Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 47 / Thursday, March 11, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 11441 

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS 

DIRECTIVES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 39 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. 

§ 39.13 [Amended] 

■ 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding 

the following new AD: 

2010–06–01 Airbus: Amendment 39–16225. 

Docket No. FAA–2009–0649; Directorate 

Identifier 2008–NM–218–AD. 

Effective Date 

(a) This airworthiness directive (AD) 

becomes effective April 15, 2010. 

Affected ADs 

(b) None. 

Applicability 

(c) This AD applies to Airbus Model A319– 

111, –112, –113, –114, –115, –131, –132, and 

–133 airplanes; Model A320–111, –211, 

–212, –214, –231, –232, and –233 airplanes; 

and Model A321–111, –112, –131, –211, 

–212, –213, –231, and –232 airplanes; 

certificated in any category; all manufacturer 

serial numbers (MSN); equipped with 

electronic instrument system 1 (EIS1) 

standard V32 (display management computer 

(DMC)) part number (P/N) 9615325032), EIS1 

standard V40 (DMC P/N 9615325040), or 

EIS1 standard V50 (DMC P/N 9615325050). 

Subject 

(d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of 

America Code 31: Instruments. 

Reason 

(e) The mandatory continuing 

airworthiness information (MCAI) states: 

‘‘Two incidents [of near mid-air collision] 

have occurred on Airbus A320 Family 

aircraft during [a] Resolution Advisory with 

Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System 

(TCAS). One of the Human-Machine Interface 

(HMI) factors was the lack of visibility of 

relevant information on the Primary Flight 

Display (PFD). 

‘‘This condition, if not corrected, could 

result in erroneous interpretation of TCAS 

Resolution Advisories, leading to an 

increased risk of mid-air collision. 

‘‘EIS1 software standard V60 introduces 

modifications to the vertical speed indication 

to further improve the legibility in the case 

of TCAS Resolution Advisory. This 

modification consists of a change in the 

needle colour and thickness and an increase 

in width of the TCAS green band. 

‘‘For the reasons described above, this AD 

requires the introduction of the new software 

standard V60 and prohibits reinstallation of 

earlier software versions V32, V40 and V50.’’ 

Actions and Compliance 

(f) Unless already done, do the following 

actions: 

(1) Within 60 months after the effective 

date of this AD, modify the airplane by 

installing EIS1 software standard V60 (DMC 

P/N 9615325060), in accordance with the 

instructions of Airbus Mandatory Service 

Bulletin A320–31–1286, dated January 22, 

2008. 

(2) After modifying the airplane as required 

by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, no person 

shall install EIS1 software standard V32 

(DMC P/N 9615325032), EIS1 software 

standard V40 (DMC P/N 9615325040), or 

EIS1 software standard V50 (DMC P/N 

9615325050) on that airplane. 

FAA AD Differences 

Note 1: This AD differs from the MCAI 

and/or service information as follows: No 

differences. 

Other FAA AD Provisions 

(g) The following provisions also apply to 

this AD: 

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs): The Manager, International 

Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, FAA, has the authority to 

approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested 

using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. 

Send information to Attn: Tim Dulin, 

Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, 

ANM–116, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, 

Washington 98057–3356; telephone (425) 

227–2141; fax (425) 227–1149. Before using 

any approved AMOC on any airplane to 

which the AMOC applies, notify your 

principal maintenance inspector (PMI) or 

principal avionics inspector (PAI), as 

appropriate, or lacking a principal inspector, 

your local Flight Standards District Office. 

(2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement 

in this AD to obtain corrective actions from 

a manufacturer or other source, use these 

actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective 

actions are considered FAA-approved if they 

are approved by the State of Design Authority 

(or their delegated agent). You are required 

to assure the product is airworthy before it 

is returned to service. 

(3) Reporting Requirements: For any 

reporting requirement in this AD, under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act 

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) has 

approved the information collection 

requirements and has assigned OMB Control 

Number 2120–0056. 

Related Information 

(h) Refer to MCAI European Aviation 

Safety Agency Airworthiness Directive 2008– 

0198, dated November 4, 2008; and Airbus 

Mandatory Service Bulletin A320–31–1286, 

dated January 22, 2008; for related 

information. 

Material Incorporated by Reference 

(i) You must use Airbus Mandatory Service 

Bulletin A320–31–1286, dated January 22, 

2008, to do the actions required by this AD, 

unless the AD specifies otherwise. 

(1) The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference of 

this service information under 5 U.S.C. 

552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. 

(2) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Airbus, Airworthiness 

Office—EAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 

31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 

5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; e-mail: 

account.airworth-eas@airbus.com; Internet 

http://www.airbus.com. 

(3) You may review copies of the service 

information at the FAA, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, 

Washington. For information on the 

availability of this material at the FAA, call 

425–227–1221 or 425–227–1152. 

(4) You may also review copies of the 

service information that is incorporated by 

reference at the National Archives and 

Records Administration (NARA). For 

information on the availability of this 

material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, or go 

to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/ 

code_of_federal_regulations/ 

ibr_locations.html. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 

25, 2010. 

Jeffrey E. Duven, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–4876 Filed 3–10–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

15 CFR Part 902 

50 CFR Part 648 

[Docket No.: 0907021105–0024–03] 

RIN 0648–AY00 

Fisheries of the Northeastern United 

States; Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and 

Butterfish Fisheries; Amendment 10 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: NMFS is implementing 

approved measures in Amendment 10 to 

the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and 

Butterfish (MSB) Fishery Management 

Plan (FMP). Amendment 10 was 

developed by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery 

Management Council (Council) to bring 

the FMP into compliance with 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

(Magnuson-Stevens Act) requirements 

by establishing a rebuilding program 

that allows the butterfish stock to 

rebuild and protects the long-term 

health and stability of the stock; and by 

minimizing bycatch and the fishing 

mortality of unavoidable bycatch, to the 

extent practicable, in the MSB fisheries. 

Amendment 10 increases the minimum 

codend mesh size requirement for the 

Loligo squid (Loligo) fishery; establishes 

a butterfish rebuilding program with a 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
11442 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 47 / Thursday, March 11, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

butterfish mortality cap for the Loligo 

fishery; establishes a 72-hr trip 

notification requirement for the Loligo 

fishery; and requires an annual 

assessment of the butterfish rebuilding 

program by the Council’s Scientific and 

Statistical Committee (SSC). This rule 

also makes minor, technical corrections 

to the existing regulations. 

DATES: Effective April 12, 2010, except 

for the following: 

1. The amendments to § 648.23(a)(3) 

introductory text and § 648.23(a)(3)(i), 

which are effective September 13, 2010; 

2. The addition of 

§§ 648.21(b)(3)(iii)—(iv), 648.22(a)(5), 

and § 648.26, which are effective 

January 1, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: A final supplemental 

environmental impact statement (FSEIS) 

was prepared for Amendment 10 that 

describes the proposed action and other 

considered alternatives and provides a 

thorough analysis of the impacts of the 

approved measures and alternatives. 

Copies of Amendment 10, including the 

FSEIS, the Regulatory Impact Review 

(RIR), and the 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 

FSEIS/RIR/IRFA is accessible via the 

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

Written comments regarding the 

burden-hour estimates or other aspects 

of the collection-of-information 

requirement contained in this rule 

should be submitted to the Regional 

Administrator of the Northeast Regional 

Office at 55 Great Republic Drive, 

Gloucester, MA 01930, and by e-mail to 

David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov, or fax to 

202–395–7285. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Carrie Nordeen, Fishery Policy Analyst, 

978–281–9272, fax 978–281–9135. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

This amendment was developed to 

bring the MSB FMP into compliance 

with Magnuson-Stevens Act 

requirements by: (1) Implementing a 

rebuilding program that allows the 

butterfish stock to rebuild, and protects 

the long-term health and stability of the 

stock; and (2) minimizing bycatch, and 

the fishing mortality of unavoidable 

bycatch, to the extent practicable, in the 

MSB fisheries. 

In February 2005, NMFS notified the 

Council that the butterfish stock was 

overfished, which triggered MagnusonStevens Act requirements to implement 

rebuilding measures for the stock. In 

response, an amendment to the MSB 

FMP was initiated by the Council in 

October 2005. The Council prepared a 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

(DEIS) to evaluate various alternatives to 

rebuild butterfish and reduce bycatch, 

to the extent practicable. The DEIS 

comment period ended June 23, 2008. 

The Council held three public meetings 

on Amendment 10 during June 2008, 

and adopted Amendment 10 on October 

16, 2008. The Notice of Availability 

(NOA) for Amendment 10 was 

published on July 14, 2009 (74 FR 

33986), with a comment period ending 

on September 14, 2009. A proposed rule 

for Amendment 10 was published on 

September 3, 2009 (74 FR 45597), with 

a comment period ending on October 

19, 2009. On October 9, 2009, NMFS 

approved Amendment 10 on behalf of 

the Secretary of Commerce. 

This rule implements a rebuilding 

program for butterfish with measures 

that: Increase the minimum codend 

mesh requirement for the Loligo fishery 

from 17⁄8 inches (48 mm) to 21⁄8 inches 

(54 mm) during Trimesters I (Jan–Apr) 

and III (Sep–Dec), starting in 2010; 

establish a butterfish mortality cap 

program for the Loligo fishery, starting 

in 2011; establish a 72-hour trip 

notification requirement for the Loligo 

fishery, to facilitate the placement of 

NMFS observers on Loligo trips, starting 

in 2011; and require an annual 

assessment of the butterfish mortality 

cap program by the Council’s SSC and, 

if necessary, implementation of 

additional butterfish rebuilding 

measures through the annual 

specifications process. The proposed 

rule includes detailed information about 

the Council’s development of these 

measures, and that discussion is not 

repeated here. 

Subsequent to the development, 

submission and approval of 

Amendment 10, the 49th Northeast 

Regional Stock Assessment Workshop 

(SAW 49) results, published in January 

2010, provided updated estimates of 

butterfish fishing mortality and stock 

biomass. The results were not available 

for the Amendment 10 review and 

approval on October 9, 2009. The 

estimates of butterfish fishing mortality 

and total biomass resulting from SAW 

49 are highly uncertain, and the final 

assessment report states that it would be 

inappropriate to compare the previous 

status determination criteria from SAW 

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 SAW 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 fishing mortality rate (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. Amendment 10 

recommends that butterfish acceptable 

biological catch (ABC) be derived from 

applying an F of 0.1 to the most current 

estimate of stock biomass. In the 

absence of a current stock biomass 

estimate and reliable estimate of natural 

mortality, this methodology will need to 

be reconsidered when the Council’s SSC 

next recommends a butterfish ABC. 

Despite the considerable uncertainty 

in the recent assessment, there was no 

evidence presented that suggests that 

the status of the butterfish stock has 

improved since the 2004 SAW 38 

assessment. Thus NMFS has the 

responsibility to implement measures to 

reduce bycatch in MSB fisheries to the 

extent practicable and that promote the 

long-term health and stability of the 

butterfish stock. The approved 

Amendment 10 butterfish rebuilding 

program and Loligo codend mesh size 

increase will limit butterfish discards 

and promote butterfish recruitment over 

a defined time period, while also 

reducing the bycatch and discard of 

other non-target species in the Loligo 

fishery. These measures are necessary to 

meet the objectives and requirements of 

the Magnuson-Stevens Act. 

Butterfish Rebuilding Program 

This action establishes a 5-year 

butterfish rebuilding program, 

extending from 2010 through 2014. In 

2004, when the SAW 38 determined 

that butterfish was overfished, it 

advised that rebuilding of the butterfish 

stock will be dependent upon increases 

in recruitment, which recently has been 

low to intermediate. Rebuilding is 

further complicated because the natural 

mortality rate of butterfish is high, 

butterfish have a short lifespan, and 

fishing mortality is primarily attributed 

to discards (discards have been 

estimated to equal twice the annual 

landings). Analyses have shown that the 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 47 / Thursday, March 11, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 11443 

primary source of butterfish discards is 

the Loligo fishery because of the use of 

small-mesh, diamond codends (17⁄8- 

inches (48-mm) minimum codend mesh 

size) and the year-round, co-occurrence 

of butterfish and Loligo. Likely due to 

the lack of a market for butterfish, and 

sporadic butterfish availability, there 

has not been a significant butterfish 

fishery since 2002 (recent annual 

landings have been 437–544 mt), 

resulting in the discard of both 

butterfish juveniles and spawning stock. 

In order to rebuild the butterfish 

stock, a reduction of the amount of 

butterfish discards and an increase in 

butterfish recruitment are both 

necessary. This action implements 

measures to reduce the fishing mortality 

on butterfish that occurs as the result of 

discards in the Loligo fishery, which is 

the primary source of butterfish discard 

mortality. These measures are expected 

to also reduce the bycatch of other 

finfish species. 

The Amendment 10 analyses indicate 

that the stock can be rebuilt by 2014. 

This conclusion is supported by the 

SSC-reviewed auto-regressive (AR) time 

series model output in Amendment 10, 

which suggests that the butterfish stock 

is able to rebuild within 1 year, 

provided long-term average recruitment 

occurs and F is kept at 0.1. Assuming 

future butterfish recruitment is similar 

to butterfish recruitment seen during 

1968–2002, implementing the butterfish 

mortality cap in 2011 achieves an 88- 

percent probability of at least one large 

recruitment event occurring during 

years 2–5 of the butterfish rebuilding 

period. 

During Year 1 (2010) of the rebuilding 

program, the minimum codend mesh 

size requirement will increase to 21⁄8

inches (54 mm); this rule allows 

participants in the Loligo fishery 6 

months to obtain the larger mesh 

necessary to comply with this 

requirement, so the provision will 

initially take effect in Trimester III. This 

measure allows for increased 

escapement of some juvenile butterfish. 

Starting in Year 2 (2011) of the 

rebuilding program, the butterfish 

mortality cap for the Loligo fishery will 

be implemented to directly control 

butterfish catch (landings and discards 

of all ages) in the Loligo fishery, which 

is the primary source of butterfish 

fishing mortality. This will facilitate 

rebuilding of the stock and protection of 

the rebuilt stock. Amendment 10 

recommends that, during the rebuilding 

period, the butterfish quota will be set 

through the specifications process, and 

that that butterfish ABC will be equal to 

the yield associated with applying an F 

of 0.1 to the most current estimate of 

stock biomass. As mentioned above, 

because the SAW 49 butterfish stock 

assessment did not provide a reliable 

estimate of stock biomass or natural 

mortality, this methodology will need to 

be reconsidered when the SSC 

recommends butterfish ABC. Once the 

stock is determined to be rebuilt, ABC 

will be specified according to the 

fishing mortality control rule currently 

specified in the FMP (i.e., the yield 

associated with 75 of percent FMSY). 

Initial Optimum Yield (IOY), Domestic 

Annual Harvest (DAH), Domestic 

Annual Processing (DAP) and research 

quota will continue to be specified as 

they are currently, with DAH equaling 

the amount available for landings after 

the deduction of estimated discards 

from ABC. This process may be 

modified to more explicitly account for 

scientific and management uncertainty 

in the Council’s Omnibus Annual Catch 

Limit and Accountability Measure 

Amendment, expected to be 

implemented in 2011. 

Minimum Codend Mesh Size Increase 

for the Loligo Fishery 

This action increases the minimum 

codend mesh size for otter trawl vessels 

issued Federal permits to possess Loligo 

squid harvested in or from the Exclusive 

Economic Zone (EEZ), which, with 

limited exceptions not applicable here, 

is U.S. waters 3–200 nm from shore. By 

virtue of being issued a Federal permit, 

such vessels are subject to this mesh 

requirement irrespective of whether 

they fish in the EEZ or in State waters. 

The minimum mesh size is increased 

from 17⁄8 inches (48 mm) to 21⁄8 inches 

(54 mm) for such vessels during 

Trimester I (January–April) and 

Trimester III (September–December). 

The minimum mesh size of 17⁄8 inches 

(48 mm) is maintained for these vessels 

during Trimester II (May–August). 

Amendment 10 specifies that the 

Council will re-evaluate the effects of 

the minimum codend mesh size 

increase after the measure has been in 

effect for 2 years. The evaluation will 

involve the review of Northeast 

Fisheries Observer Program (NEFOP) 

catch rate data, before and after the 

mesh size increase, for both Loligo and 

non-target species, as well as any other 

new scientific information (e.g., gear 

selectivity information). The results of 

the evaluation will be used to maintain 

or revise the minimum codend mesh 

size requirement for the Loligo fishery 

through the MSB specifications process. 

Butterfish Mortality Cap 

The butterfish mortality cap will 

account for all butterfish caught by the 

Loligo fishery (discards as well as 

landings), and will be specified to equal 

75 percent of the butterfish ABC. The 

remaining 25 percent of the butterfish 

ABC will be allocated for butterfish 

catch in other fisheries, including trips 

landing less than 2,500 lb (1.13 mt) of 

Loligo. 

Harvesting in the Loligo squid fishery 

is currently regulated under a 

commercial quota, which is allocated by 

trimester (Trimester I = Jan–Apr; 

Trimester II = May–Aug; Trimester III = 

Sept–Dec). During each trimester, if 

Loligo landings are projected to reach a 

specified level, the directed Loligo 

fishery is closed, and vessels with Loligo 

permits are prohibited from landing 

more than 2,500 lb (1.13 mt) of Loligo. 

The butterfish mortality cap is also 

allocated by trimester, as follows: 

Trimester I–65 percent; Trimester II–3.3 

percent; Trimester III–31.7 percent. This 

action specifies that the directed Loligo 

fishery will close during Trimesters I 

and III, if the butterfish mortality cap is 

harvested, but will not close during 

Trimester II. Because the butterfish 

mortality cap allocated to Trimester II is 

relatively small (3.3 percent of the total 

butterfish mortality cap) and butterfish 

bycatch during Trimester II has 

historically been low, closure 

predictions would be based on limited 

data. To minimize uncertainty 

associated with closing the directed 

Loligo fishery during Trimester II, both 

the butterfish catch and the butterfish 

mortality cap for Trimester II are 

applied to Trimester III. Therefore, 

operationally, the butterfish mortality 

caps from Trimesters II and III are 

combined, such that 35 percent of the 

total butterfish mortality cap is tracked 

during Trimester III. Additionally, any 

overages/underages from the butterfish 

mortality cap during Trimester I apply 

to Trimester III. As a precaution against 

exceeding the butterfish quota, the 

Loligo fishery is closed when 

projections indicate that 80 percent of 

the butterfish mortality cap for 

Trimester I is projected to be caught, 

and/or if 90 percent of the annual total 

butterfish mortality cap is projected to 

be harvested in Trimester III. If 

Trimester II bycatch levels are high, 

reducing the butterfish mortality cap for 

Trimester III, the Council may 

recommend an inseason closure 

mechanism for Trimester II in future 

specifications. 

The butterfish mortality cap will be 

monitored by NMFS’s Northeast 

Regional Fishery Statistics Office (FSO). 

Butterfish catch data from observed 

trips with 2,500 lb (1.13 mt) or more of 

Loligo onboard will be applied to Loligo 

landings (2,500 lb (1,134 kg) or more) in 

the dealer database to calculate total 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
11444 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 47 / Thursday, March 11, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

butterfish catch in the Loligo fishery. 

When butterfish catch in the Loligo 

fishery is projected to reach the 

specified trimester closure thresholds, 

the directed Loligo fishery will close. 

The Amendment specifies that a 

weighted average of the current and 

previous year’s observer data will be 

used to monitor the butterfish catch in 

the Loligo fishery. The exact projection 

methodology will be developed by FSO, 

reviewed annually during the MSB 

specifications process, and be revised as 

appropriate. 

Trip Notification Requirement 

To facilitate the placement of 

observers on Loligo trips, Amendment 

10 establishes a trip notification 

requirement. In order for a vessel to 

possess 2,500 lb (1.13 mt) or more of 

Loligo, a vessel representative will be 

required to phone NMFS to request an 

observer at least 72 hr prior to 

embarking on a fishing trip. If the vessel 

representative does not make this 

required trip notification to NMFS, the 

vessel will be prohibited from 

possessing or landing more than 2,500 

lb (1,134 kg) of Loligo. If a vessel is 

selected by NMFS to carry an observer, 

the vessel will be required to carry an 

observer (provided an observer is 

available) or the vessel will be 

prohibited from possessing or landing 

more than 2,500 lb (1,134 kg) of Loligo. 

If a trip is cancelled, a vessel 

representative will be required to notify 

NMFS of the cancelled trip (even if the 

vessel was not selected to carry an 

observer). If a vessel representative 

cancels a trip after its vessel is selected 

to carry an observer, that vessel will be 

assigned an observer on its next trip. 

Annual Assessment of Butterfish 

Mortality Cap 

The SSC will annually review the 

performance of the butterfish mortality 

cap program during the specification 

process. The items considered by the 

SSC will include, but are not limited to 

the: Coefficient of variation (CV) of the 

butterfish bycatch estimate; estimate of 

butterfish mortality; and status and 

trends of the butterfish stock. If the CV 

of the butterfish mortality estimate or 

another butterfish mortality cap 

performance parameter is found to be 

unacceptable by the SSC, NEFOP will 

be consulted to evaluate if observer 

coverage can be increased to acceptable 

levels. If increasing NEFOP coverage is 

not possible, the Council would next 

consider implementation of an industryfunded observer program in a 

subsequent action. If increased observer 

coverage proves impractical or 

ineffective, the SSC could recommend 

one or more of following for the 

upcoming fishing year: 

(1) Modification to the Loligo quota; 

(2) Modification to the butterfish 

quota; 

(3) Increases to minimum codend 

mesh size for the Loligo fishery; 

(4) Establishing Gear Restricted Areas 

(GRAs); or 

(5) Establishing any measure that 

could be implemented via the MSB 

specification process. 

If the Council does not adopt the SSC 

recommendations, then NMFS will 

implement measures through the MSB 

annual specifications process to assure 

the rebuilding of the butterfish stock, 

consistent with existing MSB 

regulations at § 648.21(d)(2). 

The butterfish mortality cap is 

allocated 75 percent of the butterfish 

ABC, which leaves the remaining 25 

percent of the butterfish ABC to account 

for direct harvest and discard mortality 

in other fisheries. Butterfish landings 

and observed discards in these fisheries 

will be reviewed as part of the SSC’s 

annual assessment of the performance of 

the butterfish mortality cap program 

during the specification process. If 

butterfish landings and observed 

discards in other fisheries are found to 

exceed the 25-percent allocation, then 

the allocation of the butterfish quota 

between the Loligo fishery and other 

fisheries can be revised, or other 

measures (e.g., reduced trip limits) can 

be implemented to constrain the 

butterfish catch in other fisheries to 25 

percent of the butterfish ABC. 

Technical Corrections 

This final rule also makes minor 

technical corrections to existing 

regulations. These corrections do not 

revise the intent of any regulations; they 

only clarify the intent of existing 

regulations by correcting technical 

errors. In § 648.48.13(a), transfer-at-sea 

requirements for squid and butterfish 

are revised to omit references to a 

mackerel permit. In § 648.14(g)(2)(ii)(C), 

the reference to possession allowances 

is corrected. In § 648.21(f)(1), the 

description of Loligo trimesters is 

corrected. Lastly, in § 648.25(a), 

possession restrictions for mackerel is 

revised to omit references to the 

butterfish fishery. 

Comments and Responses 

NMFS received two comments during 

the comment period relating to the 

NOA, one from an environmental group 

and the other from an individual. An 

additional five comment letters were 

received on the proposed rule for 

Amendment 10; letters were from two 

environmental groups, one industry 

representative, and two individuals. 

Several issues that are not relevant to 

Amendment 10 were raised by various 

commenters; only the comments 

relevant to Amendment 10 are 

addressed below. 

Comment 1: In a comment relating to 

the NOA, an environmental group urged 

NMFS to disapprove Amendment 10 

because, in its view, it does not 

minimize bycatch to the extent 

practicable. The commenter expressed 

the view that the butterfish mortality 

cap and increased minimum mesh size 

in Amendment 10 are insufficient and 

do not do enough to address bycatch of 

species other than butterfish. They 

noted that the Loligo fishery accounts 

for more than 10 percent of the observed 

discards of 12 species, including 

summer flounder, scup, silver hake, red 

hake, and spiny dogfish. They stated 

that Amendment 10 indicates that the 

implementation of the GRAs would 

reduce discards of several of species 

other than butterfish. In their view, the 

implementation of a larger minimum 

mesh size would allow greater 

escapement of both squid and finfish, 

while still allowing capture of both at 

larger sizes and the mitigation of earlier 

harvest losses. 

The commenters also contended that 

Amendment 10 fails to demonstrate that 

the other bycatch reduction measures 

considered were impracticable, and fails 

to assess the benefits of other possible 

alternatives against the potential costs. 

They cited discussion in the document 

that indicates that an increase in the 

minimum mesh size requirement for the 

Illex fishery would have no measurable 

socioeconomic impacts. They noted 

their view that the analysis of the GRAs 

indicates a range of potential economic 

losses, but also concludes that it is 

difficult to predict the economic 

impacts because of uncertainty about 

the changes in fishing activity that 

would occur in response to the measure 

(including effort shifts and the 

possibility that vessels could continue 

to fish within the GRAs with the larger 

mesh size). 

The commenters questioned the 

meaning of the statement in the 

amendment that the only way to 

determine practicability of the larger 

minimum mesh size increases would be 

to evaluate the impacts of the initial 

increase for 2 years because they do not 

understand what information this 

process will yield concerning the 

practicability of mesh sizes larger than 

21⁄8 inches (54 mm). They argued that a 

commitment to continue to study 

bycatch reduction measures does not 

satisfy legal requirements. They also 

advocated for the implementation of the 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 47 / Thursday, March 11, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 11445 

butterfish mortality cap in 2010, rather 

than 2011. 

Response 1: The points summarized 

above were considered when NMFS 

made the decision to approve 

Amendment 10. The commenters, along 

with other groups, raised these concerns 

on many occasions during the 

development Amendment 10, and 

included them in comments submitted 

during the public comment period for 

the DEIS. The points were considered 

by the Council and responded to in the 

FSEIS. The Council explained in that 

document that the butterfish mortality 

cap and increased minimum mesh size 

were selected by the Council to rebuild 

butterfish and reduce bycatch, while 

also avoiding the potential negative 

revenue impacts associated with GRAs 

and larger minimum mesh sizes. These 

include revenue loss due to Loligo 

escapement if a larger minimum mesh 

size were to be implemented for the 

entire fishery, and lost revenue related 

to Loligo escapement from the larger 

mesh sizes imposed in the proposed 

GRAs. 

While the measures were adopted in 

large part because of the anticipated 

effect they will have in reducing 

butterfish bycatch and rebuilding the 

butterfish stock, the measures will also 

reduce bycatch of other species by the 

Loligo fishery. In particular, from 2001 

to 2006, the Loligo fishery was 

responsible for 7, 8, 56, 31, and 10 

percent of all NEFOP discards of 

summer flounder, scup, silver hake, red 

hake and spiny dogfish, respectively. 

Measures that reduce fishing effort in 

MSB fisheries, such as the butterfish 

mortality cap, are likely to reduce all 

non-target species discarding. In 

addition, available selectivity analyses 

provide evidence for increased 

escapement of juvenile butterfish (less 

than 12 cm or 43⁄4 inches in length) at 

codend mesh sizes above the current 

minimum. The combination of measures 

in Amendment 10 was adopted by the 

Council because, combined, they have a 

higher potential to reduce bycatch in 

MSB fisheries than the measures that 

would have eliminated exemptions for 

Illex vessels from Loligo minimum 

codend mesh-size requirements and 

established seasonal GRAs. 

The FSEIS analysis suggests that the 

total or partial elimination of the meshsize exemption for the Illex fishery 

would only produce modest reductions 

in bycatch and discards of juvenile 

butterfish. NEFOP data show that the 

Illex fishery accounts for only 7 percent 

of annual butterfish discards. The 

Council concluded that, though the 

measure might only have limited 

impacts on the Illex fishery, the 

marginal reduction in juvenile 

butterfish discards did not warrant the 

partial or total discontinuation of the 

exemption. 

The percentage of total bottom otter 

trawl butterfish discards that occur in 

the proposed GRAs ranged from 16 to 36 

percent. These percentages represent the 

maximum amount of discard reduction 

that would be associated with the GRAs; 

the redirection of fishing activity to 

areas outside of the GRAs would also 

cause butterfish discards. These 

reductions were found to be insufficient 

when compared to the potential 

negative impact on vessels that use 

bottom otter trawl gear in the proposed 

GRAs. 

NMFS notes that the NOA commenter 

advocated contradictory positions by 

seeking to have the butterfish mortality 

cap implemented in 2010, but also to 

have the amendment disapproved. 

Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 

NMFS has the authority only to 

approve, partially approve, or 

disapprove an FMP amendment. NMFS 

does not have the authority to select 

alternatives that were not proposed by 

the Council, or to modify elements of 

the measures that were proposed by the 

Council. 

Comment 2: Concerns similar to those 

expressed during the NOA comment 

period were expressed in comments 

submitted by this environmental 

organization on the proposed rule, and 

in comments submitted by a second 

environmental group on the proposed 

rule. Additional points made in these 

comments included their view that the 

analysis of the alternatives that would 

have required a larger minimum mesh 

for the Loligo fishery indicates that the 

Loligo fishery could be profitably 

engaged in using larger mesh sizes, and 

they contended that the only argument 

made in the amendment to the contrary 

is based on statements by industry 

representatives that the loss of Loligo 

would be substantial. In addition, they 

noted that the analyses in the 

amendment show that the 21⁄8-inch (54- 

mm) minimum mesh size is predicted to 

have limited benefits to butterfish 

because escapement will be low. They 

argue that the bycatch reduction 

measures in Amendment 10 violate both 

the Magnuson-Stevens Act National 

Standard 2 requirement to use the best 

scientific information available, and the 

National Standard 9 requirement to 

reduce bycatch to the extent practicable. 

An individual opposed the continued 

use of the smaller minimum mesh 

during Trimester II because most of the 

smaller fish and squid are caught during 

this period. The industry group opposed 

the proposed minimum mesh size 

increase on the grounds that the 

increase will result in reduced 

efficiency of squid gear, which will 

translate to higher operating costs for 

Loligo vessels. 

Response 2: Amendment 10 does 

indicate that the selected minimum 

codend mesh size increase (to 21⁄8

inches (54 mm)) will be less effective 

than more substantial mesh size 

increases in rebuilding the butterfish 

stock or minimizing bycatch in the MSB 

fisheries. However, given the lack of 

published gear studies on Loligo 

selectivity, the Council decided that the 

best way to determine the practicability 

of bycatch reduction associated with the 

range of mesh size alternatives 

presented in Amendment 10 would be 

to proceed with a modest codend mesh 

size increase, and then use observer data 

and other available scientific 

information to evaluate the impacts of 

the mesh size increase for 2 years. The 

results of the practicability assessment 

will be used for subsequent decisions to 

lower, maintain, or raise the minimum 

codend mesh size requirements for the 

Loligo fishery. 

Amendment 10 specifies that, if the 

Council selected the butterfish mortality 

cap for implementation, then it would 

not consider requiring a minimum mesh 

sizes for the Loligo fishery greater than 

21⁄2 inches (64 mm) because the 

butterfish mortality cap would provide 

the primary protection for butterfish. 

The Council was concerned that the 

mesh size increase would add to the 

economic burden imposed by the 

mortality cap program; the mortality cap 

program alone will reduce general 

discarding only when the Loligo fishery 

is closed. Analysis of NEFOP and Vessel 

Trip Report (VTR) data suggests that 

nearly 40 percent of Loligo landings are 

currently taken by vessels using mesh 

sizes 23⁄8 inches (60 mm) and larger, 

which contradicts the industry claim 

that larger mesh size increases would 

affect the profitability of the Loligo 

fishery. Industry members expressed 

concern throughout the development of 

Amendment 10 that mesh size increases 

would affect the profitability of the 

Loligo fishery by reducing Loligo catch 

for the owners of vessels that use 

smaller mesh sizes. 

Originally, the amendment 

considered a year-round minimum 

codend mesh size increase for the Loligo 

fishery. During public comment on the 

amendment, industry members 

commented that discards were generally 

low during Trimester II. Analyses in the 

amendment support the industry’s 

belief that discards of butterfish and 

other finfish species were low during 

Trimester II. The Loligo quota allocated 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
11446 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 47 / Thursday, March 11, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

to Trimester II is only 17 percent of the 

annual quota, so even if the mesh-size 

increase is not in effect for Trimester II, 

it is still in effect during the harvesting 

of over 80 percent of the quota. 

Comment 3: Both environmental 

groups opposed the delay in 

implementation of the butterfish 

mortality cap to 2011, noting that this 

represents additional delay in 

addressing the need to rebuild 

butterfish. They noted that the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act required the 

Council to develop a rebuilding plan for 

butterfish within a year of the February 

2005 notification that butterfish was 

overfished. They noted that once the 

Council had missed this deadline, 

NMFS should have stepped in and 

developed a rebuilding plan within 9 

months. They contended that the 

Council’s statement that it wanted to 

use the results of the 2009 butterfish 

stock assessment is not sufficient 

argument because they believe that the 

results of the stock assessment could be 

available soon enough to implement the 

mortality cap midyear through the 

existing inseason quota adjustment 

provision. One group noted that, 

because the rebuilding plan relies 

heavily on improved recruitment, 

failing to protect a single favorable 

recruitment event during the rebuilding 

period could prove disastrous. 

Response 3: NMFS agrees that the 

Council did not develop a rebuilding 

plan for butterfish within 1 year of the 

notification that the stock was 

overfished. However, NMFS did not 

prepare an amendment to institute a 

rebulilding plan because the Council 

continued to actively work on the issue. 

As industry members testified on many 

occasions, bycatch reduction in the 

Loligo fishery will require the industry 

to voluntarily use fishing practices that 

reduce interactions with prohibited or 

unwanted species. NMFS believes that 

it was better to allow the Council to 

complete the public process for 

Amendment 10, than to intervene. 

As explained in Amendment 10, the 

butterfish mortality cap will be 

implemented in the second year of the 

rebuilding plan (2011). The Council had 

several reasons for this. First, it 

determined that it was necessary in 

order to use information from the 2009 

updated butterfish stock assessment 

when setting values for the butterfish 

mortality cap. The suggestion by the 

commenter that the new stock 

assessment information could be 

effectively used to implement the 

butterfish mortality cap during the 2010 

fishing season is unrealistic, particularly 

when the Council must begin to develop 

the 2011 specifications in June 2010. 

The butterfish stock was last assessed in 

2003 and, using the old assessment data, 

the butterfish mortality cap for the 

Loligo fishery in 2010 would be fairly 

low (approximately 580 mt for 

Trimester I, and 320 mt for Trimester III) 

and could result in closures of the 

Loligo fishery. While the updated stock 

assessment might result in similarly 

restrictive caps, the Council wanted the 

best available data to serve as the basis 

of the cap, and NMFS agrees that this 

results in implementation in 2011 

The Council specified in Amendment 

10 that a weighted average of the 

observed butterfish catch from the 

current fishing year and the prior 

fishing year will be used to extrapolate 

total butterfish catch for comparison to 

the butterfish mortality cap. The 

Council assumed that the Loligo fishery 

would be required to use the 21⁄8-inch 

(54 mm) codend minimum mesh in 

2010, and hoped to use that information 

to monitor the fishery in 2011. Because 

the mesh size increase is expected to 

increase the escapement of juvenile 

butterfish, the Council intended for the 

data used to monitor the butterfish 

mortality cap to better reflect the new 

21⁄8-inch (54 mm) codend mesh size 

requirement. NMFS has not relied on 

this rationale, noting that it is necessary 

to provide the industry with time to 

come into compliance with new gear 

requirements, generally 6 months. 

While observer data will be available for 

vessels that currently use 21⁄8-inch (54 

mm) mesh, the Council begins 

developing specifications in June each 

year, so the amount of data available to 

the Council during the development of 

the 2011 specifications would be 

limited. 

Comment 4: The industry 

representative commented that the 

results of the November 2009 SAW 

assessment should be finalized before 

moving forward with the butterfish 

mortality cap provision. The commenter 

also questioned several aspects of the 

rebuilding plan because they were not 

drawn from citable sources. These 

included the use of the AR time series 

model to forecast recruitment, and the 

selection of a rebuilding target F of 0.1 

for butterfish, as too conservative for a 

stock with a natural mortality rate of 

0.8. 

Response 4: The Council selected a 

rebuilding F of 0.1 to facilitate 

rebuilding based on analyses of stock 

forecasts based on both recent and longterm butterfish recruitment trends. An F 

of 0.1 simulates the low level of fishing 

mortality experienced by butterfish in 

the absence of a directed fishery and as 

bycatch in the Loligo fishery. The results 

of the stock analyses, presented in 

Appendix 2 of the FSEIS, suggest that 

the butterfish stock can recover in a 

relatively short period if recruitment is 

high and mortality is kept to a 

minimum. An AR model was used to 

project the rebuilding timeframe 

because butterfish projections were not 

generated during the butterfish 

assessment presented in SAW 38, and 

the model used to set reference points 

in SAW 38 did not have projection 

capabilities. The butterfish rebuilding 

program was developed by the Council’s 

butterfish technical team (FMAT). 

Models developed by the Council 

technical teams do not necessarily 

appear in citable sources. However, the 

AR model was reviewed by the 

Council’s SSC and determined to be 

appropriate for forecasting a butterfish 

stock rebuilding trajectory. 

Comment 5: In comments on the 

proposed rule, both environmental 

groups expressed concerns about the 

effectiveness of the butterfish mortality 

cap provision in the absence of a 

requirement for real-time monitoring 

through an industry-funded observer 

program. Neither group supported the 

use of the bycatch rate from observed 

trips to extrapolate overall butterfish 

catch for comparison to the butterfish 

mortality cap. They noted that the 

projection methodology is not described 

in the amendment, that current observer 

coverage levels are much lower than 

SBRM levels, and that the information 

provided through the low levels of 

observer coverage is unlikely to be 

sufficient to support adjustments to 

calculated bycatch rates. The industry 

group also expressed concern that the 

details of the extrapolation methodology 

are not specified. 

Response 5: The amendment shows 

that observer coverage at the same levels 

as in 2004–2006 can result in CVs at or 

near the SBRM standard of 30 percent. 

The amendment specifies that a 2-year 

weighted average will be used to 

extrapolate butterfish catch from 

observed trips. Beyond that, the 

specifics of the methodology will be 

developed by FSO, in cooperation with 

Council staff and in consultation with 

the Council, and will be reviewed 

annually during the MSB specifications 

process, which also incorporates advice 

from the Council’s SSC. The Council 

will conduct an annual review of the 

performance of the mortality cap 

program, will consult with the NEFOP 

to evaluate the feasibility of increases in 

observer coverage if butterfish mortality 

estimates are found to be unacceptable, 

and can consider the implementation of 

an industry-funded observer program, 

and other measures, in subsequent 

actions to ensure the success of the 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 47 / Thursday, March 11, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 11447 

rebuilding program. If nonrepresentative observer data are found 

to have a confounding impact on the 

monitoring program, the SBRM 

Omnibus Amendment provides the 

Council with authority to implement an 

industry-funded observer program and/ 

or an observer set-aside program for 

MSB fisheries through a framework 

adjustment. 

Comment 6: Two environmental 

groups noted that the use of the observer 

program to track butterfish catch will 

likely exacerbate the ‘‘observer effect,’’ 

meaning that the data collected by 

observers may be non-representative of 

unobserved trips. They stated that, 

because achieving the mortality cap in 

Trimesters I or III could shut down the 

Loligo fishery, there will be pressure on 

the operators of observed vessels to alter 

their fishing activities to minimize 

bycatch, without incentive for 

unobserved vessels to do the same. 

Response 6: NMFS agrees that it is 

possible that at least some Loligo vessel 

operators may change their fishing 

behavior, effort, and location when 

observers are onboard, and that data 

recorded on some observed trips may 

not be representative of the fishery as a 

whole. However, the NEFOP tries to 

minimize occurrence of the observer 

effect by using random selection 

techniques while maximizing coverage 

of the full fleet, and is further exploring 

methods to test for observer bias. If 

observer bias is found to have a 

confounding impact on the butterfish 

rebuilding program, the SBRM Omnibus 

Amendment would allow the 

implementation of an industry-funded 

observer program and/or an observer 

set-aside program for MSB fisheries 

through framework adjustments, rather 

than through FMP amendments. An 

industry-funded observer program could 

be used to increase the rate of observer 

coverage to levels found appropriate for 

accurately estimating butterfish bycatch. 

Additionally, observer set-aside 

programs may actually create incentive 

for vessels to be observed through 

granting extra quota or increasing 

possession limits in exchange for 

carrying an observer. 

Comment 7: The industry group 

opposed the requirement for vessel 

operators to provide 72-hr advance trip 

notification to the NEFOP, and believed 

the NEFOP could be overwhelmed with 

the high volume of notification calls it 

would receive prior to Loligo trips. The 

industry group argued that this will 

delay assigning observers and providing 

waivers for Loligo trips, causing lost 

opportunities to harvest Loligo. 

Response 7: NMFS finds this concern 

to be unwarranted. The Council 

consulted with the NEFOP throughout 

the development of the Amendment 10 

trip notification requirement. The trip 

notification requirement will be 

instrumental in the placement of 

observers on Loligo trips. The 

requirement was designed so that it can 

be implemented using existing NMFS 

resources. The NEFOP currently 

employs similar notification programs 

for other fisheries without such 

problems. 

Comment 8: Two environmental 

groups opposed the allocation of 75 

percent of the butterfish ABC to the 

Loligo fishery, because they believed it 

is too high to constrain butterfish 

mortality. They also commented that the 

remaining 25-percent allocation is too 

low to account for the contribution of 

the directed butterfish fishery and other 

fisheries to butterfish mortality. 

Response 8: While the amendment 

notes a recent increase in the proportion 

of butterfish landings made by vessels 

without Loligo/butterfish permits, and a 

concern about monitoring the butterfish 

catch on such vessels, the amendment 

notes that Council staff examined 

several sources of data and concluded 

that the issue does not appear to be 

major. The analysis suggests that 

landings by unpermitted vessels have 

not increased, but, due to a decrease in 

landings by permitted vessels, such 

landings represent a larger proportion of 

the total. Data indicate that butterfish 

discards relate more to Loligo landings 

than to butterfish landings, and that 

most Loligo landings are obtained 

through the vessel and dealer reports 

required of the Loligo fishery. The 

Council and its MSB Monitoring 

Committee will closely track the 

monitoring program data to ensure that 

this system effectively constrains overall 

mortality. 

As described elsewhere in this 

preamble, the Council and the SSC will 

consider changes to the rebuilding 

program as necessary to ensure the 

success of the rebuilding program. 

Comment 9: An environmental 

organization stated that, if one purpose 

of the butterfish mortality cap is to 

provide the Loligo industry with 

incentives to reduce interactions with 

butterfish through the development of 

more selective fishing practices, then 

the amendment should include a plan to 

collect information about gear 

innovations from fisherman and 

incorporate such measures into future 

regulations. 

Response 9: Amendment 10 states 

that, if bycatch reduction devices are 

developed and peer-reviewed science 

concludes that they will help reduce 

butterfish discarding, the Council will 

work to require the use of the new gear. 

NMFS concludes that the amendment 

does not need to contain a more specific 

plan in order for innovations to be 

incorporated into future regulatory 

actions. There are few gear 

specifications for the MSB fisheries 

other than codend mesh requirements, 

hence it would be possible to 

incorporate many gear innovations 

voluntarily. In addition, the Council and 

NMFS award up to 3 percent of the 

butterfish and Loligo quotas as research 

set-aside, and requires that proposals for 

research set-aside grants match Councilidentified research priorities. Reduction 

of bycatch in MSB fisheries will almost 

certainly be a research priority during 

the butterfish rebuilding period. 

Changes From the Proposed Rule 

In § 648.26, paragraph (a) is revised to 

include submission of vessel permit 

number and trip duration in the 72-hr 

trip notification; paragraph (b) is revised 

to state that NMFS will either assign an 

observer or grant a waiver exempting 

the vessel from the observer 

requirement within 24 hr of the vessel 

representative’s notification of the 

proposed trip, and that a vessel may not 

fish in excess of the possession limits in 

paragraph (c) without an observer or 

waiver confirmation number; and 

paragraph (d) is revised to state that 

vessels that cancel trips that are selected 

for observer coverage must include the 

submission of the vessel permit number 

in trip cancellation notification calls. 

Classification 

The Administrator, Northeast Region, 

NMFS, determined that Amendment 10 

to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and 

Butterfish Fishery Management Plan is 

necessary for the conservation and 

management of the Atlantic mackerel, 

squid, and butterfish fisheries and that 

it is consistent with the MagnusonStevens Act and other applicable law. 

This final rule has been determined to 

be not significant for purposes of 

Executive Order 12866. 

The Council prepared an FSEIS for 

Amendment 10. The FSEIS was filed 

with the EPA on June 26, 2009; a notice 

of availability was published on July 2, 

2009 (74 FR 31733). In approving 

Amendment 10 on October 7, 2009, 

NMFS issued a ROD identifying the 

selected alternatives. A copy of the ROD 

is available from NMFS (see 

ADDRESSES). 

A final regulatory flexibility analysis 

(FRFA) was prepared. The FRFA 

incorporates the IRFA, a summary of the 

significant issues raised by the public 

comments in response to the IRFA, and 

NMFS responses to those comments, 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
11448 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 47 / Thursday, March 11, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

and a summary of the analyses 

completed to support the action. A copy 

of this analysis is available from the 

Council (see ADDRESSES). 

Statement of Need 

The purpose of this action is to 

rebuild the overfished butterfish stock 

and minimize, to the extent practicable, 

bycatch and discards in the MSB 

fisheries. 

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 Proposed Rule as a Result 

of Such Comments 

Seven comment letters were received 

during the comment periods on the 

NOA and proposed rule. The majority of 

the comments were not specifically 

directed to the IRFA, but the comment 

from the industry representative did 

reference the economic impacts of 

Amendment 10 on small entities. 

Comments 1, 6, and 7 were directed at 

potential economic impacts associated 

with the minimum mesh size increase, 

the 72-hr trip notification, and the 

butterfish mortality cap for the Loligo 

fishery. All public comments on issues 

relative to the IRFA, in which 

commenters expressed concern directly 

and indirectly about the economic 

impacts of the measures in Amendment 

10, are described in the ‘‘Comments and 

Responses’’ section of the preamble of 

this rule. NMFS’s assessment of the 

issues raised in comments and its 

responses is also provided in the 

‘‘Comments and Responses’’ section of 

the preamble of this final rule and, 

therefore, are not repeated here. 

Description and Estimate of Number of 

Small Entities To Which the Rule 

Would Apply 

The majority of participants in this 

fishery are small entities, as only very 

few grossed more than $4 million 

annually; therefore, there are no 

disproportionate economic impacts on 

small entities. The measures in 

Amendment 10 would primarily affect 

vessels that participate in the Loligo 

fishery. In 2009, there were 426 vessels 

issued Loligo/butterfish moratorium 

permits. Section 10.10.14 in 

Amendment 10 describes the vessels, 

key ports, and revenue information for 

the Loligo fishery; therefore, that 

information is not repeated here. 

Description of Projected Reporting, 

Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 

Requirements 

This action requires a trip notification 

requirement for the Loligo fishery. The 

rationale for and description of the 

measures is included in the preamble of 

this final rule; therefore, that 

information is not repeated here. The 

phone call to NMFS to declare a Loligo 

fishing trip is expected to take less than 

2 min in duration. If a vessel 

representative cancels a declared fishing 

trip, then a trip cancellation call to 

NMFS would also be required. The 426 

vessels issued Loligo permits in 2009 

averaged 12 Loligo trips per year; 

therefore, each of these permit holders 

could average about 12 calls per year. 

Assuming each trip could be cancelled, 

permit holders could also place an 

average of 12 additional calls per year. 

The estimated duration of the 

cancellation call is expected to be less 

than 1 min. The cost of these calls 

would vary, based on where the call 

originated, but cost is expected to be 

minimal. This trip notification 

requirement does not duplicate, overlap, 

or conflict with any other Federal rules. 

Description of the Steps the Agency Has 

Taken To Minimize the Significant 

Economic Impact 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 

Several of the approved measures in 

Amendment 10 (e.g., trip notification, 

minimum mesh size increase, annual 

assessment of the butterfish mortality 

cap program) in Amendment 10 are 

expected to have economic impacts. A 

detailed economic analysis of the 

proposed measures, as well as the nonselected alternatives, is in Section 7.5.1 

of Amendment 10. 

Two of the approved measures in 

Amendment 10 are not anticipated to 

have more than minimal economic 

effects on MSB fishery participants. The 

requirement that vessels notify NMFS 

72 hr prior to embarking on a Loligo 

fishing trip is an administrative measure 

to facilitate the placement of observers 

aboard the Loligo fleet. As described 

previously, the economic burden on 

fishery participants associated with this 

measure is expected to be minimal. In 

addition, the annual review of the 

butterfish mortality cap by the Council’s 

SSC may result in modifications, which 

will be implemented through the MSB 

specifications process. The modification 

measure itself is also administrative and 

would have only minimal economic 

effects on fishery participants. 

Implementing a 21⁄8 inch (54 mm) 

minimum codend mesh size 

requirement for the Loligo fishery is 

expected to have larger economic effects 

on fishery participants than the no 

action alternative (maintaining the 17⁄8

inches (48 mm) minimum codend mesh 

size requirement), but less of an 

economic effect than implementing any 

of the other action alternatives 

(minimum mesh size requirements of 

23⁄8 inches (60 mm), 21⁄2 inches (64 

mm), or 3 inches (76 mm)). The factors 

considered in evaluating economic 

effects of the action alternatives were 

the cost of replacing a codend and the 

loss in revenue that may result from 

Loligo escapement through the larger 

mesh. While the cost of replacing a 

codend may be substantial, fishery 

participants routinely replace codends 

and, as such, the cost of a codend with 

a larger minimum mesh size may not be 

a significant additional cost. Replacing 

a coded can cost between $200 and 

$700, depending on the size of the net; 

the cost of replacement codends is not 

anticipated to vary by mesh size. This 

action is notifying fishery participants 6 

months in advance of the regulatory 

change and may allow participants to 

plan purchases, thereby minimizing 

costs associated with a replacement 

codend. 

The loss of revenue associated with 

Loligo escapement is difficult to 

quantify. There are no published gear 

studies of Loligo selectivity; therefore 

quantifying the Loligo retention 

associated with the different mesh sizes 

is difficult. Studies of other squid 

species suggest that squid, like fish, are 

size-selected by gear. Given this, it 

could be expected that economic effects 

associated with the mesh size action 

alternatives increase with mesh size. 

Economic effects associated with an 

increased mesh size for the Loligo 

fishery are mitigated because the mesh 

size increase would not be in effect 

during Trimester II (May–Aug). The 

rapid growth of Loligo may allow fishery 

participants to minimize Loligo 

escapement by shifting fishing effort to 

later in the year, when larger squid 

would have an increased retention rate. 

Implementing a butterfish mortality 

cap for the Loligo fishery has the 

potential for greater economic effects on 

fishery participants than the no action 

alternative (no butterfish mortality cap). 

Under the approved action alternative, 

the Loligo fishery will close when the 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 47 / Thursday, March 11, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 11449 

butterfish mortality cap is harvested. If 

the Loligo fishery is closed in response 

to butterfish catch before the entire 

Loligo fishery is harvested, then a loss 

of revenue is possible. If the Loligo 

fishery can be prosecuted with minimal 

butterfish catch and without attaining 

the butterfish mortality cap, then there 

is no economic difference between the 

no action and action alternatives. 

However, there may be additional costs 

associated with butterfish avoidance 

strategies. The potential for Loligo 

revenue loss would be dependent upon 

the size of the butterfish mortality cap. 

As described previously, the butterfish 

mortality cap 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. 

Differences in the economic effects on 

fishery participants between the 

butterfish mortality cap alternatives 

(butterfish mortality cap allocated by 

trimester in the same proportions as the 

Loligo quota, Loligo landings, or 

butterfish bycatch rates) are anticipated 

to be minimal. However, because the 

approved alternative (butterfish 

mortality cap based on butterfish 

bycatch rates) best approximates 

existing fishery conditions, by 

considering the ratio of butterfish 

caught to Loligo landed, it is anticipated 

that the approved alternative will be 

less constraining on the Loligo fishery 

than the non-selected action 

alternatives, which are butterfish 

mortality caps based on only Loligo 

information. As described in Section 

7.5.1 of the amendment, if the butterfish 

mortality cap is based on accurate 

assumptions about the size of the 

butterfish stock and butterfish bycatch 

rates by trimester, then potential Loligo 

revenue loss may be relatively small 

($1.0 million), with maximum losses per 

vessel averaging 0.6 percent and ranging 

up to 4.1 percent. If assumptions about 

butterfish stock size and bycatch rates 

are incorrect, then potential Loligo 

revenue loss may be relatively large 

($15.8 million), with maximum losses 

per vessel averaging 9.1 percent and 

ranging up to 65 percent. These ranges 

assume equal distribution of losses 

based on distributions of landings, but 

vessels with access to other fisheries 

may target those fisheries to mitigate 

lost Loligo revenue. 

As a tool to minimize bycatch, 

Amendment 10 considered eliminating 

current exemptions from Loligo 

minimum mesh size requirements for 

the Illex fishery. There is no minimum 

codend mesh size requirement for 

vessels retaining Illex, but there is a 17⁄8

inch (48 mm) minimum mesh size 

requirement for vessels retaining Loligo. 

Because squid species can seasonally 

co-occur, during the months of June– 

September, the Illex fishery is exempt 

from the Loligo minimum mesh size 

requirement on the Illex fishing grounds 

(i.e., the area seaward of 50 fm (91.45 m) 

depth contour) where Loligo is less often 

present. Because the Loligo fishery 

accounts for more bycatch than the Illex 

fishery, this action maintains the 

current exemption to the Loligo 

minimum mesh size requirement for the 

Illex fishery. The economic effects on 

fishery participants of maintaining the 

no action alternative are expected to be 

less than the economic effects 

associated with any of the action 

alternatives (Illex exemption during 

June–August, Illex exemption during 

June–July, discontinuation of Illex 

exemption). Similar to the economic 

effects associated with the proposed 

increase to the minimum mesh size for 

Loligo, costs to Illex fishery participants 

associated with any of the action 

alternatives would include replacement 

codends and increased harvesting effort 

due to Illex escapement. While the cost 

of replacing a codend may be 

substantial, fishery participants 

routinely replace codends and, as such, 

the cost of a codend with a larger 

minimum mesh size may not be a 

significant additional cost. Additionally, 

the rapid growth of Illex could allow 

fishery participants to minimize Illex 

escapement by shifting effort to later in 

the year, when larger squid would have 

an increased retention rate. 

Lastly, Amendment 10 considered 

establishing GRAs to reduce butterfish 

discards in MSB fisheries. The action 

alternatives included four GRAs, to be 

effective during January–April, that 

varied by minimum codend mesh size 

requirements (i.e., 3 inches (76 mm) or 

33⁄4 inches (96 mm)) and effective area 

(i.e., area accounting for 50 percent or 

90 percent of MSB discards). Because 

the GRAs are limited in temporal and 

geographic scope, the Council 

concluded they were not a viable 

solution to butterfish discarding in MSB 

fisheries and did not recommend 

establishing butterfish GRAs (no action 

alternative). Establishing GRAs would 

likely have resulted in shifts in the 

distribution of fishing effort with 

biological effects that would be difficult 

to predict. Based on average annual 

revenue from trips that would be 

affected by GRAs, potential economic 

effects associated with the action 

alternatives per vessel ranged from 

revenue losses of $498,000–$559,000. 

However, given that fishing vessels are 

flexible in their fishing practices, these 

losses would most likely not be fully 

realized. 

This final rule contains a collectionof-information requirement subject to 

the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) and 

which has been approved by OMB 

under control number 0648–0601. 

Public reporting burden for the phone 

call to declare a Loligo fishing trip is 

estimated to average 2 min per call per 

trip, and 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 David_Rostker@ 

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 

15 CFR Part 902 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

50 CFR Part 648 

Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: March 5, 2010. 

Samuel D. Rauch III, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Regulatory Programs, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

■ For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, 15 CFR part 902 and 50 CFR 

part 648 are amended as follows: 

PART 902—NOAA INFORMATION 

COLLECTION REQUIREMENTS UNDER 

THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT: 

OMB CONTROL NUMBERS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 902 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. 

■ 2. In § 902.1, the table in paragraph (b) 

under 50 CFR is amended by adding an 

entry for § 648.26 to read as follows: 

§ 902.1 OMB control number assigned 

pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
11450 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 47 / Thursday, March 11, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

CFR part or section 

where the information collection requirement is located 

Current OMB control 

number (all numbers 

begin with 0648–) 

* * * * * 

50 CFR ...................

* * * * * 

648.26 ..................... –0601 

* * * * * 

PART 648—FISHERIES OF THE 

NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 648 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. 

■ 4. In § 648.13, paragraph (a) is revised 

to read as follows: 

§ 648.13 Transfers at sea. 

(a) Only vessels issued a Loligo and 

butterfish moratorium or Illex 

moratorium permit under § 648.4(a)(5) 

and vessels issued a squid/butterfish 

incidental catch permit and authorized 

in writing by the Regional 

Administrator to do so, may transfer or 

attempt to transfer or receive Loligo, 

Illex, or butterfish. 

* * * * * 

■ 5. In § 648.14, paragraph (g)(1)(iii) is 

added and paragraph (g)(2)(ii)(C) is 

revised to read as follows: 

§ 648.14 Prohibitions. 

* * * * * 

(g) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(iii) Observer requirements for Loligo 

fishery. Fail to comply with any of the 

provisions specified in § 648.26. 

* * * * * 

(2) * * * 

(ii) * * * 

(C) Take, retain, possess or land 

mackerel, squid, or butterfish in excess 

of a possession allowance specified in 

§ 648.25. 

* * * * * 

■ 6. In § 648.21, paragraphs (a)(2) and 

(f)(1) are revised, and paragraphs 

(b)(3)(iii) and (b)(3)(iv) are added to read 

as follows: 

§ 648.21 Procedures for determining initial 

annual amounts. 

(a) * * * 

(2) IOY, including RQ, DAH, DAP, 

butterfish mortality cap for the Loligo 

fishery, and bycatch level of the total 

allowable level of foreign fishing 

(TALFF), if any, for butterfish, which, 

subject to annual review, may be 

specified for a period of up to 3 years; 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(3) * * * 

(iii) The butterfish mortality cap will 

be allocated to the Loligo fishery as 

follows: Trimester I—65 percent; 

Trimester II—3.3 percent; and Trimester 

III—31.7 percent. 

(iv) Any underages of the butterfish 

mortality cap for Trimesters I or II will 

be applied to Trimester III of the same 

year, and any overages of the butterfish 

mortality cap for Trimesters I and II will 

be applied to Trimester III of the same 

year. 

* * * * * 

(f) * * * 

(1) A commercial quota will be 

allocated annually for Loligo squid into 

trimester periods based on the following 

percentages: Trimester I (January– 

April)—43.0 percent; Trimester II (May– 

August)—17.0 percent; and Trimester III 

(September–December)—40.0 percent. 

* * * * * 

■ 7. In § 648.22, paragraph (a)(5) is 

added to read as follows: 

§ 648.22 Closure of the fishery. 

(a) * * * 

(5) NMFS shall close the directed 

fishery in the EEZ for Loligo when the 

Regional Administrator projects that 80 

percent of the butterfish mortality cap is 

harvested in Trimester I and/or 90 

percent of the butterfish mortality cap is 

harvested in Trimester III. 

* * * * * 

■ 8. In § 648.23, paragraphs (a)(3) 

introductory text and (a)(3)(i) are 

revised to read as follows: 

§ 648.23 Gear restrictions. 

(a) * * * 

(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 21⁄8

inches (54 mm), during Trimesters I 

(Jan–Apr) and III (Sept–Dec), or 17⁄8

inches (48 mm), during Trimester II 

(May–Aug), 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 headrope, unless they are 

fishing consistent with exceptions 

specified in paragraph (b) of this 

section. 

(i) Net obstruction or constriction. 

Owners or operators of otter trawl 

vessels fishing for and/or possessing 

Loligo shall not use any device, gear, or 

material, including, but not limited to, 

nets, net strengtheners, ropes, lines, or 

chafing gear, on the top of the regulated 

portion of a trawl net that results in an 

effective mesh opening of less than 21⁄8

inches (54 mm), during Trimesters I 

(Jan–Apr) and III (Sept–Dec), or 17⁄8

inches (48 mm), during Trimester II 

(May–Aug), diamond mesh, inside 

stretch measure. ‘‘Top of the regulated 

portion of the net’’ means the 50 percent 

of the entire regulated portion of the net 

that would not be in contact with the 

ocean bottom if, during a tow, the 

regulated portion of the net were laid 

flat on the ocean floor. However, owners 

or operators of otter trawl vessels fishing 

for and/or possessing Loligo may use net 

strengtheners (covers), splitting straps, 

and/or bull ropes or wire around the 

entire circumference of the codend, 

provided they do not have a mesh 

opening of less than 41⁄2 inches (11.43 

cm) diamond mesh, inside stretch 

measure. For the purposes of this 

requirement, head ropes are not to be 

considered part of the top of the 

regulated portion of a trawl net. 

* * * * * 

■ 9. In § 648.25, paragraph (a) is revised 

to read as follows: 

§ 648.25 Possession restrictions. 

(a) Atlantic mackerel. During a 

closure of the directed Atlantic 

mackerel fishery that occurs prior to 

June 1, vessels may not fish for, possess, 

or land more than 20,000 lb (9.08 mt) of 

Atlantic mackerel per trip at any time, 

and may only land Atlantic mackerel 

once on any calendar day, which is 

defined as the 24-hr period beginning at 

0001 hours and ending at 2400 hours. 

During a closure of the directed fishery 

for mackerel that occurs on or after June 

1, vessels may not fish for, possess, or 

land more than 50,000 lb (22.7 mt) of 

Atlantic mackerel per trip at any time, 

and may only land Atlantic mackerel 

once on any calendar day. 

* * * * * 

■ 10. Section 648.26 is added to subpart 

B 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 for contact; and the date, time, 

port of departure, and approximate trip 

duration, at least 72 hr prior to 

beginning any fishing trip, unless it 

complies with the possession 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 47 / Thursday, March 11, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 11451 

restrictions in paragraph (c) of this 

section. 

(b) A vessel that has a representative 

provide notification to NMFS as 

described in paragraph (a) of this 

section may only embark on a Loligo 

trip without an observer if a vessel 

representative has been notified that the 

vessel has received a waiver of the 

observer requirement for that trip. 

NMFS shall notify a vessel 

representative whether the vessel must 

carry an observer, or if a waiver has 

been granted, for the specified Loligo 

trip, within 24 hr of the vessel 

representative’s notification of the 

prospective Loligo trip, as specified by 

paragraph (a) of this section. Any 

request to carry an observer may be 

waived by NMFS. A vessel that fishes 

with an observer waiver confirmation 

number that does not match the Loligo 

trip plan that was called in to NMFS is 

prohibited from fishing for, possessing, 

harvesting, or landing Loligo except as 

specified in paragraph (c) of this 

section. Confirmation numbers for trip 

notification calls are only valid for 48 hr 

from the intended sail date. 

(c) A vessel issued a Loligo and 

butterfish moratorium permit, as 

specified at § 648.4(a)(5)(i), that does not 

have a representative provide the trip 

notification required in paragraph (a) of 

this section is prohibited from fishing 

for, possessing, harvesting, or landing 

2,500 lb (1.13 mt) or more of Loligo per 

trip at any time, and may only land 

Loligo once on any calendar day, which 

is defined as the 24-hr period beginning 

at 0001 hours and ending at 2400 hours. 

(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, 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 for contact, and the intended 

date, time, and port of departure for the 

cancelled trip within 72 hr of the initial 

notification. 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. 2010–5184 Filed 3–10–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Food and Drug Administration 

21 CFR Part 558 

[Docket No. FDA–2010–N–0002] 

New Animal Drugs for Use in Animal 

Feeds; Zilpaterol 

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, 

HHS. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug 

Administration (FDA) is amending the 

animal drug regulations to reflect 

approval of three abbreviated new 

animal drug applications (ANADAs) 

filed by Ivy Laboratories, Div. of Ivy 

Animal Health, Inc. The ANADAs 

provides for use of single-ingredient 

Type A medicated articles containing 

zilpaterol, melengestrol, monensin, and 

tylosin to make two-way, three-way, and 

four-way combination drug Type B and 

Type C medicated feeds for heifers fed 

in confinement for slaughter. 

DATES: This rule is effective March 11, 

2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

K. Harshman, Center for Veterinary 

Medicine (HFV–170), Food and Drug 

Administration, 7500 Standish Pl., 

Rockville, MD 20855, 240–276–8197, email: john.harshman@fda.hhs.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Ivy 

Laboratories, Div. of Ivy Animal Health, 

Inc., 8857 Bond St., Overland Park, KS 

66214, filed ANADA 200–483 for use of 

ZILMAX (zilpaterol hydrochloride) and 

HEIFERMAX 500 (melengestrol acetate) 

Liquid Premix single-ingredient Type A 

medicated articles to make dry and 

liquid, two way combination drug Type 

B and Type C medicated feeds for 

heifers fed in confinement for slaughter. 

Ivy Laboratories’ ANADA 200–483 is 

approved as a generic copy of Intervet, 

Inc.’s combination medicated feed use 

of ZILMAX and MGA 500 (melengestrol 

acetate), approved under NADA 141– 

284. 

Ivy Laboratories also filed ANADA 

200–479 for use of ZILMAX, 

HEIFERMAX 500 Liquid Premix, and 

RUMENSIN (monensin USP) singleingredient Type A medicated articles to 

make dry and liquid, three-way 

combination drug Type B and Type C 

medicated feeds for heifers fed in 

confinement for slaughter. Ivy 

Laboratories’ ANADA 200–479 is 

approved as a generic copy of Intervet, 

Inc.’s combination medicated feed use 

of ZILMAX, MGA 500, and RUMENSIN, 

approved under NADA 141–282. 

Ivy Laboratories also filed ANADA 

200–480 for use of ZILMAX, 

HEIFERMAX 500 Liquid Premix, 

RUMENSIN, and TYLAN (tylosin 

phosphate) single-ingredient Type A 

medicated articles to make dry and 

liquid, four-way combination drug Type 

C medicated feeds for heifers fed in 

confinement for slaughter. Ivy 

Laboratories’ ANADA 200–480 is 

approved as a generic copy of Intervet, 

Inc.’s combination medicated feed use 

of ZILMAX, MGA 500, RUMENSIN, and 

TYLAN, approved under NADA 141– 

280. 

The abbreviated applications are 

approved as of December 30, 2009, and 

the regulations are amended in 21 CFR 

558.665 to reflect the approval. 

In accordance with the freedom of 

information provisions of 21 CFR part 

20 and 21 CFR 514.11(e)(2)(ii), a 

summary of safety and effectiveness 

data and information submitted to 

support approval of each application 

may be seen in the Division of Dockets 

Management (HFA–305), Food and Drug 

Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 

1061, Rockville, MD 20852, between 9 

a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through 

Friday. 

The agency has determined under 21 

CFR 25.33 that these actions are of a 

type that do not individually or 

cumulatively have a significant effect on 

the human environment. Therefore, 

neither an environmental assessment 

nor an environmental impact statement 

is required. 

This rule does not meet the definition 

of ‘‘rule’’ in 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(A) because 

it is a rule of ‘‘particular applicability.’’ 

Therefore, it is not subject to the 

congressional review requirements in 5 

U.S.C. 801–808. 

List of Subject in 21 CFR Part 558 

Animal drugs, Animal feeds. 

■ Therefore, under the Federal Food, 

Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under 

authority delegated to the Commissioner 

of Food and Drugs and redelegated to 

the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21 

CFR part 558 is amended as follows: 

PART 558—NEW ANIMAL DRUGS FOR 

USE IN ANIMAL FEEDS 

■ 1. The authority citation for 21 CFR 

part 558 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 360b, 371. 

§ 558.665 [Amended] 

■ 2. In § 558.665, in the table in 

paragraphs (e)(2), (e)(4), and (e)(6), in 

the ‘‘Limitations’’ column remove ‘‘No. 

000009’’ and add in its place ‘‘Nos. 

000009 or 021641’’ and in the ‘‘Sponsor’’ 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES