Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 17, 2010 / Proposed Rules 70187 

concerning this proposed rule. We 

encourage the public’s involvement in 

this matter and therefore have 

scheduled a public hearing to be held in 

Honolulu, Oahu, Hawaii. This public 

hearing will be held on January 20, 

2011, at the McCoy Pavilion at the Ala 

Moana Park, 1201 Ala Moana Blvd, 

Honolulu, HI 96814 from 6:30 to 9 p.m. 

NMFS will consider requests for 

additional public hearings that are made 

in writing and received (see ADDRESSES) 

by January 31, 2011. If additional public 

hearings are requested and will be held, 

details regarding location(s), date(s), and 

time(s) will be published in a 

forthcoming Federal Register notice. 

References 

A complete list of all references cited 

herein is available upon request (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Classification 

National Environmental Policy Act 

The 1982 amendments to the ESA, in 

section 4(b)(1)(A), restrict the 

information that may be considered 

when assessing species for listing. Based 

on this limitation of criteria for a listing 

decision and the opinion in Pacific 

Legal Foundation v. Andrus, 657 F. 2d 

829 (6th Cir. 1981), we have concluded 

that ESA listing actions are not subject 

to the environmental assessment 

requirements of the National 

Environmental Policy Act (See NOAA 

Administrative Order 216–6). 

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Flexibility Act, and Paperwork 

Reduction Act 

As noted in the Conference Report on 

the 1982 amendments to the ESA, 

economic impacts cannot be considered 

when assessing the status of a species. 

Therefore, the economic analysis 

requirements of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act are not applicable to the 

listing process. In addition, this 

proposed rule is exempt from review 

under Executive Order 12866. This 

proposed rule does not contain a 

collection-of-information requirement 

for the purposes of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act. 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

In accordance with E.O. 13132, we 

determined that this proposed rule does 

not have significant Federalism effects 

and that a Federalism assessment is not 

required. In keeping with the intent of 

the Administration and Congress to 

provide continuing and meaningful 

dialogue on issues of mutual state and 

Federal interest, this proposed rule will 

be given to the relevant state agencies in 

each state in which the species is 

believed to occur, and those states will 

be invited to comment on this proposal. 

We have conferred with the state of 

Hawaii in the course of assessing the 

status of the Hawaiian insular false 

killer DPS, and considered, among other 

things, Federal, state, and local 

conservation measures. As we proceed, 

we intend to continue engaging in 

informal and formal contacts with the 

state, and other affected local or regional 

entities, giving careful consideration to 

all written and oral comments received. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 224 

Endangered marine and anadromous 

species. 

Dated: November 10, 2010. 

Eric C. Schwaab, 

Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, 50 CFR part 224 is proposed 

to be amended as follows: 

PART 224—ENDANGERED MARINE 

AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES 

1. The authority citation for part 224 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531–1543 and 16 

U.S.C. 1361 et seq. 

§ 224.101 [Amended] 

2. In § 224.101, amend paragraph (b) 

by adding, ‘‘False killer whale 

(Pseudorca crassidens), Hawaiian 

insular distinct population segment’’ in 

alphabetical order. 

[FR Doc. 2010–28843 Filed 11–16–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 648 

[Docket No. 100804323–0544–01] 

RIN 0648–BA03 

Fisheries of the Northeastern United 

States; Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and 

Butterfish Fisheries; Specifications 

and Management Measures 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule, request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes 2011 

specifications and management 

measures for Atlantic mackerel, squid, 

and butterfish (MSB). This action 

proposes to modify the measure that 

transfers Loligo squid (Loligo) quota 

underages from Trimester I to 

Trimesters II and III by limiting the 

Trimester II quota increase to no more 

than 50 percent. This action also 

proposes to revise the 72-hr pre-trip 

observer notification requirement for the 

Loligo fishery to accommodate vessels 

departing for multiple day trips in a 

week. These proposed specifications 

and management measures promote the 

utilization and conservation of the MSB 

resource. 

DATES: Public comments must be 

received no later than 5 p.m., eastern 

standard time, on December 17, 2010. 

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, 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. 

You may submit comments, identified 

by 0648–BA03, by any one of the 

following methods: 

Electronic Submissions: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal e-Rulemaking portal http:// 

www.regulations.gov; 

Fax: (978) 281–9135, Attn: Aja PetersMason; 

Mail to NMFS, Northeast Regional 

Office, 55 Great Republic Dr, 

Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the 

outside of the envelope ‘‘Comments 

on 2011 MSB Specifications.’’ 

Instructions: No comments will be 

posted for public viewing until after the 

comment period has closed. All 

comments received are a part of the 

public record and will generally be 

posted to http://www.regulations.gov 

without change. All Personal Identifying 

Information (for example, name, 

address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by 

the commenter may be publicly 

accessible. Do not submit Confidential 

Business Information or otherwise 

sensitive or protected information. 

NMFS will accept anonymous 

comments (enter N/A in the required 

fields, if you wish to remain 

anonymous). You may submit 

attachments to electronic comments in 

Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or 

Adobe PDF file formats only. 

Written comments regarding the 

burden-hour estimates or other aspects 

of the collection-of-information 

requirements contained in this proposed 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
70188 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 17, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

rule may be submitted to NMFS, 

Northeast Regional Office and by e-mail 

to OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov, or 

fax to 202–395–7285. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Aja 

Peters-Mason, Fishery Policy Analyst, 

978–281–9195, fax 978–281–9135. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Regulations implementing the MSB 

Fishery Management Plan (FMP) appear 

at 50 CFR part 648, subpart B. 

Regulations governing foreign fishing 

appear at 50 CFR part 600, subpart F. 

The regulations at §§ 648.21 and 

600.516(c) 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 amounts of 

the initial optimum yield (IOY), 

allowable biological catch (ABC), 

domestic annual harvest (DAH), and 

domestic annual processing (DAP), as 

well as, where applicable, the amounts 

for 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 specifications to 

be specified for up to 3 years, subject to 

annual review. The regulations at 

§ 648.21 also specify that IOY for Illex 

and Loligo squid is equal to the 

combination of research quota (RQ) 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 mackerel. 

At its June 8–10, 2010, meeting in 

New York, NY, the Council 

recommended MSB specifications for 

the 2011 fishing year. The Council 

considered the recommendations made 

by its Monitoring Committee and 

Scientific and Statistical Committee 

(SSC). The SSC recommends ABC. SSC 

advice accounts for scientific 

uncertainty regarding stock status and 

biological reference points in 

recommending the ABC, and the 

Council relies on that ABC 

recommendation to set other 

specifications. In addition to 2011 

specifications for each of the MSB 

species, the Council recommended a 

modification in the provision that 

transfers Trimester I quota underages to 

Trimesters II and III for the Loligo 

fishery. The Council submitted these 

recommendations, along with the 

required analyses, for agency review on 

July 19, 2010, with final submission on 

September 23, 2010. 

Research Quota 

The Mid-Atlantic Research Set-Aside 

(RSA) Program allows research projects 

to be funded through the sale of fish that 

has been set aside from the total annual 

quota. The RQ may vary between 0 and 

3 percent of the overall quota for each 

species. The Council has recommended 

that 3 percent of the 2011 Illex squid 

(Illex), butterfish, and Atlantic mackerel 

(mackerel) IOY be set aside to fund 

projects selected under the 2011 MidAtlantic RSA Program. For Loligo, only 

330 mt (1.65 percent) is proposed to be 

available for RSA, to reduce impacts on 

butterfish from RSA Loligo fishing. 

NMFS solicited research proposals 

under the 2011 Mid-Atlantic RSA 

Program through the Federal Register 

(75 FR 3092, January 19, 2010). The 

deadline for submission was March 22, 

2010. The project selection and award 

process for the 2011 Mid-Atlantic RSA 

Program has not concluded and, 

therefore, the research quota awards are 

not known at this time. When the 

selection process has been concluded, 

projects requesting RQ will be 

forwarded to the NOAA Grants Office 

for award. If any portion of the RQ is not 

awarded, NMFS will return any unawarded RQ to the commercial fishery 

either through the final 2011 MSB 

specification rulemaking process or 

through the publication of a separate 

notice in the Federal Register notifying 

the public of a quota adjustment. 

Vessels harvesting RQ in support of 

approved research projects would be 

issued exempted fishing permits (EFP) 

authorizing them to exceed Federal 

possession limits and to fish during 

Federal quota closures. The MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens 

Act) requires that interested parties be 

provided an opportunity to comment on 

all proposed EFPs. These exemptions 

are necessary to allow project 

investigators to recover research 

expenses, as well as adequately 

compensate fishing industry 

participants harvesting RQ. Vessels 

harvesting RQ would operate within all 

other regulations that govern the 

commercial fishery, unless otherwise 

exempted through a separate EFP. 

2011 Proposed Specifications and 

Management Measures 

TABLE 1—PROPOSED SPECIFICATIONS, IN METRIC TONS (MT), FOR ATLANTIC MACKEREL, SQUID, AND BUTTERFISH FOR

2011 FISHING YEAR

Specifications Loligo Illex Mackerel Butterfish 

Max OY .................................................................................................................................... 32,000 Unknown Unknown Unknown 

ABC .......................................................................................................................................... 24,000 24,000 47,395 1,500 

IOY ........................................................................................................................................... 20,000 23,328 46,779 500 

DAH .......................................................................................................................................... 20,000 23,328 1 46,779 500 

DAP .......................................................................................................................................... 20,000 23,328 31,779 500 

JVP ........................................................................................................................................... N/A N/A 0 0 

TALFF ...................................................................................................................................... N/A N/A 0 0 

1 Includes a 15,000-mt catch of Atlantic mackerel by the recreational fishery. 

Atlantic Mackerel 

The status of the mackerel stock was 

assessed by the Transboundary 

Resources Assessment Committee 

(TRAC) in March 2010. Though the 

2010 TRAC Status Report indicated 

reduced productivity in the stock and a 

lack of older fish in both the survey and 

catch data, the status of the mackerel 

stock is unknown, because biomass 

reference points could not be 

determined. According to the FMP, 

mackerel ABC must be calculated using 

the formula U.S. 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 fishing 

mortality rate (F). Due to uncertainty in 

the assessment, the TRAC 

recommended that total annual catches 

not exceed the average total landings 

(80,000 mt) over the last 3 years (2006– 

2008) until new information is 

available. Since there is no calculation 

of yield at target F available from the 

most recent assessment, the Council’s 

SSC recommended specifying the stockwide ABC for 2011 at 80,000 mt, 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 17, 2010 / Proposed Rules 70189 

consistent with the TRAC 

recommendation. 

Expected Canadian catch (32,605 mt) 

was derived by examining the 

relationship between U.S. landings in 

one year for the years 1994–2008 and 

the Canadian landings in the next year 

(1995–2009); the two landings series 

were found to be strongly correlated 

(correlation coefficient = 0.86). During 

this time series, Canadian landings in 

one year were on average 1.71 times 

higher than U.S. landings the previous 

year; the relationship can thus be used 

as a scaling factor for determining 

expected Canadian catch. Analysis 

revealed that multiplying U.S. catch in 

one year by 3.218 (95th percentile of 

scaling factors 1994–2009) would have 

underestimated Canadian catch in the 

following year in only 1 out of 15 of 

those ‘‘year pairs.’’ The 95th percentile 

scaling factor was applied to 2010 U.S. 

mackerel catch (10,000 mt prior to July 

1) to derive expected Canadian catch for 

2011 (32,180 mt); this was increased to 

32,605 mt to account for Canadian 

mackerel discards. Subtracting the 

expected 2011 Canadian catch of 32,605 

mt from the stock-wide ABC of 80,000 

mt yields a proposed 2011 U.S. ABC of 

47,395 mt. 

The Magnuson-Stevens 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. TALFF 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. While a 

surplus existed between ABC and DAH 

for many years, that surplus has 

disappeared due to downward 

adjustments of the specifications in 

recent years. Based on analysis and a 

review of the state of the world 

mackerel market and possible increases 

in U.S. production levels, the Council 

concluded that specifying an IOY 

resulting in zero TALFF will yield 

positive social and economic benefits to 

both U.S. harvesters and processors, and 

to the Nation. For these reasons, 

consistent with the Council’s 

recommendation, NMFS proposes to 

specify IOY at a level that can be fully 

harvested by the domestic fleet, thereby 

precluding the specification of a TALFF, 

in order to support the U.S. mackerel 

industry. NMFS concurs that it is 

reasonable to assume that in 2011 the 

commercial fishery has the ability to 

harvest 46,779 mt of mackerel. 

The 2010 TRAC assessment also 

estimated U.S. mackerel discards from 

1989–2008. For the most recent 5 years 

for which complete data are available 

(2004–2008), total discards accounted 

for 1.3 percent of total catch. In order to 

account for discards, the Council 

recommended, and NMFS is proposing, 

specifying the mackerel IOY and DAH at 

46,779 m (ABC minus 1.3 percent for 

discards). The DAH includes 

commercial harvest plus the 15,000 mt 

available for the recreational fishery. 

NMFS proposes to maintain JVP at 

zero (the most recent allocation was 

5,000 mt of JVP in 2004), consistent 

with the Council’s recommendation. In 

the past, the Council recommended a 

JVP greater than zero because it believed 

U.S. processors lacked the ability to 

process the total amount of mackerel 

that U.S. harvesters could land. 

However, for the past 7 years, the 

Council has recommended zero JVP 

because U.S. shoreside processing 

capacity for mackerel has expanded. 

The Council concluded that processing 

capacity was no longer a limiting factor 

relative to domestic production of 

mackerel, even at the higher DAP of 

100,000 mt; this is even more true with 

the proposed DAP of 31,779 mt. 

Atlantic Squids 

Loligo 

Because Loligo is a sub-annual species 

(i.e., has a lifespan of less than 1 year), 

the stock is solely dependent on 

sufficient recruitment year to year to 

prevent stock collapse. Based on advice 

provided in November 2001 by the most 

recent Loligo stock assessment review 

committee meeting (SARC 34), the FMP 

uses fishing mortality rate (F) proxies 

that are fixed values based on average 

fishing mortality rates achieved during 

a time period when the stock biomass 

was fairly resilient (1987–2000). The use 

of a proxy is necessary because it is 

currently not possible to accurately 

predict Loligo stock biomass, because 

recruitment, which occurs throughout 

the year, is highly variable interannually and influenced by changing 

environmental conditions. To determine 

if overfishing is occurring, the FThreshold

proxy is the 75th percentile of fishing 

mortality rates during 1987–2000. The 

FTarget proxy used to determine OY is the 

average F during the same period. 

Using these proxies, the SSC 

recommended a Loligo Max OY of 

32,000 mt, and recommended that 75 

percent of that value, 24,000 mt, be used 

for an ABC. SARC 34 also recommended 

that the Council limit total landings and 

discards to 20,000 mt. Therefore, the 

Council proposed that IOY, DAH, and 

DAP be set at 20,000 mt. 

NMFS concurs with the Council’s 

recommendation; therefore, this action 

proposes a 2011 Loligo Max OY of 

32,000 mt, an ABC of 24,000 mt, and an 

IOY, DAH, and DAP of 20,000 mt. The 

FMP does not authorize the 

specification of JVP and TALFF for the 

Loligo fishery because of the domestic 

industry’s capacity to harvest and 

process the OY for this fishery. 

Distribution of the Loligo DAH 

The proposed 2011 Loligo DAH would 

be allocated into trimesters, according to 

percentages specified in the FMP, as 

follows: 

TABLE 2—PROPOSED TRIMESTER ALLOCATION OF LOLIGO QUOTA IN

2011 

Trimester Percent Metric 

tons 

I (Jan–Apr) ................ 43 8,600 

II (May–Aug) ............. 17 3,400 

III (Sep–Dec) ............ 40 8,000 

Total ................... 100 20,000 

This action proposes to adjust how 

Trimester I underages would be 

distributed among the remaining 

Trimesters. Currently, Trimester I Loligo 

underages greater than 25 percent of the 

Trimester I quota are distributed evenly 

between Trimesters II and III. The 

Council expressed concern that the 

butterfish mortality cap on the Loligo 

fishery, established in 2010 by MSB 

Amendment 10 (75 FR 11441, March 11, 

2010), could result in a substantial 

Trimester I underage if the Loligo 

fishery is closed because the Trimester 

I butterfish catch cap is reached. Under 

current management, this could result 

in a large roll-over of Loligo quota to 

Trimester II, when the butterfish catch 

cap cannot close the fishery. To avoid 

this situation, the Council 

recommended, and NMFS is proposing, 

that the roll-over of quota from 

Trimester I to Trimester II should be no 

more than 50 percent of the Trimester 

II allocation. This proposed adjustment 

will continue to prevent an 

underharvest of the annual quota by 

distributing the quota across the 

remaining trimesters, while reducing 

management uncertainty related to the 

implementation of the butterfish 

mortality cap for the Loligo fishery. 

Adjustment to the Loligo Pre-trip Trip 

Notification Requirement 

The rule proposes to change the 72- 

hr pre-trip observer notification 

requirement established through 

Amendment 10 for vessels issued a 

Loligo and butterfish moratorium 

permit. Starting January 1, 2011, such 

vessels intending to land more than 

2,500 lb of Loligo will be required to 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
70190 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 17, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

notify the NMFS Northeast Fishery 

Observer Program (NEFOP) at least 72 

hr prior to departing on a trip. A large 

number of the Loligo vessels embark on 

multiple trips that last less than 24 hr 

during a single week. In order to reduce 

the burden of this requirement for these 

vessels, this action proposes to 

streamline the requirement such that 

vessels must notify NEFOP at least 72 

hr, but not more than 10 days before 

embarking on a Loligo trip. 

Illex Squid 

The Illex stock was most recently 

assessed at SARC 42 in late 2005. While 

it was not possible to evaluate current 

stock status because there are no reliable 

current estimates of stock biomass or F, 

qualitative analyses determined that 

overfishing had not likely been 

occurring. The SSC recommended an 

ABC of 24,000 mt based on observations 

that catches in this range, and up to 

26,000 mt, have not caused any 

apparent harm to the stock. The Council 

recommended that the IOY be reduced 

to 23,328 mt to account for discards (2.8 

percent of catch) based on the discard 

estimate ratios from the last assessment. 

Consistent with the Council’s 

recommendation, NMFS proposes to 

specify the Illex ABC as 24,000 mt, and 

to specify IOY, DAH, and DAP as 23,328 

mt. The FMP does not authorize the 

specification of JVP and TALFF for the 

Illex fishery because of the domestic 

fishing industry’s capacity to harvest 

and to process the IOY from this fishery. 

Butterfish 

The status of the butterfish stock was 

most recently assessed at SARC 49 in 

February 2010. The estimates of 

butterfish fishing mortality and total 

biomass resulting from SARC 49 are 

highly uncertain, and the final 

assessment report states that it would be 

inappropriate to compare the previous 

status determination criteria from SARC 

38 in 2004 with the current assessment 

estimates of spawning stock biomass 

and fishing mortality, because measures 

of population abundance in the current 

assessment are scaled much higher than 

those in the previous assessment. 

The current status of the butterfish 

stock is unknown, because biomass 

reference points could not be 

determined in the SARC 49 assessment. 

Though the butterfish population 

appears to be declining over time, 

fishing mortality does not seem to be the 

major cause. Butterfish have a high 

natural mortality rate, and the current 

estimated F (F = 0.02) is well below all 

candidate overfishing threshold 

reference points. The assessment report 

noted that predation is likely an 

important component of the butterfish 

natural mortality rate (currently 

assumed to be 0.8), but also noted that 

estimates of consumption of butterfish 

by predators appear to be very low. In 

short, the underlying causes for 

population decline are unknown. 

Given the uncertainty in the 

assessment, the SSC recommended a 

status quo ABC of 1,500 mt. Assuming 

that butterfish discards equal twice the 

level of landings, the amount of 

butterfish discards associated with 500 

mt of landings is approximately 1,000 

mt. 

Therefore, the proposed specifications 

would set the ABC at 1,500 mt, and the 

IOY, DAH, and DAP at 500 mt. 

Additionally, consistent with MSB 

regulations, the Council recommended, 

and NMFS is proposing, zero TALFF for 

butterfish in 2010 because zero TALFF 

is proposed for mackerel. 

Amendment 10 created a butterfish 

mortality cap for the Loligo fishery 

which will go into effect on January 1, 

2011. If the butterfish mortality cap is 

harvested during Trimester I (January– 

April) or Trimester III (September– 

December), the directed Loligo fishery 

will close for the remainder of that 

trimester. The mortality cap is equal to 

75 percent of the butterfish ABC (1,125 

mt). 

Classification 

Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS 

Assistant Administrator has determined 

that this proposed rule is consistent 

with the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and 

Butterfish FMP, other provision of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other 

applicable law, subject to further 

consideration after public comment. 

This proposed rule 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 (RFA). The 

IRFA describes the economic impact 

this proposed rule, if adopted, would 

have on small entities. A summary of 

the analysis follows. A copy of this 

analysis is available from the Council or 

NMFS (see ADDRESSES) or via the 

Internet at http://www.nero.noaa.gov. 

Statement of Objective and Need 

This action proposes 2011 

specifications and management 

measures for mackerel, squid, and 

butterfish, proposes to modify 

accounting procedures for underages of 

Trimester I quotas in the Loligo fishery, 

and proposes to adjust the 72-hr pre-trip 

observer notification requirement for 

Loligo vessels. A complete description 

of the reasons why this action is being 

considered, and the objectives of and 

legal basis for this action, are contained 

in the preamble to this proposed rule 

and are not repeated here. 

Description and Estimate of Number of 

Small Entities to Which the Rule Will 

Apply 

Based on permit data for 2010, the 

numbers of potential fishing vessels in 

the 2011 fisheries are as follows: 360 

Loligo/butterfish moratorium permits, 

76 Illex moratorium permits, 2,156 

mackerel permits, 1,844 incidental 

squid/butterfish permits, and 1,844 

MSB party/charter permits. There are no 

large entities participating in this 

fishery, as defined in section 601 of the 

RFA. Therefore, there are no 

disproportionate economic impacts on 

small entities. Many vessels participate 

in more than one of these fisheries; 

therefore, permit numbers are not 

additive. 

Description of Projected Reporting, 

Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 

Requirements 

This proposed rule contains a change 

to an information collection previously 

approved by the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) under OMB Control 

Number 0648–0601: Atlantic Mackerel, 

Squid, and Butterfish Amendment 10 

Data Collection. This action proposes to 

require that vessels intending to embark 

on Loligo trips notify NEFOP at least 72 

hr, but no more than 10 days before 

their intended departure dates. The 

adjustment will also allow vessels to 

submit an email address for contact. A 

change request has been submitted to 

OMB for approval. This action does not 

duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any 

other Federal rules. 

Minimizing Significant Economic 

Impacts on Small Entities 

Proposed Actions 

The mackerel IOY proposed in this 

action (46,779 mt, with 15,000 mt 

allocated to recreational catch) 

represents a reduction from status quo 

(115,000 mt). Despite the reduction, the 

proposed IOY is above recent U.S. 

landings; mackerel landings for 2007– 

2009 averaged 23,310 mt. Thus, the 

reduction does not pose a constraint to 

vessels relative to the landings in recent 

years. Accordingly, no reductions in 

revenues for the mackerel fishery are 

expected as a result of this proposed 

action. 

The Loligo IOY (20,000 mt) represents 

a slight increase from the status quo 

(19,000 mt). Loligo landings for 2007– 

2009 averaged 11,019 mt. This provides 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 17, 2010 / Proposed Rules 70191 

an opportunity to increase landings, 

though if recent trends continue, there 

may be no increase in landings despite 

the increase in the allocation. No 

reductions in revenues for the Loligo 

fishery are expected as a result of this 

proposed action. 

The Illex IOY (23,328 mt) proposed in 

this action represents a slight decrease 

compared to status quo (24,000 mt). 

Though annual Illex landings have been 

increasing over the past 3 years (9,002 

mt for 2007, 15,900 mt for 2008, and 

18,419 mt for 2009), the landings were 

lower than the level proposed. Thus, 

implementation of this proposed action 

should not result in a reduction in 

revenue or a constraint on expansion of 

the fishery in 2011. 

The butterfish IOY proposed in this 

action (500 mt) represents status quo, as 

compared to 2010, and represents only 

a minimal constraint to vessels relative 

to the landings in recent years. Due to 

market conditions, there has not been a 

directed butterfish fishery in recent 

years; therefore, recent landings have 

been low. Given the lack of a directed 

butterfish fishery and low butterfish 

landings, the proposed action is not 

expected to reduce revenues in this 

fishery more than minimally. 

As discussed in the Final Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) for MSB 

Amendment 10, the butterfish mortality 

cap has a potential for economic impact 

on fishery participants. The Loligo 

fishery will close during Trimesters I 

and III, if the butterfish mortality cap is 

reached. If the Loligo fishery is closed in 

response to butterfish catch before the 

entire Loligo quota is harvested, then a 

loss in revenue is possible. The 

potential for Loligo revenue loss is 

dependent upon the size of the 

butterfish mortality cap, which is based 

on the level of butterfish abundance. As 

the butterfish stock rebuilds, the 

mortality cap will increase, and the 

potential for lost Loligo revenue should 

decrease. When the butterfish stock 

rebuilds, a directed butterfish fishery 

could resume, provided discards are 

kept low, and would have economic 

benefits for fishery participants. 

The accounting methods for Loligo 

trimester underages proposed in this 

action would distribute any substantial 

underage in Trimester I (greater than 25 

percent of the Trimester I quota) 

between Trimester II and III, but would 

limit the transfer of quota such that the 

Trimester II quota could increase by 50 

percent, at most. The proposed 

adjustment may provide some economic 

benefit to the fishery during Trimesters 

II and III because it will allow access to 

underutilized Trimester I quota later in 

the fishing year. 

The proposed change to the pre-trip 

observer notification requirement, 

which would allow vessels to notify at 

least 72 hr, but no more than 10 days 

prior to fishing trips, is an 

administrative measure to facilitate the 

placement of observers aboard the 

Loligo fleet, and is intended to reduce 

the burden of the notification 

requirement for vessels that depart on 

multiple trips in a short period by 

allowing for advance notification. The 

economic burden on fishery participants 

associated with this measure is expected 

to be minimal. 

Alternatives to the Proposed Rule 

The Council analysis evaluated two 

alternatives to the proposed action for 

mackerel. Based on recent harvest 

levels, neither of the ABC and IOY 

alternatives would represent a 

constraint on vessels in this fishery. The 

first alternative (status quo; least 

restrictive), which would have set the 

ABC at 156,000 mt, and IOY at 115,000 

mt, was not selected because the ABC 

would have exceeded the SSC’s 

recommendation. 

As in the proposed action 

(intermediately restrictive), the second 

alternative (most restrictive) started 

from the SSC recommended stockwide 

ABC of 80,000 mt, but instead 

subtracted an estimated 41,556 mt for 

Canadian landings. This would have 

resulted in a U.S. ABC of 38,444 mt, and 

an IOY and DAH of 37,944 mt (U.S. 

ABC minus 1.3 percent for discards). 

For this alternative, expected Canadian 

catch (41,556 mt) was derived by 

examining the relationship between 

Canadian landings in one year (e.g., 

1994) and the Canadian landings 2 years 

later (e.g., 1996); this analysis was 

chosen so that 2009 Canadian landings 

could be used to determine expected 

Canadian landings for 2011. The years 

examined included 1962–2009. Though 

the two landings series were found to be 

strongly correlated (correlation 

coefficient = 0.71), this method of 

deriving expected Canadian catch (and 

the resulting specifications alternative) 

was not selected over the proposed 

alternative. The landings series 

compared in the method used to derive 

2011 Canadian catch in the proposed 

alternative (U.S. landings in one year 

and Canadian landings in the next year) 

were found to have a stronger 

correlation (correlation coefficient = 

0.86) than the landings series compared 

in this alternative. Thus, using the 

Canadian catch derivation method in 

the proposed alternative provides a 

more reliable estimate of 2011 Canadian 

catch. 

There were two alternatives to the 

proposed action evaluated for Loligo. 

Both alternatives set the Max OY at 

32,000 mt, the same level as the 

proposed action. The first alternative 

(status quo) would have set the ABC and 

IOY at 19,000 mt; this alternative was 

not chosen, because it was not 

consistent with the ABC recommended 

by the SSC. The second alternative 

(least restrictive) would have set the 

ABC at the level recommended by the 

SSC (24,000 mt), but would have set the 

IOY at 22,560 mt (ABC reduced by 6 

percent to account for discards). This 

alternative was not adopted by the 

Council because two sources of 

uncertainty, namely the uncertainty 

regarding the discard estimate and the 

management uncertainty regarding the 

operation of the Loligo fishery in 2011, 

given the impending implementation of 

the butterfish mortality cap, warranted 

setting the IOY at the more 

precautionary level specified in the 

proposed action (intermediately 

restrictive). 

The alternatives also differed in how 

Trimester I underages and overages 

would be applied to the Loligo quotas in 

the following Trimesters. The first 

alternative (status quo) would maintain 

the current measure to distribute an 

underage in Trimester I greater than 25 

percent of the Trimester I quota evenly 

between Trimesters II and III. The 

current measure was not considered to 

be sufficient to address management 

uncertainty related to the 

implementation of the butterfish 

mortality cap in 2011. 

Two non-selected alternatives were 

considered for Illex; both would have 

set the ABC at 24,000 mt. The first 

alternative would have set IOY, DAH, 

and DAP at 24,000 mt (status quo; least 

restrictive) rather than 23,328 mt 

specified in the proposed action 

(intermediately restrictive). This 

alternative was not selected because the 

higher specifications were inconsistent 

with the results of the most recent stock 

assessment. The second alternative 

(most restrictive) would have set IOY, 

DAH, and DAP at 22,656 mt (ABC 

reduced by 5.6 percent, based on double 

the discard ratio estimate). The Council 

considered this alternative 

unnecessarily restrictive. 

One non-selected alternative was 

considered for butterfish that would 

maintain the status quo, which only 

differs from the proposed alternative in 

that it would have set Max OY at 12,175 

mt. The proposed alternative would 

remove the specification of Max OY, 

because it is no longer supported by 

available science. All other 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
70192 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 17, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

specifications are identical to the status 

quo alternative. 

This proposed rule contains a 

collection-of-information requirement 

subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act 

(PRA), which was previously approved 

by OMB under OMB Control Number 

0648–0601. The public reporting burden 

for the phone call to declare a Loligo 

fishing trip is estimated to average 2 

min per call per trip. Public burden for 

the phone call to cancel a Loligo trip is 

estimated to average 1 min. Send 

comments regarding these burden 

estimates or any other aspect of this data 

collection, including suggestions for 

reducing the burden, to NMFS (see 

ADDRESSES) and by e-mail to 

OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov, or fax 

to 202–395–7285. 

Notwithstanding any other provision 

of the law, no person is required to 

respond to, and no person shall be 

subject to penalty for failure to comply 

with, a collection of information subject 

to the requirements of the PRA, unless 

that collection of information displays a 

currently valid OMB Control Number. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648 

Fisheries, Fishing, Recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements. 

Dated: November 12, 2010. 

Eric C. Schwaab, 

Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, 

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 § 648.21, paragraph (f)(2) is 

revised to read as follows: 

§ 648.21 Procedures for determining initial 

annual amounts. 

* * * * * 

(f) * * * 

(2) Any underages of commercial 

period quota for Trimester I that are 

greater than 25 percent of the Trimester 

I quota will be reallocated to Trimesters 

II and III of the same year. The 

reallocation of quota from Trimester I to 

Trimester II is limited, such that the 

Trimester II quota may only be 

increased by 50 percent; the remaining 

portion of the underage will be 

reallocated to Trimester III. Any 

underages of commercial period quota 

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 commercial quota for 

Trimesters I and II will be subtracted 

from Trimester III of the same year. 

* * * * * 

3. In § 648.22, paragraph (a)(2)(i) is 

revised to read as follows: 

§ 648.22 Closure of the fishery. 

(a) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(i) If the Regional Administrator 

determines that the Trimester I closure 

threshold has been underharvested by 

25 percent or more, then the amount of 

the underharvest shall be reallocated to 

Trimesters II and III, as specified at 

§ 648.21(f)(2), through notice in the 

Federal Register. 

* * * * * 

4. Section 648.26 as amended at 75 FR 

11450, March 11, 2010, effective January 

1, 2011, and is further amended by 

revising paragraphs (a) and (d) to read 

as follows: 

§ 648.26 Observer requirements for the 

Loligo fishery. 

(a) A vessel issued a Loligo and 

butterfish moratorium permit, as 

specified at § 648.4(a)(5)(i), must, for the 

purposes of observer deployment, have 

a representative provide notice to NMFS 

of the vessel name, vessel permit 

number, contact name for coordination 

of observer deployment, telephone 

number or email address for contact; 

and the date, time, port of departure, 

and approximate trip duration, at least 

72 hr, but no more than 10 days prior 

to beginning any fishing trip, unless it 

complies with the possession 

restrictions in paragraph (c) of this 

section. 

* * * * * 

(d) If a vessel issued a Loligo and 

butterfish moratorium permit, as 

specified at § 648.4(a)(5)(i), intends to 

possess, harvest, or land 2,500 lb (1.13 

mt) or more of Loligo per trip or per 

calendar day, has a representative notify 

NMFS of an upcoming trip, is selected 

by NMFS to carry an observer, and then 

cancels that trip, then the representative 

is required to provide notice to NMFS 

of the vessel name, vessel permit 

number, contact name for coordination 

of observer deployment, and telephone 

number or email for contact, and the 

intended date, time, and port of 

departure for the cancelled trip prior to 

the planned departure time. In addition, 

if a trip selected for observer coverage 

is canceled, then that vessel is required 

to carry an observer, provided an 

observer is available, on its next trip. 

[FR Doc. 2010–29002 Filed 11–16–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 648 

[Docket No. 101029427–0427–01] 

RIN 0648–XY82 

Fisheries of the Northeastern United 

States; Summer Flounder, Scup, and 

Black Sea Bass Fisheries; 2011 

Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black 

Sea Bass Specifications; 2011 

Research Set-Aside Projects 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed specifications; request 

for comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes specifications 

for the 2011 summer flounder, scup, 

and black sea bass fisheries and 

provides notice of three projects that 

may be requesting Exempted Fishing 

Permits (EFPs) as part of the MidAtlantic Fishery Management Council’s 

(Council) Research Set-Aside (RSA) 

program. The implementing regulations 

for the Summer Flounder, Scup, and 

Black Sea Bass Fishery Management 

Plan (FMP) require NMFS to publish 

specifications for the upcoming fishing 

year for each of these species and to 

provide an opportunity for public 

comment. Furthermore, regulations 

under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

(Magnuson-Stevens Act), 16 U.S.C. 1801 

et seq., require a notice to be published 

to provide interested parties the 

opportunity to comment on applications 

for EFPs. The intent of this action is to 

establish 2011 specifications for the 

summer flounder, scup, and black sea 

bass fisheries, and to provide notice of 

EFP requests, in accordance with the 

FMP and Magnuson-Stevens Act. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before December 2, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by RIN 0648–XY82, by any 

one of the following methods: 

• Electronic Submissions: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

• Fax: (978) 281–9135. 

• Mail and Hand Delivery: Patricia A. 

Kurkul, Regional Administrator, NMFS, 

Northeast Regional Office, 55 Great 

Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. 

Mark the outside of the envelope: 

‘‘Comments on 2011 Summer Flounder, 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1