amount would be 1,942 mt, which would be the most that could be
transferred to butterfish landings. It is possible that 1,942 mt of
butterfish could be landed in 6 weeks, but the price of such landings
is difficult to determine. In recent years, prices have ranged from
$1,400-$1,800 per metric ton, which could theoretically mean additional
revenues of around $3 million dollars, though it is not clear that
recent prices would be maintained at higher landings levels, which
would mean that $3 million should be considered the high end of
possible additional revenues.
[[Page 18481]]
In both of the transfer scenarios, since a transfer would only be
made if it appears the quota would not be used during the FY, there are
no opportunity costs associated with the transfer in terms of other
fishery operations.
Small Entity Compliance Guide
Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
Act of 1996 states that, for each rule or group of related rules for
which an agency is required to prepare a FRFA, the agency will publish
one or more guides to assist small entities in complying with the rule,
and will designate such publications as ``small entity compliance
guides.'' The agency will explain the actions a small entity is
required to take to comply with a rule or group of rules. As part of
this rulemaking process, a letter to permit holders that also serves as
a small entity compliance guide (the guide) was prepared. Copies of
this final rule are available from the Greater Atlantic Regional
Fisheries Office, and the guide (i.e., permit holder letter) will be
sent to all holders of permits for the herring fishery. The guide and
this final rule will be available upon request.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648
Fisheries, Fishing, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
Dated: March 27, 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. 648.22, paragraphs (b)(3)(vi) and (vii) are revised to read
as follows:
Sec. 648.22 Atlantic mackerel, squid, and butterfish specifications.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(3) * * *
(vi) The butterfish mortality cap will be based on a portion of the
ACT (set annually during specifications) and the specified cap amount
will be allocated to the longfin squid fishery as follows: Trimester
I--43 percent; Trimester II--17 percent; and Trimester III--40 percent.
(vii) Any underages of the cap for Trimester I that are greater
than 25 percent of the Trimester I cap will be reallocated to Trimester
II and III (split equally between both trimesters) of the same year.
The reallocation of the cap from Trimester I to Trimester II is
limited, such that the Trimester II cap may only be increased by 50
percent; the remaining portion of the underage will be reallocated to
Trimester III. Any underages of the cap for Trimester I that are less
than 25 percent of the Trimester I quota will be applied to Trimester
III of the same year. Any overages of the cap for Trimesters I and II
will be subtracted from Trimester III of the same year.
* * * * *
0
3. In Sec. 648.24, paragraph (c)(3) is revised and paragraph (c)(5) is
added to read as follows:
Sec. 648.24 Fishery closures and accountability measures.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(3) Butterfish mortality cap on the longfin squid fishery. NMFS
shall close the directed fishery in the EEZ for longfin squid when the
Regional Administrator projects that 95 percent of each Trimester's
butterfish mortality cap allocation has been harvested.
* * * * *
(5) Butterfish allocation transfer. NMFS may transfer up to 50
percent of any unused butterfish allocation from the butterfish DAH to
the butterfish mortality cap on the longfin squid fishery if the
butterfish catch in the longfin squid fishery is likely to result in a
closure of the longfin squid fishery, and provided the transfer does
not increase the likelihood of closing the directed butterfish fishery.
NMFS may instead transfer up to 50 percent of the unused butterfish
catch from the butterfish mortality cap allocation to the butterfish
DAH if harvest of butterfish in the directed butterfish fishery is
likely to exceed the butterfish DAH, and provided the transfer of
butterfish allocation from the butterfish mortality cap allocation does
not increase the likelihood of closing the longfin squid fishery due to
harvest of the butterfish mortality cap. NMFS would make this transfer
on or about November 15 each fishing year, in accordance with the
Administrative Procedure Act.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2014-07416 Filed 4-1-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P