Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 170 / Thursday, September 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules 45597 

Subpart A—[Removed and Reserved] 

2. Remove and reserve subpart A, 

consisting of §§ 367.1 through 367.7 and 

Appendix A to subpart A. 

Subpart B—Fees Under the Unified 

Carrier Registration Plan and 

Agreement 

3. Amend subpart B by revising the 

heading of § 367.20 to read as follows: 

§ 367.20 Fees Under the Unified Carrier 

Registration Plan and Agreement for 

Registration Years 2007, 2008 and 2009. 

* * * * * 

4. Add § 367.30 to subpart B to read 

as follows: 

§ 367.30 Fees under the Unified Carrier 

Registration Plan and Agreement for 

Registration Years Beginning in 2010. 

FEES UNDER THE UNIFIED CARRIER REGISTRATION PLAN AND AGREEMENT FOR EACH REGISTRATION YEAR

Bracket 

Number of commercial motor vehicles owned 

or operated by exempt or non-exempt motor 

carrier, motor private carrier, or freight 

forwarder 

Fee per entity for 

exempt or non-exempt 

motor carrier, motor 

private carrier, or freight 

forwarder 

Fee per 

entity for broker or 

leasing company 

B1 ....................................................................... 0–2 ..................................................................... $87 $87 

B2 ....................................................................... 3–5 ..................................................................... 258 ..............................

B3 ....................................................................... 6–20 ................................................................... 514 ..............................

B4 ....................................................................... 21–100 ............................................................... 1,793 ..............................

B5 ....................................................................... 101–1,000 .......................................................... 8,541 ..............................

B6 ....................................................................... 1,001 and above ............................................... 83,412 ..............................

Issued on: August 28, 2009. 

Rose A. McMurray, 

Acting Deputy Administrator. 

[FR Doc. E9–21232 Filed 9–2–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 648 

[Docket No. 0907021105–91234–02] 

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: Proposed rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes regulations to 

implement 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 permanently 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 would 

increase the minimum codend mesh 

size requirement for the Loligo squid 

(Loligo) fishery; establish a butterfish 

rebuilding program with a butterfish 

mortality cap for the Loligo fishery; 

establish a 72–hr trip notification 

requirement for the Loligo fishery; and 

require an annual assessment of the 

butterfish rebuilding program by the 

Council’s Scientific and Statistical 

Committee (SSC). This proposed rule 

would also make minor, technical 

corrections to existing regulations. 

DATES: Public comments must be 

received no later than 5 p.m., eastern 

standard time, on October 19, 2009. 

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 

proposed 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. 

You may submit comments on this 

proposed rule, identified by RIN 0648– 

AY00, 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: Carrie 

Nordeen; 

• Mail to Patricia A. Kurkul, 

Regional Administrator, NMFS, 

Northeast Regional Office, 55 Great 

Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. 

Mark the outside of the envelope 

‘‘Comments on MSB Amendment 10.’’ 

Instructions: 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 

(e.g., name, address) 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). Attachments to electronic 

comments will be accepted in Microsoft 

Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe 

PDF formats only. 

Written comments regarding the 

burden-hour estimates or other aspects 

of the collection-of-information 

requirements contained in this proposed 

rule may be submitted to NMFS, 

Northeast Regional Office and to David 

Rostker by e-mail 

DavidlRostker@omb.eop.gov or fax 

(202) 395–7285. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Carrie Nordeen, Fishery Policy Analyst, 

978–281–9272, fax 978–281–9135. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

This amendment is needed to bring 

the MSB FMP into compliance with 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
45598 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 170 / Thursday, September 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements by: 

(1) Implementing a rebuilding program 

that allows the butterfish stock to 

rebuild, and permanently 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. Management measures for 

rebuilding butterfish are designed to 

reduce the fishing mortality on 

butterfish that occurs through 

discarding of butterfish caught in other 

directed fisheries, which is the primary 

source of butterfish fishing mortality. 

Measures that reduce the discarding of 

butterfish are expected to also reduce 

the bycatch of other finfish species in 

MSB fisheries. 

Initially, Amendment 9 to the MSB 

FMP was intended to bring the MSB 

FMP into compliance with MagnusonStevens Act bycatch requirements, and 

contained several management 

alternatives to address deficiencies in 

the FMP that related to discarding, 

especially as they affected butterfish. 

Amendment 9 considered management 

measures to reduce finfish discards by 

MSB fisheries by implementing mesh 

size increases in the directed Loligo 

fishery, removing mesh size exemptions 

for the directed Illex squid (Illex) 

fishery, and establishing seasonal gear 

restricted areas (GRAs). However, those 

specific management alternatives were 

developed in 2004, prior to the 

butterfish stock being declared 

overfished. On June 13, 2007, the 

Council recommended that all 

management measures developed as 

part of Amendment 9 to correct 

deficiencies in the FMP related to 

bycatch of finfish, especially butterfish, 

be considered in Amendment 10. 

Accordingly, no action was taken in 

Amendment 9 to address bycatch, and 

these alternatives were evaluated in 

Amendment 10. 

The Council held three public 

meetings on Amendment 10 during June 

2008. Following the public comment 

period that ended on June 23, 2008, the 

Council adopted Amendment 10 on 

October 16, 2008. 

This action proposes management 

measures that were recommended by 

the Council as part of Amendment 10. 

If implemented, these management 

measures would: 

• Establish a minimum mesh size 

increase to 2–1/8 inches (54 mm) (from 

1–7/8 inches (48 mm)) for the Loligo 

fishery 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–hr 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. 

A Notice of Availability (NOA) for 

Amendment 10 was published on July 

14, 2009. The comment period on 

Amendment 10 ends on September 14, 

2009. 

Proposed Measures 

Minimum Codend Mesh Size Increase 

for the Loligo Fishery 

The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires 

that conservation and management 

measures, to the extent practicable, 

minimize bycatch, and to the extent that 

bycatch cannot be avoided, minimize 

the mortality of such bycatch. Of the 

three active MSB fisheries (i.e., Loligo, 

Illex, and Atlantic mackerel), the 

discarding of non-target species, 

especially butterfish, is highest in the 

Loligo fishery. During 2001–2006, the 

Loligo fishery was responsible for the 

following percentages of observed 

discards: 68 percent of butterfish, 8 

percent of scup, 56 percent of silver 

hake, 31 percent of red hake, 10 percent 

of spiny dogfish, 8 percent of striped 

bass, and 7 percent of summer flounder. 

To bring the MSB FMP into compliance 

with Magnuson-Stevens Act bycatch 

requirements, Amendment 10 

considered minimum codend mesh size 

increases for the Loligo fishery from 1– 

7/8 inches (48 mm) to a range from 2– 

1/8 inches (54 mm) to 3 inches (76 mm). 

Amendment 10 indicates that 

increases to Loligo codend mesh size 

would increase escapement of most 

non-target species in proportion to the 

size of the mesh increase. Increases in 

escapement of non-target species 

ultimately reduces discarding of nontarget species. The largest reduction in 

bycatch would come from increasing the 

minimum mesh size to 3 inches (76 

mm); less bycatch reduction would 

result from smaller mesh size increases 

(either 2–1/8 inches (54 mm) or 2–1/2 

inches (64 mm)), or an increase that is 

only in effect for part of the year. 

Increased harvest effort to compensate 

for increased escapement of Loligo 

through the larger mesh is a potential 

effect of increasing mesh size, and has 

the potential to increase with mesh size. 

Certain characteristics of the trawl 

gear used in the Loligo fishery result in 

an effective mesh size that is actually 

smaller than the specified codend mesh 

size. The codend’s diamond-shaped 

mesh becomes constricted when towed 

under load stress and reduces the 

effective mesh size of the gear. 

Additionally, the cover (minium mesh 

size of 4–1/2 inches (11.43 cm)) used to 

strengthen the codend in this volume 

fishery creates a masking effect and may 

further reduce the effective mesh size. 

While the Loligo codend mesh size 

increase was originally proposed for 

general bycatch reduction in the MSB 

fisheries, a minimum codend mesh size 

increase could also aid in rebuilding the 

butterfish stock. 

There are no published gear studies of 

Loligo selectivity; therefore, quantifying 

the Loligo retention effects associated 

with the different mesh sizes is difficult. 

Studies of other squid species suggest 

that squid, like fish, are size-selected by 

gear. However, Loligo growth studies 

suggest that Loligo retention has the 

potential to increase during the year, 

due to the rapid growth rate of squid. If 

Loligo escapement occurs, survival rates 

are unknown. As long as significant 

escapement mortality does not occur, 

increasing codend mesh size in the 

Loligo fishery is not anticipated to 

increase the harvest mortality on the 

Loligo stock, because harvesting would 

continue to be controlled by trimester 

quotas. Amendment 10 proposes a 

minimum codend mesh size increase for 

the Loligo fishery from 1–7/8 inches (48 

mm) to 2–1/8 inches (54 mm). Of the 

mesh sizes considered in the 

amendment, a minimum mesh size 

increase to 2–1/8 inches (54 mm) is 

anticipated to result in the least 

additional escapement of bycatch and 

Loligo. However, larger mesh size 

increases were deemed impracticable by 

the Council. 

When evaluating the effect of a Loligo 

minimum codend mesh size increase on 

butterfish rebuilding, the amendment 

concludes that only a codend mesh size 

increase to 3 inches (76 mm) would 

provide for escapement of juvenile 

butterfish and a portion of the spawning 

stock. Codend mesh size increases to 

less than 3 inches (76 mm) would 

facilitate escapement of some juvenile 

butterfish, but not many of the 

spawning stock. Therefore, as a standalone measure, a minimum codend 

mesh size increase to 2–1/8 inches (54 

mm) for the Loligo fishery would be less 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 170 / Thursday, September 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules 45599 

likely to both enable butterfish 

rebuilding and ensure the long-term 

sustainability of the butterfish resource, 

as compared to a minimum mesh size 

increase to 3 inches (76 mm). 

Originally, the amendment 

considered a year-round minimum 

codend mesh size increase for the Loligo 

fishery. During public comment on the 

amendment, industry members 

expressed concern that economic effects 

associated with additional harvest effort 

due to a minimum codend mesh size 

increase during Trimester II (MayAugust) could be high because of 

Loligo’s reduced body size during that 

period, following summer spawning. 

Additionally, industry members 

commented that discarding was 

generally low during Trimester II. 

Analyses in the amendment support the 

industry’s beliefs that discarding of 

butterfish and other finfish is low 

during Trimester II. For these reasons, 

Amendment 10 proposes that the 

minimum mesh size increase for the 

Loligo fishery only be in effect for 

Trimesters I and III. The Loligo quota 

allocated to Trimester II is only 17 

percent of the annual quota, so even if 

the mesh size increase would not be in 

effect for Trimester II, it would still be 

in effect during the harvesting of over 80 

percent of the quota. 

Given the lack of gear selectivity 

information on Loligo, Amendment 10 

proposes that the best way to comply 

with the Magnuson-Stevens Act 

requirement to minimize bycatch in 

MSB fisheries, to the extent practicable, 

is to proceed with a modest codend 

mesh size increase and then re-evaluate 

the effects of the minimum codend 

mesh size increase after the measure has 

been effective for 2 years. The 

evaluation would examine 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 would be used to 

maintain or revise minimum codend 

mesh size requirements for the Loligo 

fishery through the MSB specifications 

process. 

Butterfish Rebuilding Program 

Status of the Butterfish Stock 

In 2004, the 38th Northeast Regional 

Stock Assessment Workshop (SAW–38) 

provided estimates of butterfish fishing 

mortality and stock biomass estimates 

through 2002, and determined that 

butterfish was overfished. Although the 

butterfish assessment stock size estimate 

was highly imprecise (80 percent 

confidence interval ranged from 2,600 

mt to 10,900 mt), the overfished 

determination was based on the fact that 

the 2002 biomass estimate for butterfish 

(7,800 mt) was below the threshold level 

defining the stock as overfished (1⁄2

BMSY =11,400 mt). The next butterfish 

stock assessment is scheduled for 

November 2009. 

SAW–38 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 primary source of 

butterfish discards is the Loligo fishery 

because of the use of small-mesh, 

diamond codends (1–7/8–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. 

Butterfish Rebuilding Projections 

The Amendment 10 Fishery 

Management Action Team (FMAT) 

attempted to update the model used in 

the SAW–38 stock assessment to 

estimate recruitment and stock 

rebuilding for butterfish. However, 

because of limited data on the age 

composition of butterfish catch from 

2002 to present, due to the absence of 

a directed fishery, it was not possible to 

update the model. Therefore, in 

consultation with the Council’s SSC, the 

FMAT used an auto-regressive (AR) 

time-series model to forecast 

recruitment biomass for stock recovery. 

The AR model was used to forecast 

recruit biomass during 2007–2016; these 

forecasted recruitment data were used 

in a projection to determine if and when 

the butterfish stock would rebuild. To 

simulate a bycatch-only fishery (i.e., 

minimal directed fishing, discards as 

the primary source of fishing mortality), 

a fishing mortality rate (F) of 0.1 was 

found appropriate to project the biomass 

of butterfish during 2005–2016. Using 

an F of 0.1, and an estimate of long-term 

average recruitment, results from the AR 

model indicated that the butterfish stock 

could rebuild to above BMSY (22,800 

mt) in 2007, and remain above the target 

level of BMSY during 2007–2016. While 

these projections suggest that the 

butterfish stock can rebuild quickly, 

they do not represent stock status and, 

like the SAW–38 butterfish stock 

biomass estimate, the projection 

estimates are likely highly imprecise. 

Determination of Butterfish Quotas 

The rebuilding program proposed in 

Amendment 10 specifies that, during 

the rebuilding period, quotas would be 

set through the specifications process 

and would conform to the following 

control rule: Allowable Biological Catch 

(ABC) would equal the yield associated 

with applying an F of 0.1 to the most 

current estimate of stock biomass. 

Butterfish stock status determinations 

and reference points status would be 

determined periodically through the 

SAW process. During years without 

updated SAW assessments, butterfish 

stock biomass would be annually 

estimated during the specifications 

process by updating the stock 

assessment model with current year 

data, including Northeast Fisheries 

Science Center survey data, NEFOP 

data, and landings data. The process for 

annually estimating the butterfish stock 

biomass would be documented in a 

technical summary report. Once the 

stock is determined to be rebuilt, ABC 

would be specified according to the 

fishing mortality control rule currently 

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

associated with 75 percent FMSY). 

Initial Optimum Yield (IOY), Domestic 

Annual Harvesting (DAH) and Domestic 

Annual Processing (DAP) would 

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. 

Butterfish Mortality Cap 

As described previously, there has 

been no significant butterfish fishery 

since 2002. In the absence of a directed 

fishery, butterfish fishing mortality is 

primarily the result of discarding in 

other fisheries. The year-round cooccurrence of Loligo and butterfish 

results in over half of all observed 

butterfish discards occurring in the 

Loligo fishery. For this reason, 

Amendment 10 proposes that a 

mortality cap be set to control the 

amount of butterfish fishing mortality in 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
45600 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 170 / Thursday, September 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

the Loligo fishery. Because the butterfish 

mortality cap would account for all 

butterfish caught by the Loligo fishery 

(discards as well as landings), the 

mortality cap is specified to equal 75 

percent of the butterfish ABC. The 

remaining 25 percent of the butterfish 

ABC would 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 (Jan-Apr; May-Aug; 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 proposed in 

Amendment 10 would also require the 

closure of the directed Loligo fishery if 

the butterfish mortality cap is attained. 

Amendment 10 indicates that the 

butterfish mortality cap would limit the 

fishing mortality on butterfish spawning 

stock and juveniles, thereby improving 

the likelihood of increasing recruitment 

and rebuilding and maintaining the 

butterfish stock. The amendment also 

concludes that the butterfish mortality 

cap for the Loligo fishery is the most 

effective measure to rebuild the 

butterfish stock, as it is currently the 

only way to directly control butterfish 

fishing mortality and allow for the 

reduction in butterfish bycatch that will 

promote rebuilding of the stock. 

In addition to being an effective 

rebuilding measure for the butterfish 

stock, the butterfish mortality cap 

would provide the Loligo industry with 

incentives to reduce interactions with 

butterfish. During the development of 

Amendment 10, industry advisors 

indicated that they are able to prosecute 

the Loligo fishery with minimal 

associated bycatch of butterfish. Should 

modified fishing practices reduce 

interactions between the Loligo fishery 

and butterfish, then Loligo harvest may 

only be minimally affected by the 

butterfish mortality cap. 

Since the Loligo quota is allocated by 

trimester, Amendment 10 proposes that 

the butterfish mortality cap for the 

Loligo fishery also be allocated by 

trimester. Observer data would be used 

to allocate the butterfish mortality cap 

to the trimesters based on butterfish 

bycatch rates in the Loligo fishery. 

Therefore, the butterfish mortality cap 

would be allocated to the Loligo fishery 

as follows: Trimester I - 65 percent; 

Trimester II - 3.3 percent; Trimester III 

- 31.7 percent. 

Originally, Amendment 10 proposed 

that butterfish mortality caps would be 

monitored during all three Loligo 

trimesters, with closures of the Loligo 

fishery if the mortality cap was 

projected to be attained. However, based 

on input during public hearings, the 

Council modified this provision in 

Amendment 10. Amendment 10 would 

close the directed Loligo fishery during 

Trimesters I and III, if the butterfish 

mortality cap was harvested, but would 

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 and would be variable. To 

minimize uncertainty associated with 

closing the directed Loligo fishery 

during Trimester II, Amendment 10 

proposes that the butterfish mortality 

cap be tracked during Trimester II, but 

that butterfish catch and the mortality 

cap for Trimester II be applied to 

Trimester III. Therefore, operationally, 

the butterfish mortality caps from 

Trimesters II and III would be 

combined, such that 35 percent of the 

total butterfish morality cap would be 

tracked during Trimester III. 

Additionally, any overages/underages 

from the butterfish mortality cap during 

Trimester I would be applied to 

Trimester III. As a precaution against 

exceeding the butterfish quota, 

Amendment 10 also proposes that 

closure thresholds be established for the 

butterfish mortality cap by trimester. 

Therefore, closures of the directed 

Loligo fishery would occur if 80 percent 

of the butterfish mortality cap for 

Trimester I was projected to be 

harvested, and/or if 90 percent of the 

cap for Trimester III was projected to be 

harvested. If Trimester II bycatch levels 

are high, reducing the butterfish 

mortality cap for Trimester III, the 

Council could recommend the in-season 

closure mechanism for Trimester II in 

future specifications. Exempting the 

Loligo fishery from a closure in response 

to butterfish bycatch during Trimester II 

is not expected to undermine the 

butterfish rebuilding program’s ability 

to control the fishing mortality of 

butterfish, because all bycatch is tracked 

and applied to the butterfish mortality 

cap for Trimester III. As such, there 

should be no negative biological 

impacts related to the modification of 

this measure. 

The butterfish mortality cap will be 

monitored by NMFS’s 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 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 would close. 

The exact projection methodology will 

be developed by FSO, reviewed 

annually during the MSB specifications 

process, and be revised as appropriate. 

While an industry-funded observer 

program was considered by the Council, 

analyses in Amendment 10 demonstrate 

that status quo levels of observer 

coverage would be sufficient for the 

purpose of administering the butterfish 

mortality cap. To facilitate the 

placement of observers on Loligo trips, 

Amendment 10 proposes a trip 

notification requirement. In order for a 

vessel to possess 2,500 lb (1.13 mt) or 

more of Loligo, a vessel representative 

would be required to phone NMFS to 

request an observer at least 72 hrs prior 

to embarking on a fishing trip. If the 

vessel representative does not make this 

required trip notification to NMFS, the 

vessel would 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 would be required to carry an 

observer (provided an observer is 

available) or the vessel would be 

prohibited from possessing or landing 

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

If a trip is cancelled, a vessel 

representative would 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 was 

selected to carry an observer, that vessel 

would be assigned an observer on its 

next trip. 

The SSC would annually review the 

performance of the butterfish mortality 

cap program during the specification 

process. The items considered by the 

SSC would include, but arenot limited 

to the: Coefficient of variation (CV) of 

the butterfish bycatch estimate; estimate 

of butterfish mortality; and status and 

trend 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 could be increased to 

acceptable levels. If increasing NEFOP 

coverage is not possible, the Council 

would next consider implementation of 

an industry funded observer program in 

a subsequent action. If increased 

observer coverage proves impractical or 

ineffective, the SSC could recommend 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 170 / Thursday, September 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules 45601 

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 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 would 

implement measures through the MSB 

annual specifications process to assure 

the rebuilding of the butterfish stock, 

consistent with existing MSB 

regulations at § 648.2(d)(2). 

As previously described, in 

conjunction with the butterfish 

mortality cap, 25 percent of the 

butterfish ABC would be allocated for 

direct harvest and discard mortality in 

other fisheries. Butterfish landings and 

observed discards in other fisheries 

would be monitored by FSO, but would 

not result in fisheries closures. These 

data would be reviewed as part of the 

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 of the butterfish 

ABC, then the allocation of the 

butterfish quota between the Loligo 

fishery and other fisheries would be 

revised, or other measures (e.g., reduced 

trip limits) would be implemented to 

constrain the other fisheries to 25 

percent of the butterfish ABC. 

The process for closing the directed 

butterfish fishing would be status quo 

(fishery closure at 80 percent of IOY). 

All butterfish landings would count 

against the butterfish quota to determine 

when the directed butterfish fishery is 

closed. Projected landings would be 

based on dealer data and would be 

monitored weekly. If the directed 

butterfish fishery is closed, vessels with 

Loligo/butterfish moratorium permits 

would be subject to the closure-related 

incidental trip limits set in the 

specifications. 

Butterfish Rebuilding Program Timeline 

Amendment 10 proposes a 5-year 

butterfish rebuilding program; the 

rebuilding program would extend from 

2010 to 2014. Section 304(e) of the 

Magnuson-Steven Act specifies that 

rebuilding periods for overfished 

species be as short as possible, taking 

into account the biology of the stock and 

the needs of fishing communities. 

Butterfish rebuilding periods of 7 and 

10 years were considered by the 

Council, but rejected because the 

biology of the stock allows for rapid 

rebuilding. Rebuilding periods of less 

than 5 years were rejected by the 

Council due to the potential for negative 

economic effects associated with a 

compressed rebuilding schedule. A 5- 

year rebuilding program is proposed to 

balance Magnuson-Stevens Act 

requirements while considering the 

biology of the stock and the needs of 

fishing communities. Even though the 

proposed butterfish rebuilding plan is a 

5-year plan, the primary measures of the 

rebuilding plan, such as the butterfish 

mortality cap and minimum codend 

mesh size increase for the Loligo fishery, 

would need to be permanent to ensure 

long-term sustainability of the butterfish 

stock. 

During Year 1 (2010) of the rebuilding 

program, the 2009 quotas would be 

maintained (ABC specification for 

butterfish at 1,500 mt; landings limited 

to 500 mt). Butterfish landings would be 

monitored and the butterfish fishery 

would be closed when landings are 

projected to reach 80 percent of the 

butterfish quota. Additionally, as 

described previously, the minimum 

codend mesh size requirement for the 

Loligo fishery would be increased from 

1–7/8 inches (48 mm) to 2–1/8 inches 

(54 mm) during Trimesters I and III. The 

goal of the rebuilding plan during Year 

1 would be to further butterfish 

rebuilding by keeping landings levels 

low, thereby discouraging a directed 

fishery, and by increasing some 

escapement of juvenile butterfish with a 

minimum codend mesh size increase up 

to 2–1/8 inches (54 mm). During Year 2 

(2011) of the rebuilding program, in 

addition to management measures 

effective during Year 1 of the rebuilding 

plan, the butterfish mortality cap for the 

Loligo fishery would be implemented. 

The butterfish mortality cap for the 

Loligo fishery would directly control the 

butterfish landings and discards (of all 

ages) in the Loligo fishery, the primary 

source of butterfish fishing mortality, 

and facilitate rebuilding of the stock and 

protection of the rebuilt stock. 

The rebuilding program in 

Amendment 10 is expected to rebuild 

the butterfish stock within the 5-year 

rebuilding period. This conclusion is 

supported by the SSC-reviewed AR 

model, 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. If the 

butterfish mortality cap is implemented 

in 2010, then the probability of at least 

one large recruitment event occurring 

during years 1–5 of the rebuilding 

period rises to 94 percent. In other 

words, implementing the butterfish 

mortality cap in 2011, rather than 2010, 

increases the risk of failing to take 

advantage of a good recruitment event 

(from 6 percent to 12 percent). 

The Council recommended the 5-year 

rebuilding timeline, in part, due to 

concerns that the SAW–38 stock 

estimate for 2002 would have to be used 

to set the butterfish mortality cap for 

2010. Best available science suggests 

that the butterfish stock size has been 

highly variable during 1968–2002. 

Using the SAW–38 assessment data, the 

butterfish mortality cap for the Loligo 

fishery 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. 

If the butterfish mortality cap is set too 

low, given the current butterfish stock 

conditions, the measure could have 

unnecessarily severe economic effects 

on the Loligo fishery. Because a 

butterfish stock assessment is scheduled 

for November 2009, Amendment 10 

proposes using the updated stock 

information when specifying a 

butterfish mortality cap for the Loligo 

fishery. A 2011 implementation of the 

butterfish mortality cap would allow the 

updated butterfish stock estimate to be 

used when setting the butterfish 

mortality cap, but the updated stock 

estimate would not yet be available 

when setting a butterfish mortality cap 

for 2010. 

In addition, the rebuilding program 

specifies that the minimum codend 

mesh size increase for the Loligo fishery 

would be implemented prior to the 

butterfish mortality cap. Amendment 10 

proposes using a weighted average of 

the current and the previous year’s data 

for to track the butterfish mortality cap 

for the Loligo fishery. If the butterfish 

mortality cap were to be implemented 

in 2010, then 2009 data (i.e., data prior 

to the implementation of the mesh size 

increase) would be used to calculate the 

butterfish mortality cap. Because the 

mesh size increase is expected to 

increase the escapement of juvenile 

butterfish, the Council thought it 

inappropriate to use data from 2009, 

when much of the industry used a 

smaller minimum codend mesh size, to 

calculate/track the butterfish mortality 

cap harvested by a fishery required to 

use gear with a larger mesh size. By 

implementing the butterfish mortality 

cap in 2011, the data used to monitor 

the butterfish mortality cap would better 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
45602 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 170 / Thursday, September 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

reflect the new 2–1/8–inch (54–mm) 

codend mesh size requirement. 

Corrections 

This proposed rule also contains 

minor corrections to existing 

regulations. These corrections would 

not revise the intent of any regulations; 

they would only clarify the intent of 

existing regulations by correcting 

technical errors. In § 648.48.13(a), 

transfer-at-sea requirements for squid 

and butterfish would be revised to omit 

references to a mackerel permit. In 

§ 648.14(g)(2)(ii)(C), the reference to 

possession allowances would be 

corrected. In § 648.21(f)(1), the 

description of Loligo trimesters would 

be corrected. Lastly, in § 648.25(a), 

possession restrictions for mackerel 

would be revised to omit references to 

the butterfish fishery. 

Public comments are being solicited 

on Amendment 10 and its incorporated 

documents through the end of the 

comment period, September 14, 2009, 

stated in the NOA for Amendment 10 

(74 FR 33986). All comments received 

by September 14, 2009, whether 

specifically directed to Amendment 10 

or this proposed rule, will be considered 

in the approval/disapproval decision on 

Amendment 10. Public comments must 

be received by September 14, 2009, to 

be considered in the approval/ 

disapproval decision on the 

amendment. Comments received after 5 

pm, eastern standard time, will not be 

considered in the decision to approve or 

disapprove Amendment 10. Public 

comments on this proposed rule must 

be received no later than 5 p.m., eastern 

standard time, on October 19, 2009. 

Classification 

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

the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS has 

determined that this proposed rule is 

consistent with the FMP, other 

provisions 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 FSEIS for 

Amendment 10; a notice of availability 

was published on July 2, 2009 (74 FR 

31733). The FSEIS describes the impacts 

of the proposed Amendment 10 

measures on the environment. The 

proposed measure to increase minimum 

codend mesh size from 1–7/8 inches (48 

mm) to 2–1/8 inches (54 mm) for the 

Loligo fishery during Trimesters I (JanApr) and III (Sep-Dec) would minimize 

bycatch and discards of non-target 

species to the extent practicable, 

including butterfish, an overfished 

species. Loss of revenue due to 

increased Loligo escapement associated 

with the mesh size increase would 

depend on the actual amount of Loligo 

escapement, but revenue loss would be 

mitigated because the mesh size 

increase would not be effective during 

Trimester II. The proposed measure to 

establish a butterfish mortality cap for 

the Loligo fishery would aid in the 

rebuilding of the butterfish stocks by 

directly controlling butterfish fishing 

mortality. If the butterfish mortality cap 

is attained and the Loligo fishery closes, 

bycatch of butterfish and other nontarget species would be reduced. Loss of 

revenue is possible if the Loligo quota 

could not be harvested because the 

fishery was closed in response to 

butterfish bycatch. As the butterfish 

stock rebuilds and the butterfish 

mortality cap increases as the stock size 

increases, the likelihood of lost Loligo 

revenue associated with the butterfish 

mortality cap is expected to decrease. 

The requirement that vessels notify 

NMFS 72 hrs prior to embarking on a 

Loligo fishing trip is an administrative 

measure, but it is anticipated to have 

biological benefits by enhancing 

observer coverage of the Loligo fishery. 

The annual review of the butterfish 

mortality cap program is expected to 

have both biological and economic 

benefits by allowing new information 

(e.g., changes in stock estimates or 

bycatch rates) to be quickly 

incorporated into the management 

process for butterfish. 

An IRFA was prepared, 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 description of the action, why it is 

being considered, and the legal basis for 

this action are contained at the 

beginning of this section in the 

preamble and in the SUMMARY section of 

the preamble. A summary of the 

analysis follows. A copy of this analysis 

is available from the Council or NMFS 

(see ADDRESSES). 

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 2 

grossed more than $4 million annually; 

therefore, there are no disproportionate 

economic impacts on small entities. The 

proposed 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 proposes a trip 

notification requirement for the Loligo 

fishery. The rationale for and 

description of the measure is included 

in the preamble of this rule; therefore, 

that information is not repeated here. 

The phone call to NMFS to declare a 

Loligo fishing trip is expected to be 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 calls 

originated, but cost is expected to be 

minimal. This trip notification 

requirement does not duplicate, overlap, 

or conflict with any other Federal rules. 

Economic Impacts of the Proposed 

Action Compared to Significant NonSelected Alternatives 

Some of the proposed measures (e.g., 

trip notification, minimum mesh size 

increase, annual assessment of 

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 non-selected alternatives, is 

in Section 7.5.1 of Amendment 10. 

Two of the proposed 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 hrs 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. This 

rule also proposes that the butterfish 

mortality cap be reviewed by the 

Council’s SSC on an annual basis, and 

that modifications to the butterfish 

mortality cap be implemented through 

the MSB specifications process. This 

measure is also administrative and 

would have only minimal economic 

effects on fishery participants. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 170 / Thursday, September 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules 45603 

Implementing a 2–1/8–inches (54– 

mm) minimum codend mesh size 

requirement for the Loligo fishery is 

expected to have a larger economic 

effect on fishery participants than the no 

action alternative (maintaining the 1–7/ 

8–inches (48–mm) minimum mesh size 

requirement), but less of an economic 

effect than implementing any of the 

other action alternatives (minimum 

mesh size requirements of 2–3/8 inches 

(60 mm), 2–1/2 inches (64 mm), or 3 

inches (76 mm)). The factors considered 

in evaluating economic effects of the 

action alternatives are the cost of 

replacing a codend and the loss in 

revenue that may result from increased 

harvest effort due to 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 

codend can cost approximately between 

$200 and $700, depending on the size 

of the net. Notifying fishery participants 

well in advance of regulatory changes 

may allow participants to plan 

purchases, thereby minimizing costs 

associated with a replacement codend. 

The cost of replacement codends is not 

anticipated to vary by mesh size among 

the action alternatives. 

The loss of revenue associated with 

increased harvest effort due to 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 action alternatives increase with 

mesh size. Economic effects associated 

with an increased minimum 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 action alternatives, the Loligo 

fishery would close when the butterfish 

mortality cap was harvested. If the 

Loligo fishery is closed in response to 

butterfish bycatch before the entire 

Loligo fishery is harvested, then a loss 

of revenue is possible. If the Loligo 

fishery can be prosecuted with minimal 

butterfish bycatch and without 

triggering the butterfish mortality cap, 

then there would be no economic 

differences 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 determined based on the level of 

butterfish abundance. As the butterfish 

stock rebuilds, the mortality cap would 

increase and the potential for lost Loligo 

revenue should decrease. When the 

butterfish stock rebuilds, a directed 

butterfish fishery could resume, 

provided discards were kept low, and 

would have economic benefits for 

fishery participants. 

The economic effects on fishery 

participants between the action 

alternatives (butterfish mortality cap 

allocated by trimester in the same 

proportions as the Loligo quota, Loligo 

landings, or butterfish bycatch rates) is 

anticipated to be minimal. However, 

because the proposed action (butterfish 

morality 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 proposed action 

would be less constraining on the Loligo 

fishery than the non-selected action 

alternatives, 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 1– 

7/8–inch (48–mm) minimum mesh size 

requirement for vessels retaining Loligo. 

Because squid species can seasonally 

co-occur, during the months of JuneSeptember, 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, the Council recommended 

maintaining 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 

3–3/4 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 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
45604 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 170 / Thursday, September 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

flexible in their fishing practices, these 

losses would most likely not be fully 

realized. 

This proposed rule contains a 

collection-of-information requirement 

subject to review and approval by the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act (PRA). This requirement has been 

submitted to OMB for approval. Public 

reporting burden for a trip notification 

requirement for the Loligo fishery is 

estimated to average 3 min per response, 

including the time for reviewing 

instructions, searching existing data 

sources, gathering and maintaining the 

data needed, and completing and 

reviewing the collection information. 

Public comment is sought regarding: 

Whether this proposed collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of the functions of the 

agency, including whether the 

information shall have practical utility; 

the accuracy of the burden estimate; 

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and ways to minimize the 

burden of the collection of information, 

including through the use of automated 

collection techniques or other forms of 

information technology. Send comments 

on these or any other aspects of the 

collection of information to NMFS, 

Northeast Regional Office at the 

ADDRESSES above, and to David Rostker 

by e-mail DavidlRostker@omb.eop.gov 

or fax (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: August 28, 2009 

James W. Balsiger, 

Acting 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 § 648.13, 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 Loligo, Illex, or 

butterfish from one vessel to another 

vessel. 

* * * * * 

3. 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. 

* * * * * 

4. 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 (MayAugust) - 17.0 percent; and Trimester III 

(September-December) - 40.0 percent. 

* * * * * 

5. 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. 

* * * * * 

6. 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 2–1/8 

inches (54 mm), during Trimesters I 

(Jan-Apr) and III (Sept-Dec), or 1–7/8 

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 2– 

1/8 inches (54 mm), during Trimesters 

I (Jan-Apr) and III (Sept-Dec), or 1–7/8 

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 4–1/2 inches (11.43 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 170 / Thursday, September 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules 45605 

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. 

* * * * * 

7. 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. 

* * * * * 

8. Section 648.26 is added 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, contact name for 

coordination of observer deployment, 

telephone number for contact; and the 

date, time, and port of departure, at least 

72 hrs prior to beginning any fishing 

trip, unless it complies with the 

possession restrictions in paragraph (c) 

of this section. 

(b) If the vessel representative notifies 

NMFS of an upcoming trip, and then 

that trip is cancelled, the representative 

is required to provide notice to NMFS 

of the vessel name, 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 hrs of the initial notification. 

(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), possesses, 

harvests, or lands 2,500 lb (1.13 mt) or 

more of Loligo per trip or per calendar 

day and is selected by NMFS to carry an 

observer, but the trip selected for 

observer coverage is cancelled, then that 

vessel is required to carry an observer, 

provided an observer is available, on its 

next trip. 

[FR Doc. E9–21322 Filed 9–2–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS