16472 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 55 / Wednesday, March 21, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

November 10, 2011 (76 FR 70217). The 

purpose of these notices was to gather 

and respond to comments on the actual 

forms used to collect information for the 

national pipeline operator registry. 

PHMSA is issuing this advisory 

bulletin to clarify the implementation of 

the national pipeline operator registry. 

II. Advisory Bulletin (ADB–2012–04) 

To: Owners and Operators of Pipeline 

and LNG Facilities. 

Subject: Implementation of the 

National Registry of Pipeline and LNG 

Operators. 

Advisory: This notice advises owners 

and operators of pipeline facilities of 

PHMSA’s plan for implementing the 

national registry of pipeline and LNG 

operators. This notice provides updates 

to the information contained in a 

PHMSA Advisory Bulletin on the same 

subject published on January 13, 2012 

(77 FR 2126). 

OPID Assignment Requests— 

§§ 191.22(a) and 195.64(a) 

From January 1, 2012, to January 27, 

2012, PHMSA collected fillable pdf 

versions of OPID Assignment Request 

(Form F 1000.1). Starting January 27, 

2012, the Online Data Reporting System 

(ODES) is used by entities requesting a 

new OPID. PHMSA is entering the pdf 

versions of OPID Assignment Request 

forms into ODES and will notify 

requestors when the OPID has been 

established. 

While subject to the pipeline safety 

regulations, operators of master meter 

systems or petroleum gas systems that 

serve fewer than 100 customers from a 

single source are not required to file 

annual reports (see 49 CFR 191.11(b)). 

There were several thousand master 

meter system operators and several 

hundred small liquefied petroleum gas 

(LPG) operators who fell within the 

scope of this exception as of December 

31, 2011. 

While also subject to the requirements 

of 49 CFR 191.22, PHMSA previously 

determined that the operators of these 

systems would not be required to obtain 

an OPID. Instead, PHMSA agreed to 

create OPIDs for these operators based 

on the existing data in the agency’s files. 

That is currently underway and will be 

completed by May 1, 2012. 

In light of this experience, PHMSA 

has decided that master meter and small 

LPG operators established after 

December 31, 2011, will be required to 

obtain an OPID in accordance with 49 

CFR 191.22. On May 1, 2012, PHMSA 

will modify ODES to allow these master 

meter and small LPG operators to 

request an OPID. The requirement to 

request an OPID continues to not apply 

to master meter and small LPG 

operators in existence prior to December 

31, 2011. 

Notifications—§§ 191.22(c) and 

195.64(c) 

On January 1, 2012, PHMSA began 

collecting fillable pdf versions of 

Notifications (Form F 1000.2). Starting 

March 27, 2012, operators will be able 

to submit notifications online through 

ODES, and PHMSA will enter all of the 

pdf versions of the notifications into 

ODES shortly thereafter. 

Hazardous liquid pipeline operators 

are advised to disregard the notification 

requirement in § 195.64(c)(1)(iii). That 

provision requires notification for 

construction of any new pipeline 

facility without regard to cost. Section 

195.64(c)(1)(i) also requires notification 

for construction of a new pipeline 

facility, but only for those projects with 

a cost of $10 million or more. PHMSA 

only wants notification of hazardous 

liquid pipeline facility construction 

projects with a cost of $10 million or 

more and plans to remove 

§ 195.64(c)(1)(iii) in a future rulemaking. 

OPID Validation—§§ 191.22(b) and 

195.64(b) 

On March 27, 2012, operators will be 

able to complete the validation process 

online. PHMSA requests that all OPIDs 

issued prior to January 1, 2012, 

complete the validation process. As 

with OPID Assignment Requests, master 

meter and small LPG operators in 

existence prior to December 31, 2011, 

are not required to complete the 

validation process. Based on the 

delayed availability of the on-line 

validation process, PHMSA is extending 

the regulatory deadline for validation 

from June 30, 2012, to September 30, 

2012. PHMSA recommends that 

operators submit calendar year 2011 

annual reports at least five working days 

prior to completing the validation 

process. 

Further details on how to submit 

reports to PHMSA are available at 

http://opsweb.phmsa.dot.gov. Questions 

should be directed to the Office of 

Pipeline Safety operator helpline at 

202–366–8075. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on March 9, 

2012. 

Jeffrey D. Wiese, 

Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety. 

[FR Doc. 2012–6860 Filed 3–20–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–60–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 648 

[Docket No. 110707371–2136–02] 

RIN 0648–BB28 

Fisheries of the Northeastern United 

States; Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and 

Butterfish Fisheries; Specifications 

and Management Measures 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule; interim 

specifications; request for comment. 

SUMMARY: NMFS is implementing final 

2012 specifications and management 

measures for Atlantic mackerel 

(mackerel), and 2012–2014 

specifications for Illex and longfin 

squid, and interim final 2012 

specifications and management 

measures for butterfish. This is the first 

year that the specifications are being set 

for Atlantic mackerel and butterfish 

under the provisions of the Mid-Atlantic 

Fishery Management Council’s 

(Council) Annual Catch Limit and 

Accountability Measure Omnibus 

Amendment. This action also adjusts 

the closure threshold for the commercial 

mackerel fishery to 95 percent (from 90 

percent), and allows the use of jigging 

gear to target longfin squid if the longfin 

squid fishery is closed due to the 

butterfish mortality cap. Finally, this 

rule makes minor corrections in existing 

regulatory text to clarify the intent of the 

regulations. These specifications and 

management measures promote the 

utilization and conservation of the 

Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish 

(MSB) resource. 

DATES: This rule is effective on April 20, 

2012. Public comments on the interim 

final butterfish specifications must be 

received no later than 5 p.m., eastern 

standard time, on April 20, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

on the butterfish specifications, 

identified by NOAA–NMFS–2011–0245, 

by any one of the following methods: 

• Electronic Submission: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal e-Rulemaking Portal http:// 

www.regulations.gov. To submit 

comments via the e-Rulemaking Portal, 

first click the ‘‘submit a comment’’ icon, 

then enter NMFS–NOAA–2011–0245 in 

the keyword search. Locate the 

document you wish to comment on 

from the resulting list and click on the 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 55 / Wednesday, March 21, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 16473 

‘‘Submit a Comment’’ icon on the right 

of that line. 

• Fax: (978) 281–9135, Attn: 

Comments on 2012 Butterfish 

Specifications, NMFS–NOAA–2011– 

0245 

• Mail and hand delivery: Daniel S. 

Morris, Acting Regional Administrator, 

NMFS, Northeast Regional Office, 55 

Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 

01930. Mark the outside of the 

envelope: ‘‘Comments on 2012 Interim 

Butterfish Specifications, NOAA– 

NMFS–2011–0245.’’ 

Instructions: Comments must be 

submitted by one of the above methods 

to ensure that the comments are 

received, documented, and considered 

by NMFS. Comments sent by any other 

method, to any other address or 

individual, or received after the end of 

the comment period, may not be 

considered. All comments received are 

a part of the public record and will 

generally be posted to http:// 

www.regulations.gov without change. 

All Personal Identifying Information (for 

example, name, address, etc.) 

voluntarily submitted by the commenter 

may be publicly accessible. Do not 

submit Confidential Business 

Information or otherwise sensitive or 

protected information. 

NMFS will accept anonymous 

comments (enter N/A in the required 

fields, if you wish to remain 

anonymous). You may submit 

attachments to electronic comments in 

Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or 

Adobe PDF file formats only. 

Copies of the 2012 specifications 

document, including the Environmental 

Assessment (EA), is available from 

Daniel S. Morris, Acting Northeast 

Regional Administrator, National 

Marine Fisheries Service, 55 Great 

Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. 

This document is also accessible via the 

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

NMFS prepared a Final Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis (FRFA), which is 

contained in the Classification section 

of this rule. Copies of the FRFA and the 

Small Entity Compliance Guide are 

available from: Daniel S. Morris, Acting 

Regional Administrator, National 

Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast 

Region, 55 Great Republic Drive, 

Gloucester, MA 01930–2276, or via the 

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Aja 

Szumylo, Fishery Policy Analyst, 978– 

281–9195, fax 978–281–9135. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Specifications, as referred to in this 

rule, are the combined suite of 

commercial and recreational catch 

levels established for one or more 

fishing years. The specification process 

also allows for the modification of a 

select number of management measures, 

such as closure thresholds, gear 

restrictions, and possession limits. The 

Council’s process for establishing 

specifications relies on provisions 

within the Fishery Management Plan 

(FMP) and its implementing regulations, 

as well as requirements established by 

the Magnuson-Stevens Act. 

In developing these specifications, the 

Council considered the 

recommendations made by its 

Monitoring Committee and Scientific 

and Statistical Committee (SSC). 

Generally, the SSC recommends to the 

Council acceptable biological catch 

(ABC) levels that take into account 

scientific uncertainty regarding stock 

status and biological reference points, 

and the Council relies on that ABC 

recommendation to set other 

specifications. Here, in addition to 

specifications for each of the MSB 

species, the Council recommended 

adjusting the mackerel closure 

threshold, and adjusting gear 

requirements for the butterfish and 

longfin squid fisheries. The Council 

made its specification recommendations 

at its June 14–16, 2011, meeting in Port 

Jefferson, NY, and submitted these draft 

recommendations, along with the 

required analyses, for agency review on 

August 9, 2011, with final submission 

on September 15, 2011. A proposed rule 

for 2012 MSB specifications and 

management measures was published 

on October 26, 2011 (76 FR 66260), and 

the public comment period for the 

proposed rule ended on November 25, 

2011. Details concerning the Council’s 

development of these measures were 

presented in the preamble of the 

proposed rule and are not repeated here. 

The structure of specifications for the 

mackerel and butterfish fisheries was 

revised by the Council’s recently 

finalized regulations implementing its 

Annual Catch Limit and Accountability 

Measure Omnibus Amendment 

(Omnibus Amendment; 76 FR 60606, 

September 29, 2011), which established 

annual catch limit (ACL) and 

accountability measure (AM) provisions 

for all of the Council’s FMPs. The ACL/ 

AM requirements do not apply to the 

squid species because they have a life 

cycle of less than 1 year. Following the 

specification of ABC, the revised 

regulations at § 648.22 require the 

specification of ACLs, which, if 

exceeded, require payback deductions 

from the subsequent year’s catch limit. 

In order to reduce the chance of ACL 

overages, and the associated paybacks 

when ACLs are exceeded, the 

regulations also require NMFS to 

specify annual catch targets (ACTs) to 

provide a buffer for management 

uncertainty. Several specifications, 

including domestic annual harvest 

(DAH), domestic annual processing 

(DAP), total allowable level of foreign 

fishing (TALFF), and joint venture 

processing for mackerel (JVP), were 

previously required in the 

implementing regulations for the FMP, 

and were unchanged by the Omnibus 

Amendment. 

For mackerel, the Omnibus 

Amendment and Amendment 11 to the 

MSB FMP (76 FR 68642; November 7, 

2011) created distinct allocations for the 

commercial and recreational mackerel 

fisheries. The revised mackerel 

regulations require the specification of 

ACTs for both the commercial and 

recreational mackerel fisheries. For 

butterfish, the regulations also require 

specification of the mortality cap on the 

longfin squid fishery. 

The regulations governing 

specifications for Illex and longfin squid 

are largely unchanged from previous 

fishing years. For both squid species, 

regulations at § 648.22 require the 

specification of ABC, initial optimum 

yield (IOY), DAH, and DAP. 

The Mid-Atlantic Research Set-Aside 

(RSA) Program allows research projects 

to be funded through the sale of fish that 

has been set aside from the total annual 

quota. The RSA may vary between 0 and 

3 percent of the overall quota for each 

species. The Council has recommended 

that up to 3 percent of the total ACL for 

mackerel and butterfish, and up to 3 

percent of the IOY for Illex and longfin 

squid, may be set aside to fund projects 

selected under the 2012 Mid-Atlantic 

RSA. NMFS awarded portions of 

available butterfish and longfin squid 

RSA to support several projects; there 

were no RSA awards of mackerel and 

Illex. The award amounts are included 

in the specification descriptions for 

butterfish and longfin squid below. 

Descriptions of the selected projects 

were published in the proposed rule (76 

FR 66260) and are not repeated here. 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
16474 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 55 / Wednesday, March 21, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 1—FINAL SPECIFICATIONS, IN METRIC TONS (MT), FOR MACKEREL AND BUTTERFISH FOR THE 2012 FISHING YEAR, 

AND FOR ILLEX AND LONGFIN SQUID FOR THE 2012–2014 FISHING YEARS

Specifications Mackerel Butterfish Illex Longfin 

OFL ........................................... Unknown ......................... Unknown ......................... Unknown ......................... Unknown. 

ABC .......................................... 43,781 ............................. 1,811 ............................... 24,000 ............................. 23,400. 

ACL ........................................... 43,781 ............................. 1,811 ............................... N/A .................................. N/A. 

Commercial ACT ...................... 34,907 ............................. 1,630 ............................... N/A .................................. N/A. 

Recreational ACT/RHL ............. 2,443 ............................... N/A .................................. N/A .................................. N/A. 

IOY ............................................ N/A .................................. N/A .................................. 22,915 ............................. 22,220. 

DAH/DAP .................................. 33,821 ............................. 485 .................................. 22,915 ............................. 22,220. 

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

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

RSA .......................................... N/A .................................. 15 .................................... N/A .................................. 225. 

Final 2012 Specifications and 

Management Measures for Mackerel 

This action specifies the mackerel 

U.S. ABC at 43,781 mt, based on the 

formula U.S. ABC = T ¥ C. T, or total 

annual catch, is the yield associated 

with a fishing mortality rate (F) that is 

equal to the target fishing mortality rate. 

C is the estimated catch of mackerel in 

Canadian waters (36,219 mt) for the 

2012 fishing year. The Transboundary 

Resources Assessment Committee 

(TRAC) could not establish biomass 

reference points or a target F at its 

March 2010 mackerel stock status 

assessment, and recommended that total 

annual catches not exceed the average 

total landings (80,000 mt) from 2006– 

2008 until new information is available. 

Thus, 80,000 mt minus 36,219 mt 

results in the 2012 U.S. ABC of 43,781 

mt. The ACL for the mackerel fishery is 

set equal to the U.S. ABC. 

Consistent with MSB Amendment 11, 

this action allocates 6.2 percent of the 

ACL (2,714 mt) to the recreational 

mackerel fishery. The recreational ACT 

of 2,443 mt (90 percent of 2,714 mt) is 

reduced from the recreational allocation 

to account for low precision and time 

lag of recreational catch estimates, as 

well as lack of recreational discard 

estimates. The recreational ACT is equal 

to the Recreational Harvest Limit (RHL), 

which is the effective cap on 

recreational catch. 

The commercial mackerel fishery is 

allocated 93.8 percent of the U.S. ABC 

(41,067 mt, the portion of the ACL that 

was not allocated to the recreational 

fishery). The commercial ACT of 34,907 

mt (85 percent of 41,067) reduces the 

commercial allocation to address 

uncertainty in estimated 2012 Canadian 

landings, uncertainty in discard 

estimates, and possible misreporting. 

The commercial ACT is further reduced 

by a discard rate of 3.11 percent (mean 

plus one standard deviation of discards 

from 1999–2008), to arrive at a DAH of 

33,821 mt. The DAH is the effective cap 

on commercial catch, as it has been in 

past specifications. 

This action maintains joint venture 

processing (JVP) allocation at zero (the 

most recent allocation was 5,000 mt of 

JVP in 2004). In the past, the Council 

recommended a JVP greater than zero 

because it believed U.S. processors 

lacked the ability to process the total 

amount of mackerel that U.S. harvesters 

could land. However, for the past 8 

years, the Council has recommended 

zero JVP because U.S. shoreside 

processing capacity for mackerel has 

expanded. The Council concluded that 

processing capacity was no longer a 

limiting factor relative to domestic 

production of mackerel. 

While a surplus existed between ABC 

and the mackerel fleet’s harvesting 

capacity for many years, that surplus 

has disappeared due to downward 

adjustments of the specifications in 

recent years. Based on analysis of the 

state of global mackerel markets and 

possible increases in U.S. production 

levels, the Council concluded that 

specifying a DAH/DAP resulting in zero 

TALFF will yield positive social and 

economic benefits to both U.S. 

harvesters and processors, and to the 

Nation. For these reasons, NMFS is 

specifying DAH at a level that can be 

fully harvested by the domestic fleet 

(33,821 mt). TALFF is therefore not 

specified in order to support the U.S. 

mackerel industry. 

Finally, this action provides that the 

commercial fishery be closed at 95 

percent of the DAH. The current closure 

threshold of 90 percent of the DAH was 

designed to accommodate misreporting 

in the commercial fishery, and the lack 

of a distinct allocation for the 

recreational fishery. A 95-percent 

closure threshold is considered 

sufficient to prevent overages, given that 

a recreational allocation is now required 

by the FMP. 

Final 2012–2014 Specifications and 

Management Measures for Illex Squid 

and Longfin Squid 

Illex Squid 

This action specifies the Illex ABC at 

24,000 mt for the 2012–2014 fishing 

years, subject to annual review. The 

ABC is reduced by a discard rate of 4.52 

percent (the mean plus one standard 

deviation of the most recent 10 years of 

observed discards) to account for 

discards of Illex that result from the 

operation of commercial fisheries, 

which results in an IOY, DAH, and DAP 

of 22,915 mt for the 2012–2014 fishing 

years. The FMP does not authorize the 

specification of JVP and TALFF for the 

Illex fishery because of the domestic 

fishing industry’s capacity to harvest 

and to process the OY from this fishery. 

Longfin Squid 

This action specifies a longfin squid 

ABC of 23,400 mt for the 2012–2014 

fishing years, subject to annual review. 

The ABC is reduced by a discard rate of 

4.08 percent (mean plus one standard 

deviation of the most recent 10 years of 

observed discards) to account for 

discards of longfin squid that result 

from the operation of commercial 

fisheries, and 226 mt is set aside for 

RSA, resulting in an IOY, DAH, and 

DAP of 22,219 mt for the 2012–2014 

fishing years. The FMP does not 

authorize the specification of JVP and 

TALFF for the longfin squid fishery 

because of the domestic industry’s 

capacity to harvest and process the OY 

for this fishery. 

Distribution of the Longfin DAH 

As was done in all fishing years since 

2007, the 2012–2014 longfin DAH is 

allocated into trimesters, according to 

percentages specified in the FMP, as 

follows: 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 55 / Wednesday, March 21, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 16475 

TABLE 3—TRIMESTER ALLOCATION OF

LONGFIN QUOTA FOR 2012–2014 

Trimester Percent Metric 

tons 

I (Jan–Apr) ................ 43 9,555 

II (May–Aug) ............. 17 3,777 

III (Sep–Dec) ............ 40 8,888 

Total ................... 100 22,220 

Longfin Squid Jigging Provision 

This action will allow Longfin Squid/ 

Butterfish moratorium permit holders to 

possess longfin squid in excess of the 

2,500-lb (0.93-mt) possession limit 

during any closures of the longfin squid 

fishery resulting from the butterfish 

mortality cap, provided that all trawl 

gear is stowed and not available for 

immediate use, in accordance with 

§ 648.23(b). The butterfish mortality cap 

was designed to limit butterfish bycatch 

in the longfin squid trawl fishery, and 

jigging for squid is not expected to 

result in substantial butterfish bycatch. 

Interim Final 2012 Specifications and 

Management Measures for Butterfish 

Compared to 2011, the butterfish 

specifications in the proposed rule 

would have increased the butterfish 

ABC by 100 percent (to 3,622 mt), and 

would have resulted in a 117-percent 

increase in the butterfish DAH (1,087 

mt), and a 70-percent increase in the 

butterfish mortality cap on the longfin 

squid fishery (2,445 mt). A public 

comment on the proposed rule 

submitted by the Herring Alliance, an 

environmental group that represents 42 

Northeast Coast organizations 

concerned about the status of the 

Atlantic Coast’s forage fish, accurately 

pointed out that the proposed increase 

to the butterfish ABC is prohibited by 

the Council’s risk policy at § 648.21(d), 

which states: ‘‘If an overfishing level 

(OFL) cannot be determined from the 

stock assessment, or if a proxy is not 

provided by the SSC during the ABC 

recommendation process, ABC levels 

may not be increased until such time 

that an OFL has been identified.’’ 

This provision only applies to 

species, such as butterfish, that are 

subject to the ACL/AM requirements 

implemented through the Council’s 

Omnibus Amendment, and for which 

NMFS seeks to raise the ABC. Therefore 

the commenter’s objections to the 

proposed butterfish ABC do not apply to 

the specification for mackerel, which 

does not reflect an increased ABC, nor 

does it apply to Illex or longfin squid, 

neither of which is subject ACL/AM 

requirements because they have life 

cycles of less than one year. In response 

to this comment, NMFS is 

implementing status quo specifications 

in an interim final rule, and will allow 

30 days for public comments. 

Accordingly, this action specifies the 

2012 butterfish ABC and ACL at 1,811 

mt, and the ACT at 1,630 mt (reduced 

10-percent from ACL). Butterfish TALFF 

is only specified to address bycatch by 

foreign fleets targeting mackerel TALFF. 

Because there is no mackerel TALFF, 

butterfish TALFF is also set at zero. This 

action allocates just under 70 percent of 

the ACT to cover butterfish discards, 

and 15 mt of butterfish RSA to cover 

discards related to allocated longfin 

squid RSA, which results in a DAH/ 

DAP for butterfish of 485 mt. The 

butterfish mortality cap on the longfin 

squid fishery is specified at 1,436 mt. 

These specifications are consistent with 

the regulatory structure implemented in 

the Council’s Omnibus Amendment, 

and include the same ABC and 

mortality cap implemented for the 2011 

fishing year. 

TABLE 2—TRIMESTER ALLOCATION OF

BUTTERFISH MORTALITY CAP ON

THE LONGFIN SQUID FISHERY FOR

2012 

Trimester Percent Metric 

tons 

I (Jan–Apr) ............ 65 933 .4 

II (May–Aug) ......... 3 .3 47 .4 

III (Sep–Dec) ........ 31 .7 455 .2 

Total ............... 100 1,436 

While the proposed rule contained a 

provision to require a 3-inch (7.62 cm) 

minimum mesh size for vessels 

possessing 2,000 lb (907.2 kg) or more 

of butterfish in order to allow some 

portion of butterfish discards to be 

landed, the interim final rule instead 

maintains the status quo (3-inch (7.62 

cm) minimum mesh required to possess 

1,000 lb (453.6 kg) or more of 

butterfish). 

Comments and Responses 

NMFS received four comments on the 

proposed specifications: One on behalf 

of Seafreeze, Ltd.; one from the Garden 

State Seafood Association (GSSA); one 

from Lund’s Fisheries Incorporated 

(Lund’s Fisheries); and one from the 

Herring Alliance. Several issues not 

relevant to the specifications were 

raised by various commenters; only the 

comments relevant to the proposed 

specifications are addressed below. 

General 

Comment 1: The Herring Alliance 

commented that NMFS should 

implement annual specifications, rather 

than 3-year specifications, for all stocks 

in the MSB fisheries until biological 

reference points can be determined. 

Response: This action implements 

annual specifications for mackerel and 

butterfish, and 2012–2014 specifications 

for Illex squid and longfin squid. The 

FMP allows for specifications to be set 

for up to 3 years for any of the MSB 

species. The Council has not 

recommended 3-year specifications for 

any of the MSB species in previous 

years, but did so this year for Illex and 

longfin squid. Though OFLs are not 

available for either squid species, the 

SSC determined that the best available 

information on these fisheries suggests 

that maintaining catches at the 

recommended levels in future years 

should not have a negative impact on 

the stock. In addition, substantial new 

information is unlikely to be available 

for the squid species in the intervening 

years because neither squid species is 

on the assessment schedule for 2012, 

2013 or 2014. Setting the squid 

specifications for 3 years streamlines the 

regulatory process because the Council 

will not need to take action in the event 

that the SSC’s and Council’s squid 

specifications recommendations remain 

the same for upcoming years, but in no 

way binds the Council to maintain the 

recommendations. Though 

specifications for the squid species are 

being implemented for 3 years, the SSC 

must still evaluate the performance of 

the squid specifications each year, and 

the Council may propose any necessary 

adjustments through annual 

specifications. 

Mackerel 

Comment 2: GSSA and Lund’s 

Fisheries support the proposed U.S. 

ABC of 43,781 mt, but were 

disappointed that the process of setting 

the U.S. ABC does not provide a 

mechanism to increase the U.S. ABC if 

Canadian catches are smaller than 

predicted. Lund’s Fisheries suggested 

that Canadian underages should be 

added to the U.S. ABC as an in-season 

adjustment. 

Response: The addition of a 

mechanism to increase the U.S. ABC if 

Canadian catches are smaller than 

predicted represents a significant 

change to the commercial quota system 

for mackerel. This type of mechanism 

would have to be considered through 

the Council process in order to allow for 

full development and justification for 

the adjustment, economic and biological 

analysis, and public comment. If the 

Council were to consider such a 

mechanism in the future, it could only 

be implemented through a framework 

adjustment or an amendment to the 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
16476 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 55 / Wednesday, March 21, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

FMP, rather than through the 

specifications process. This is because 

the regulations governing the 

specifications process do not allow for 

adjustments to the commercial quota 

system. The Council would therefore 

have to consider such a mechanism in 

a future action. 

Comment 3: GSSA and Lund’s 

Fisheries support the proposed 

recreational allocation, and the 

application of a 10-percent management 

buffer to this allocation, but believed 

that a discard rate should have been 

applied to the recreational allocation. 

Response: As noted in the comment 

and in the proposed rule, reliable 

discard estimates for the recreational 

fishery are not available. From 2004– 

2010, the Marine Recreational Fisheries 

Statistical Survey (MRFSS) estimated 

that recreational landings averaged 

900 mt, and that 9.2 percent of that 

mackerel was ‘‘released alive.’’ Based on 

release mortality rates for other MidAtlantic species, the EA provides a 

conservative assumption that 30 percent 

of released mackerel die. If the 

recreational ACT of 2,443 mt is fully 

attained, NMFS estimates that 247 mt of 

mackerel will be released, and 74 mt of 

that mackerel will die after release. A 

10-percent buffer is more than three 

times the estimated potential dead 

discards. Given the past performance of 

the recreational fishery, and the 

10-percent buffer, NMFS believes that 

the potential for discards is adequately 

accounted for. As improvements to 

recreational data collection continue to 

be implemented, the MSB Monitoring 

Committee will re-examine the 

recreational ACT and consider whether 

discards should be accounted for in an 

explicit deduction. 

Comment 4: GSSA, Lund’s Fisheries, 

and the Herring Alliance oppose the 

15-percent uncertainty buffer between 

the commercial allocation (93.8 percent 

of ABC) and the commercial ACT, 

which was proposed to account for 

uncertainty in estimated 2012 Canadian 

landings, uncertainty in discard 

estimates, and possible misreporting. 

GSSA noted that it was unclear whether 

the buffer was applied due to scientific 

or management uncertainty. GSSA and 

Lund’s Fisheries expressed their view 

that this buffer is unnecessary, given 

that neither the U.S. quota nor the 

projected Canadian landings have been 

exceeded in recent years. Lund’s 

Fisheries suggested that the commercial 

ACT should have been set equal to the 

commercial ACL (zero buffer). 

Conversely, the Herring Alliance 

asserted that uncertainty in the status of 

the mackerel stock supports a buffer of 

25 percent or greater. 

Response: The buffer between ACL 

and ACT is intended to address 

management uncertainty, which is the 

ability of managers to constrain catch to 

a target and the uncertainty in 

quantifying the true catch. NMFS 

supported the Council’s 

recommendation for a 15-percent buffer 

between the ACL and ACT because of 

the uncertainty surrounding expected 

Canadian mackerel catch, which can 

vary significantly from year to year. 

When applied to past years, the method 

Council staff used to estimate 2012 

Canadian catch sometimes 

underestimated Canadian catch by as 

much as 21,000 mt, and sometimes 

overestimated Canadian catch by as 

much as 25,000 mt. The additional 

buffer helps reduce the likelihood that 

a severe underestimate of Canadian 

catch will result in landings in excess of 

the stockwide ABC. The Herring 

Alliance suggested that a larger buffer 

was needed because of uncertainty in 

the status of the mackerel stock. 

Uncertainty in stock status is scientific 

uncertainty, which was addressed by 

the SSC during its deliberation 

regarding specification of the stockwide 

mackerel ABC. Given recent 

performance of the fishery, NMFS 

determined that a 15-percent buffer 

between the commercial ACL and ACT 

is appropriate to prevent overages of 

both the U.S. ABC, and to provide 

additional protection for the possible 

event that 2012 Canadian catch has been 

underestimated. 

Butterfish 

Comment 5: GSSA and Lund’s 

Fisheries support the proposed 

specifications for butterfish. 

Response: As noted in the preamble, 

NMFS cannot implement the proposed 

specifications because increasing the 

butterfish ABC violates the Council’s 

risk policy. The status quo 

specifications are detailed above. 

Comment 6: GSSA remains concerned 

that the ABC for butterfish is too low 

and does not consider the high 

recruitment possibilities for this stock. 

They expressed concern that continued 

low estimates may cause serious 

management problems for fisheries that 

incidentally catch butterfish. 

Response: GSSA’s concern appears to 

be in reference to the butterfish 

mortality cap on the longfin squid 

fishery. Because the 2011 cap did not 

result in a closure of the longfin squid 

fishery during the 2011 fishing year, 

NMFS does not have reason to believe 

the status quo butterfish mortality cap 

will necessarily result in a closure of the 

longfin squid fishery due to the harvest 

of the mortality cap for the 2012 fishing 

year. 

Comment 7: The Herring Alliance 

recommended that NMFS disapprove 

the butterfish specifications. It argued 

that the butterfish specifications violate 

National Standards 1 and 2 for because: 

Increases to the butterfish ABC will not 

ensure that overfishing does not occur; 

increases to the ABC for butterfish 

without an OFL or OFL proxy violates 

the regulations implementing the 

Council’s Omnibus Amendment; the 

basis upon which the butterfish cap was 

increased is not supported by scientific 

analyses; and a 10-percent buffer 

between ABC and ACT is insufficient to 

account for management uncertainty for 

the butterfish fishery. 

Response: The butterfish 

specifications have been adjusted to 

address the concern that the Council’s 

original ABC recommendation violates 

the regulations implementing the 

Omnibus Amendment. This interim 

final rule implements the status quo 

ABC of 1,811 mt. 

NMFS does not agree with the Herring 

Alliance’s assertion that a 10-percent 

buffer between ABC and ACT is 

insufficient to account for management 

uncertainty in the butterfish fishery. 

Though management uncertainty is a 

concern for the butterfish fishery, the 

FMP has a number of mechanisms to 

mitigate uncertainties beyond the 

10-percent buffer between ABC and 

ACT. The specifications include an 

explicit deduction to account for 

discards in other fisheries. In addition, 

the butterfish mortality cap, which will 

be in its second year of operation in 

2012, is designed to cap butterfish catch 

in the longfin squid fishery—the single 

largest source of fishing mortality for the 

butterfish stock. The cap acts as an 

accountability measure to control 

butterfish catch (landings and discards) 

in the longfin squid fishery, and can 

result in a closure of the longfin squid 

fishery if it is exceeded. Finally, NMFS 

also closes the directed butterfish 

fishery when 80 percent of the DAH has 

been attained. Though this level was 

exceeded in the 2010 and 2011 fishing 

years, the increased DAH should reduce 

the likelihood of an overage in the 2012 

fishing year. 

Comment 8: The Herring Alliance 

commented that the role of butterfish as 

forage should have been taken into 

account when setting specifications. It 

noted that marine predators switch prey 

depending on relative abundance and 

distribution of forage species. The 

Herring Alliance concluded that, 

because the status of stocks such as 

Atlantic herring, Atlantic mackerel, 

Atlantic menhaden, river herring and 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 55 / Wednesday, March 21, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 16477 

shad species may be compromised, 

precautionary protection may be 

warranted. 

Response: The impact of natural 

mortality on the butterfish stock, which 

includes predation, is taken into 

account during the butterfish 

assessment process, and is addressed 

during the specification of the ABC. The 

assessment does not consider potential 

future changes in butterfish predation 

because information is not available on 

future trends in forage. 

Comment 9: A scientist commented 

on behalf of Seafreeze, Ltd., without 

submitting any information, that NMFS 

did not use all available scientific 

information in the assessment, and 

therefore that butterfish specifications 

neither protect the species nor provide 

for sufficient fishing opportunity. 

Response: The commenter did not 

provide any evidence that indicates that 

the butterfish assessment used to set 

these specifications does not constitute 

the best available scientific information. 

Longfin and Illex Squid 

Comment 10: GSSA and Lund’s 

Fisheries support the proposed 

specifications for longfin squid and Illex 

squid for the 2012–2014 fishing years. 

Response: NMFS is implementing the 

specifications as proposed. 

Comment 11: Lund’s Fisheries 

requested that the timing of the Illex 

gear exemption should include the 

month of October due to availability of 

the Illex resource that can occur during 

that month. 

Response: This rulemaking only 

clarifies the regulatory text for the 

exemption. An extension of the 

exemption to include the month of 

October is a change to the regulations 

that would have to be considered by the 

Council in a future action such as a 

framework adjustment or an amendment 

to the FMP. 

Comment 12: GSSA and Lund’s 

Fisheries do not support the jigging 

exemption until language detailing 

trawl gear stowage can be developed. 

Response: The gear stowage 

provisions that appear at § 648.23(b) 

define how trawl gear should be 

properly stowed below the deck, ondeck, or on-reel to show that it is not 

available for immediate use. 

Comment 13: The Herring Alliance 

commented that NMFS should direct 

the Council to establish OY for Illex 

squid. They noted that the Council 

cannot appropriately adjust the Illex 

quota for economic, social, or ecological 

factors because it failed to identify OY. 

Response: Previous iterations of the 

Atlantic mackerel, squid and butterfish 

FMP specify the framework for 

establishing OY for Illex. The maximum 

OY is set not to exceed the catch 

associated with a fishing mortality rate 

of Fmsy. This is assessment driven, and 

a lower amount may be set if warranted 

by the assessment. The regulations at 

§ 648.22 contemplate that the ABC will 

be set annually at the maximum OY or 

a lower amount if the potential yield 

from the fishery is less than this level. 

Since maximum OY cannot be specified 

due to the lack of reference points for 

the fishery, an ABC of 24,000 mt was 

selected, since it is a level of yield that 

has been supported by the fishery since 

2000. The regulations allow the ABC to 

be modified annually based upon 

economic and social factors. However, 

the Council modified the ABC simply 

by deducting estimated discards to 

arrive at the DAH of 22,915 mt. In 

essence, the OY for Illex, is the ABC, as 

modified by the deduction of discards to 

specify DAH and RSA. 

RSA 

Comment 14: GSSA and Lund’s 

Fisheries support setting aside 3 percent 

of the mackerel and butterfish ACLs, 

and 3 percent of the longfin squid and 

Illex IOYs to fund research. They also 

support the three preliminarily 

approved projects, since the inshore 

information gathered in the projects 

should add to existing information 

about distribution of key commercial 

species. 

Response: NFMS issues 497,527 lb 

(225 mt) of longfin squid and 33,069 lb 

(15 mt) of butterfish for the RSA 

proposals detailed in the proposed rule. 

Changes From the Proposed Rule 

There are no changes from the 

proposed rule to the mackerel, longfin 

squid, or Illex squid specifications or 

management measures. Instead of the 

butterfish specifications and 

management measures put forward in 

the proposed rule, this interim final rule 

implements status quo butterfish 

specifications and management 

measures. 

Classification 

The Administrator, Northeast Region, 

NMFS, determined that these 

specifications are necessary for the 

conservation and management of the 

Atlantic mackerel, squid, and butterfish 

fisheries and that they are consistent 

with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act and 

other applicable laws. 

The Council prepared an EA for the 

2012 specifications, and the NOAA 

Assistant Administrator for Fisheries 

concluded that there will be no 

significant impact on the human 

environment as a result of this rule. A 

copy of the EA is available upon request 

(see ADDRESSES). 

This action is authorized by 50 CFR 

part 648 and has been determined to be 

not significant for purposes of Executive 

Order 12866 (E.O. 12866). 

NMFS, pursuant to section 604 of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act, has prepared 

a FRFA, included in the preamble of 

this final rule, in support of the 2012 

specifications and management 

measures. The FRFA describes the 

economic impact that this final rule, 

along with other non-preferred 

alternatives, will have on small entities. 

The FRFA incorporates the economic 

impacts and analysis summaries in the 

IRFA, a summary of the significant 

issues raised by the public in response 

to the IRFA, and NMFS’s responses to 

those comments. A copy of the IRFA, 

the RIR, and the EA are available upon 

request (see ADDRESSES). 

Statement of Need for This Action 

This action implements 2012 

specifications for mackerel and 

butterfish, and 2012–2014 specifications 

for Illex and longfin squid. It also 

modifies the closure threshold for the 

commercial mackerel fishery, adjusts 

the gear requirements for the butterfish 

fishery, and allows for the use of jigs to 

capture longfin squid, should the 

longfin squid fishery be closed due to 

reaching the butterfish mortality cap. A 

complete description of the reasons why 

this action is being considered, and the 

objectives of and legal basis for this 

action, are contained in the preamble to 

the proposed and final rules and are not 

repeated here. 

A Summary of the Significant Issues 

Raised by the Public Comments in 

Response to the IRFA, a Summary of the 

Assessment of the Agency of Such 

Issues, and a Statement of Any Changes 

Made in the Final Rule as a Result of 

Such Comments 

There were no issues related to the 

IRFA raised in public comments. 

Description and Estimate of Number of 

Small Entities to Which the Rule Will 

Apply 

Based on permit data for 2011, the 

numbers of potential fishing vessels in 

the 2012 fisheries are as follows: 351 

longfin squid/butterfish moratorium 

permits; 76 Illex moratorium permits; 

2,201 mackerel permits; 1,904 

incidental squid/butterfish permits; and 

831 MSB party/charter permits. Small 

businesses operating in commercial and 

recreational (i.e., party and charter 

vessel operations) fisheries have been 

defined by the Small Business 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
16478 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 55 / Wednesday, March 21, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

Administration as firms with gross 

revenues of up to $4.0 and $6.5 million, 

respectively. There are no large entities 

participating in this fishery, as that term 

is defined in section 601 of the RFA. 

Therefore, there are no disproportionate 

economic impacts on small entities. 

Many vessels participate in more than 

one of these fisheries; therefore, permit 

numbers are not additive. 

Description of Projected Reporting, 

Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 

Requirements 

There are no new reporting or 

recordkeeping requirements contained 

in any of the alternatives considered for 

this action. In addition, there are no 

Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or 

conflict with this final rule. 

Description of the Steps the Agency Has 

Taken To Minimize the Significant 

Economic Impacts on Small Entities 

Consistent With the Stated Objectives of 

Applicable Statutes, Including a 

Statement of the Factual, Policy, and 

Legal Reasons for Selecting the 

Alternative Adopted in the Final Rule 

and Why Each One of the Other 

Significant Alternatives to the Rule 

Considered by the Agency Which Affect 

the Impact on Small Entities Was 

Rejected 

Actions Implemented With the Final 

Rule 

The recently finalized Omnibus 

Amendment, which applies to mackerel 

and butterfish, changes the structure of 

specifications compared to that used in 

past years. In order to facilitate 

comparison of alternatives, the 

discussions of mackerel and butterfish 

specifications below will focus on the 

effective limit on directed harvest, 

regardless of the terminology used for 

the specification. The specifications and 

terminology for Illex and longfin squid 

are unchanged from those used in 2011. 

The mackerel commercial DAH 

specified in this action (33,821 mt) 

represents a reduction from status quo 

(2011 DAH = 46,779 mt). Despite the 

reduction, the DAH is above recent U.S. 

landings; mackerel landings for 2008– 

2010 averaged 18,830 mt. Thus, the 

reduction does not pose a constraint to 

vessels relative to the landings in recent 

years. In 2011, there was a soft 

allocation of 15,000 mt of the mackerel 

DAH for the recreational mackerel 

fishery. The Omnibus Amendment and 

MSB Amendment 11 requires NMFS to 

establish an explicit allocation for the 

recreational fishery, and this action 

specifies a Recreational ACT/RHL of 

2,443 mt. Because recreational harvest 

from 2008–2010 averaged 738 mt, it 

does not appear that the new, explicit 

allocation for the recreational fishery 

will constrain recreational harvest. 

Overall, this action is not expected to 

result in any reductions in revenues for 

vessels that participate in either the 

commercial or recreational mackerel 

fisheries. 

The adjustment to the mackerel 

closure threshold, which requires the 

closure of the commercial mackerel 

fishery at 95 percent of the DAH, is a 

preventative measure intended to 

ensure that the commercial catch limit 

is not exceeded. The economic burden 

on fishery participants associated with 

this measure is expected to be 

negligible. 

The butterfish DAH specified in this 

action (500 mt) is the same as status 

quo. The DAH has been fully attained 

during the 2010 and 2011 fishing years. 

The Illex IOY (22,915 mt) specified in 

this action represents a slight decrease 

compared to status quo (23,328 mt). 

Though annual Illex landings have 

totaled over 2⁄3 of the IOY in the past 3 

years (15,900 mt for 2008, 18,419 mt for 

2009, and 15,825 for 2010), the landings 

were lower than the level being 

proposed. Thus, implementing this 

action should not result in a reduction 

in revenue or a constraint on expansion 

of the fishery in 2012. 

The longfin squid IOY (22,445 mt) 

represents an increase from the status 

quo (20,000 mt). Because longfin squid 

landings from 2008–2010 averaged 

9,182 mt, the specified IOY provides an 

opportunity to increase landings, 

though if recent trends of low landings 

continue, there may be no increase in 

landings despite the increase in the 

allocation. No reductions in revenues 

for the longfin squid fishery are 

expected as a result of this proposed 

action. 

As discussed in the FRFA for MSB 

Amendment 10, the butterfish mortality 

cap has a potential for economic impact 

on fishery participants. The longfin 

squid fishery will close during 

Trimesters I and III if the butterfish 

mortality cap is reached. If the longfin 

squid fishery is closed in response to 

butterfish catch before the entire longfin 

squid quota is harvested, then a loss in 

revenue is possible. The potential for 

longfin squid revenue loss depends 

upon the size of the butterfish mortality 

cap. This interim final rule maintains 

the 2012 butterfish mortality cap at the 

level that was specified for 2011 (1,436 

mt). The 2011 butterfish mortality cap 

did not result in a closure of the longfin 

squid fishery in Trimester I. At the end 

of Trimester III, just over 40 percent of 

the butterfish mortality cap was left 

unharvested, and the cap did not result 

in a closure of the longfin squid fishery 

during the 2011 fishing year. Given that 

the status quo cap did not constrain the 

longfin squid fishery in 2011, additional 

revenue losses are not expected as a 

result of this interim final action. 

The jigging measure will allow 

Longfin Squid/Butterfish moratorium 

permit holders to possess longfin squid 

in excess of the possession limit during 

any closures of the longfin squid fishery 

resulting from the butterfish mortality 

cap. Jigging for longfin squid has been 

shown to be commercially infeasible. 

However, because butterfish bycatch in 

jig gear is expected to be very minimal, 

it seems reasonable to allow jig fishing 

for squid. If attempts to use jig gear for 

commercial longfin squid fishing are 

successful, the use of this gear could 

help mitigate economic impacts on 

fishery participants if the longfin squid 

fishery is closed due to reaching the 

mortality cap. 

Alternatives to the Actions in the Final 

Rule for Mackerel, Longfin Squid, and 

Illex Squid 

The Council analysis evaluated four 

alternatives to the specifications for 

mackerel. The first (status quo) and 

second non-selected alternatives were 

based on the specifications structure 

that existed prior to the implementation 

of the Omnibus Amendment, and were 

not selected because they no longer 

comply with the MSB FMP. The other 

alternatives differed in their 

specification of the stockwide ABC 

(80,000 mt in the preferred alternative). 

The same amount of expected Canadian 

catch (36,219 mt) was subtracted from 

the stockwide ABC in each alternative. 

The third alternative (least restrictive) 

would have set the U.S. ABC and ACL 

at 63,781 mt (100,000 mt stockwide 

ABC minus 36,219 mt Canadian catch), 

the Commercial ACT at 50,853 mt, the 

DAH and DAP at 49,271 mt, and the 

Recreational ACT at 3,559 mt. The 

fourth alternative (most restrictive) 

would have set the U.S. ABC and ACL 

at 23,781 mt (60,000 mt stockwide ABC 

minus 36,219 mt Canadian catch), the 

Commercial ACT at 18,961 mt, the DAH 

and DAP at 18,371 mt, and the 

Recreational ACT at 1,327 mt. These 

two alternatives were not selected 

because they were all inconsistent with 

the ABC recommended by the SSC. 

The status quo closure threshold for 

the commercial mackerel fishery (90 

percent) was considered overly 

precautionary when compared to the 

selected closure threshold (95 percent). 

The status quo closure threshold, which 

was designed in part because there was 

no distinct allocation for the 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 55 / Wednesday, March 21, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 16479 

recreational mackerel fishery, is no 

longer considered appropriate. 

Three alternatives to the preferred 

action were considered for Illex, but 

were not selected by the Council. All 

alternatives would have established 

specifications for the 2012–2014 fishing 

years. The first alternative (status quo), 

shared the same 24,000-mt ABC as the 

proposed action. However, a discard 

rate of 2.8 percent was deducted to 

reach an IOY, DAH, and DAP at 23,328 

mt rather than the 22,915 mt specified 

in this proposed action. The Council did 

not select the status quo alternative 

because it found the updated discard 

rate of 4.52 percent to be a more 

appropriate representation of discards 

in the Illex fishery. The second 

alternative (least restrictive) would have 

set ABC at 30,000 mt, and IOY, DAH, 

and DAP at 28,644 mt (ABC reduced by 

4.52 percent for discards). This 

alternative was not selected because the 

higher specifications were inconsistent 

with the results of the most recent stock 

assessment. The third alternative (most 

restrictive) would have set ABC at 

18,000 mt, and IOY, DAH, and DAP at 

17,186 mt (ABC reduced by 4.52 percent 

for discards). The Council considered 

this alternative unnecessarily restrictive. 

There were three alternatives to the 

selected action evaluated for longfin 

squid. All alternatives would have 

established specifications for the 2012– 

2014 fishing years. The first alternative 

(status quo) would have set the ABC at 

24,000 mt, and the IOY, DAH and DAP 

at 20,000 mt. The second alternative 

(least restrictive) would have set the 

ABC at 29,250 mt, and the IOY, DAH, 

and DAP at 28,057 mt (ABC reduced by 

4.08 percent for discards). The third 

alternative (most restrictive) would have 

set the ABC at 17,550 mt, and the IOY, 

DAH and DAP at 16,834 mt (ABC 

reduced by 4.08 percent for discards). 

These three alternatives were not 

selected because they were all 

inconsistent with the ABC 

recommended by the SSC. 

The alternatives for longfin squid RSA 

would have allowed up to 1.65 percent 

(status quo) or up to 3 percent 

(preferred) of the longfin squid IOY to 

be used to fund research projects for the 

2012–2014 fishing years. In 2011, 

butterfish RSA was only awarded to 

cover butterfish discards by vessels 

fishing for longfin squid RSA. The small 

amount of butterfish RSA available in 

2011 (15 mt, or 3 percent of 500 mt 

butterfish DAH) was only sufficient to 

cover discards for an amount of longfin 

squid RSA equal to 1.65 percent of the 

IOY. The recommended increase in the 

2012 butterfish quota will allow for 

enough butterfish RSA (3 percent of the 

1,087 mt butterfish DAH) to 

accommodate discards for longfin squid 

RSA equal to 3 percent of the IOY. 

For the jigging exemption, the status 

quo alternative prevents Longfin squid/ 

Butterfish moratorium permit holders 

from possessing or landing over 2,500 lb 

(1.13 mt) of longfin squid if the directed 

fishery is closed because of the 

butterfish mortality cap. The preferred 

alternative would allow such vessel to 

possess and land over 2,500 lb (1.13 mt) 

if using jigging gear. If the use of jigs for 

commercial longfin squid fishery proves 

successful, the preferred alternative may 

help reduce the economic impacts of 

closures of the longfin squid fishery 

resulting from the butterfish mortality 

cap. 

Alternatives to the Actions in the 

Interim Final Rule for Butterfish 

There were six alternatives to the 

preferred action for butterfish that were 

not selected. The first (status quo) and 

second non-selected were based on the 

specifications structure that existed 

prior to the implementation of the 

Omnibus Amendment, and were not 

selected because they no longer comply 

with the MSB FMP. The third 

alternative (Council preferred) would 

have set ABC and ACL at 3,622 mt, the 

ACT at 3,260 mt, the DAH and DAP at 

1,087 mt, and the butterfish mortality 

cap at 2,445 mt. The fourth alternative 

(least restrictive) would have set the 

ABC and ACL at 4,528 mt, the ACT at 

4,075 mt, the DAH and DAP at 1,358 mt, 

and the butterfish mortality cap at 3,056 

mt. The fourth alternative would have 

set the ABC and ACL at 2,717 mt, the 

ACT at 2,445 mt, the DAH and DAP at 

815 mt, and the butterfish mortality cap 

at 1,834 mt. These three alternatives 

were not selected because they would 

increase the butterfish ABC, which is 

prohibited by the Council’s risk policy. 

The final non-selected alternative would 

have set ABC and ACL at 1,811 mt, the 

ACT at 1,630 mt, the DAH and DAP at 

543 mt, and the butterfish mortality cap 

at 1,222 mt. This alternative was not 

selected because it is inconsistent with 

status quo. 

There were two alternatives regarding 

the adjustment to the butterfish gear 

requirement. The status quo alternative 

(preferred) requires vessels possessing 

1,000 lb (0.45 mt) or more of butterfish 

to fish with a 3-inch (76-mm) minimum 

codend mesh. The alternative in the 

proposed rule (3-inch (76-mm) mesh to 

possess 2,000 lb (0.9 mt)) could create 

some additional revenue in the form of 

butterfish landings for vessels using 

mesh sizes smaller than 3 inches (76 

mm). The higher possession limit was 

contemplated in light of the proposed 

increases to the butterfish 

specifications, and is no longer 

appropriate if the status quo butterfish 

specifications are implemented. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648 

Fisheries, Fishing, Recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements. 

Dated: March 13, 2012 

Alan D. Risenhoover, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Regulatory Programs, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is amended 

as follows: 

PART 648—FISHERIES OF THE 

NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 648 

continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 2. In § 648.2, remove the definition for 

‘‘Loligo,’’ revise the definition of 

‘‘Squid,’’ and add the definition for 

‘‘Longfin squid’’ in alphabetical order, 

to read as follows: 

§ 648.2 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Longfin squid means Doryteuthis 

(Amerigo) pealeii (formerly Loligo 

pealeii). 

* * * * * 

Squid means longfin squid 

(Doryteuthis (Amerigo) pealeii, formerly 

Loligo pealeii) or Illex illecebrosus. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. In § 648.23, paragraph (a) is revised 

to read as follows: 

§ 648.23 Mackerel, squid, and butterfish 

gear restrictions. 

(a) Mesh restrictions and exemptions. 

Vessels subject to the mesh restrictions 

in this paragraph (a) may not have 

available for immediate use any net, or 

any piece of net, with a mesh size 

smaller than that specified in 

paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this 

section. 

(1) Butterfish fishery. Owners or 

operators of otter trawl vessels 

possessing 1,000 lb (0.45 mt) or more of 

butterfish harvested in or from the EEZ 

may only fish with nets having a 

minimum codend mesh of 3 inches (76 

mm) diamond mesh, inside stretch 

measure, applied throughout the codend 

for at least 100 continuous meshes 

forward of the terminus of the net, or for 

codends with less than 100 meshes, the 

minimum mesh size codend shall be a 

minimum of one-third of the net, 

measured from the terminus of the 

codend to the headrope. 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
16480 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 55 / Wednesday, March 21, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

(2) Longfin squid fishery. Owners or 

operators of otter trawl vessels 

possessing longfin squid 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 

longfin squid 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 longfin squid 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 5 inches (12.7 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. 

(ii) Jigging exemption. During closures 

of the longfin squid fishery resulting 

from the butterfish mortality cap, 

described in § 648.26(c)(3), vessels 

fishing for longfin squid using jigging 

gear are exempt from the closure 

possession limit specified in § 648.26(b), 

provided that all otter trawl gear is 

stowed as specified in paragraph (b) of 

this section. 

(3) Illex fishery. Seaward of the 

following coordinates, otter trawl 

vessels possessing longfin squid 

harvested in or from the EEZ and fishing 

for Illex during the months of June, July, 

August, in Trimester II, and September 

in Trimester III are exempt from the 

longfin squid gear requirements 

specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this 

section, provided that landward of the 

specified coordinates they do not have 

available for immediate use, as defined 

in paragraph (b) of this section, any net, 

or any piece of net, with a mesh size 

less than 17⁄8 inches (48 mm) diamond 

mesh in Trimester II, and 21⁄8 inches (54 

mm) diamond mesh in Trimester III, or 

any piece of net, with mesh that is 

rigged in a manner that is prohibited by 

paragraph (a)(2) of this section. 

Point N. lat. W. long. 

M1 ......................... 43°58.0′ 67°22.0′ 

M2 ......................... 43°50.0′ 68°35.0′ 

M3 ......................... 43°30.0′ 69°40.0′ 

M4 ......................... 43°20.0′ 70°00.0′ 

M5 ......................... 42°45.0′ 70°10.0′ 

M6 ......................... 42°13.0′ 69°55.0′ 

M7 ......................... 41°00.0′ 69°00.0′ 

M8 ......................... 41°45.0′ 68°15.0′ 

M9 ......................... 42°10.0′ 67°10.0′ 

M10 ....................... 41°18.6′ 66°24.8′ 

M11 ....................... 40°55.5′ 66°38.0′ 

M12 ....................... 40°45.5′ 68°00.0′ 

M13 ....................... 40°37.0′ 68°00.0′ 

Point N. lat. W. long. 

M14 ....................... 40°30.0′ 69°00.0′ 

M15 ....................... 40°22.7′ 69°00.0′ 

M16 ....................... 40°18.7′ 69°40.0′ 

M17 ....................... 40°21.0′ 71°03.0′ 

M18 ....................... 39°41.0′ 72°32.0′ 

M19 ....................... 38°47.0′ 73°11.0′ 

M20 ....................... 38°04.0′ 74°06.0′ 

M21 ....................... 37°08.0′ 74°46.0′ 

M22 ....................... 36°00.0′ 74°52.0′ 

M23 ....................... 35°45.0′ 74°53.0′ 

M24 ....................... 35°28.0′ 74°52.0′ 

* * * * * 

■ 4. In § 648.24, paragraph (b)(1) is 

revised to read as follows: 

§ 648.24 Fishery closures and 

accountability measures. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) Mackerel commercial sector EEZ 

closure. NMFS shall close the 

commercial mackerel fishery in the EEZ 

when the Regional Administrator 

projects that 95 percent of the mackerel 

DAH is harvested, if such a closure is 

necessary to prevent the DAH from 

being exceeded. The closure of the 

commercial fishery shall be in effect for 

the remainder of that fishing year, with 

incidental catches allowed as specified 

in § 648.26. When the Regional 

Administrator projects that the DAH for 

mackerel will be landed, NMFS shall 

close the commercial mackerel fishery 

in the EEZ, and the incidental catches 

specified for mackerel in § 648.26 will 

be prohibited. 

* * * * * 

§§ 648.4, 648.13, 648.14, 648.22, 648.24, 

648.26, 648.27, and 648.124 [Amended] 

5. In the table below, for each section 

in the left column, remove the text from 

whenever it appears throughout the 

section and add the text indicated in the 

right column. 

Section Remove Add Frequency 

§ 648.4(a)(5)(i) ......................................... Loligo ....................................................... longfin ...................................................... 1 

§ 648.4(a)(5)(i)(A) .................................... Loligo ....................................................... longfin ...................................................... 2 

§ 648.4(a)(5)(i)(L)(ii) ................................. Loligo ....................................................... longfin ...................................................... 1 

§ 648.4(a)(10)(iv)(C)(1)(i) ......................... Loligo ....................................................... longfin ...................................................... 1 

§ 648.4(a)(10)(iv)(C)(1)(ii) ........................ Loligo ....................................................... longfin ...................................................... 1 

§ 648.13(a) ............................................... Loligo ....................................................... longfin squid ............................................ 2 

§ 648.14(g)(1)(ii)(B) .................................. Loligo ....................................................... longfin squid ............................................ 2 

§ 648.14(g)(2)(ii) ...................................... Loligo ....................................................... longfin ...................................................... 2 

§ 648.14(g)(2)(iii)(A) ................................. Loligo ....................................................... longfin squid ............................................ 1 

§ 648.14(o)(1)(vi) ..................................... Loligo ....................................................... longfin ...................................................... 1 

§ 648.22(a)(2) .......................................... Loligo ....................................................... longfin squid ............................................ 1 

§ 648.22(a)(4) .......................................... Loligo ....................................................... longfin ...................................................... 1 

§ 648.22(a)(5) .......................................... Loligo ....................................................... longfin ...................................................... 1 

§ 648.22(b)(1) .......................................... Loligo ....................................................... longfin ...................................................... 1 

§ 648.22(b)(1)(i)(A) .................................. Loligo ....................................................... longfin squid ............................................ 1 

§ 648.22(b)(3)(v) ...................................... Loligo ....................................................... longfin squid ............................................ 1 

§ 648.22(c)(1)(i) ....................................... Loligo ....................................................... longfin squid ............................................ 1 

§ 648.22(f) ................................................ Loligo ....................................................... longfin ...................................................... 1 

§ 648.22(f)(1) ........................................... Loligo ....................................................... longfin ...................................................... 1 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 55 / Wednesday, March 21, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 16481 

Section Remove Add Frequency 

§ 648.24(a) ............................................... Loligo ....................................................... longfin squid ............................................ 4 

§ 648.24(c)(3) ........................................... Loligo ....................................................... longfin squid ............................................ 2 

§ 648.26(b) ............................................... Loligo ....................................................... longfin squid ............................................ 7 

§ 648.27 (section heading) ...................... Loligo ....................................................... longfin squid ............................................ 1 

§ 648.27(a) ............................................... Loligo ....................................................... longfin squid ............................................ 1 

§ 648.27(b) ............................................... Loligo ....................................................... longfin squid ............................................ 5 

§ 648.27(c) ............................................... Loligo ....................................................... longfin squid ............................................ 3 

§ 648.27(d) ............................................... Loligo ....................................................... longfin squid ............................................ 2 

§ 648.124(a)(2) ........................................ Loligo ....................................................... longfin ...................................................... 1 

§ 648.124(b)(2) ........................................ Loligo ....................................................... longfin ...................................................... 1 

[FR Doc. 2012–6456 Filed 3–20–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 679 

[Docket No. 111207737–2141–02] 

RIN 0648–XB102 

Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic 

Zone Off Alaska; Pollock in Statistical 

Area 620 in the Gulf of Alaska 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Temporary rule; closure. 

SUMMARY: NMFS is prohibiting directed 

fishing for pollock in Statistical Area 

620 in the Gulf of Alaska (GOA). This 

action is necessary to prevent exceeding 

the B season allowance of the 2012 total 

allowable catch of pollock for Statistical 

Area 620 in the GOA. 

DATES: Effective 1200 hrs, Alaska local 

time (A.l.t.), March 17, 2012, through 

1200 hrs, A.l.t., August 25, 2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Josh 

Keaton, 907–586–7228. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS 

manages the groundfish fishery in the 

GOA exclusive economic zone 

according to the Fishery Management 

Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of 

Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North 

Pacific Fishery Management Council 

under authority of the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act. Regulations governing 

fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance 

with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 

CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679. 

The B season allowance of the 2012 

total allowable catch (TAC) of pollock in 

Statistical Area 620 of the GOA is 

17,221 metric tons (mt) as established 

by the final 2012 and 2013 harvest 

specifications for groundfish of the GOA 

(77 FR 15194, March 14, 2012). In 

accordance with § 679.20(a)(5)(iv)(B), 

the Administrator, Alaska Region, 

NMFS (Regional Administrator), hereby 

decreases the B season pollock 

allowance by 106 mt to reflect the total 

overharvest of the A seasonal 

apportionment in Statistical Area 620. 

Therefore, the revised B season 

allowance of the pollock TAC in 

Statistical Area 620 is 17,115 mt (17,221 

mt minus 106 mt) 

In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(i), 

the Regional Administrator has 

determined that the B season allowance 

of the 2012 TAC of pollock in Statistical 

Area 620 of the GOA will soon be 

reached. Therefore, the Regional 

Administrator is establishing a directed 

fishing allowance of 17,000 mt and is 

setting aside the remaining 115 mt as 

bycatch to support other anticipated 

groundfish fisheries. In accordance with 

§ 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Regional 

Administrator finds that this directed 

fishing allowance has been reached. 

Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting 

directed fishing for pollock in Statistical 

Area 620 of the GOA. 

After the effective date of this closure 

the maximum retainable amounts at 

§ 679.20(e) and (f) apply at any time 

during a trip. 

Classification 

This action responds to the best 

available information recently obtained 

from the fishery. The Acting Assistant 

Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA 

(AA), finds good cause to waive the 

requirement to provide prior notice and 

opportunity for public comment 

pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 

U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and § 679.25(c)(1)(ii) as 

such requirement is impracticable and 

contrary to the public interest. This 

requirement is impracticable and 

contrary to the public interest as it 

would prevent NMFS from responding 

to the most recent fisheries data in a 

timely fashion and would delay the 

closure of directed fishing for pollock in 

Statistical Area 620 of the GOA. NMFS 

was unable to publish a notice 

providing time for public comment 

because the most recent, relevant data 

only became available as of March 15, 

2012. 

The AA also finds good cause to 

waive the 30-day delay in the effective 

date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 

553(d)(3). This finding is based upon 

the reasons provided above for waiver of 

prior notice and opportunity for public 

comment. 

This action is required by § 679.20 

and is exempt from review under 

Executive Order 12866. 

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

Dated: March 16, 2012. 

Carrie Selberg, 

Acting Director, Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2012–6814 Filed 3–16–12; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 679 

[Docket No. 111207737–2141–02] 

RIN 0648–XB100 

Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic 

Zone Off Alaska; Pollock in the West 

Yakutat District of the Gulf of Alaska 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Temporary rule; closure. 

SUMMARY: NMFS is prohibiting directed 

fishing for pollock in the West Yakutat 

District of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA). 

This action is necessary to prevent 

exceeding the 2012 total allowable catch 

(TAC) of pollock in the West Yakutat 

District of the GOA. 

DATES: Effective 1200 hrs, Alaska local 

time (A.l.t.), March 17, 2012, through 

2400 hrs, A.l.t., December 31, 2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Josh 

Keaton, 907–586–7228. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS 

manages the groundfish fishery in the 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES