68202 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 220 / Friday, November 14, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

(1) * * * 

(iii) List all parties with which the 

applicant has entered into arrangements 

for the spectrum lease or resale 

(including wholesale arrangements) of 

any of the capacity of any of the 

applicant’s spectrum. 

(iv) List separately and in the 

aggregate the gross revenues, computed 

in accordance with § 1.2110, for each of 

the following: The applicant, its 

affiliates, its controlling interests, and 

the affiliates of its controlling interests; 

and if a consortium of small businesses, 

the members comprising the 

consortium. 

(v) If applying as a consortium under 

§ 1.2110(b)(3)(i), provide the 

information in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) 

through (iv) separately for each member 

of the consortium. 

(2) * * * 

(ii) List any FCC-regulated entity or 

applicant for an FCC license, in which 

any controlling interest of the applicant 

owns a 10 percent or greater interest or 

a total of 10 percent or more of any class 

of stock, warrants, options or debt 

securities. This list must include a 

description of each such entity’s 

principal business and a description of 

each such entity’s relationship to the 

applicant; 

(iii) List and summarize all 

agreements or instruments (with 

appropriate references to specific 

provisions in the text of such 

agreements and instruments) that 

support the applicant’s eligibility as a 

small business under the applicable 

designated entity provisions, including 

the establishment of de facto or de jure 

control. Such agreements and 

instruments include articles of 

incorporation and by-laws, partnership 

agreements, shareholder agreements, 

voting or other trust agreements, 

management agreements, franchise 

agreements, spectrum leasing 

arrangements, spectrum resale 

(including wholesale) arrangements, 

and any other relevant agreements 

(including letters of intent), oral or 

written; 

* * * * * 

(v) List separately and in the aggregate 

the gross revenues, computed in 

accordance with § 1.2110, for each of 

the following: The applicant, its 

affiliates, its controlling interests, and 

affiliates of its controlling interests; and 

if a consortium of small businesses, the 

members comprising the consortium; 

and 

* * * * * 

■ 7. Section 1.9020 is amended by 

revising paragraph (d)(4) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1.9020 Spectrum manager leasing 

arrangements. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(4) Designated entity/entrepreneur 

rules. A licensee that holds a license 

pursuant to small business and/or 

entrepreneur provisions (see § 1.2110 

and § 24.709 of this chapter) and 

continues to be subject to unjust 

enrichment requirements (see § 1.2111 

and § 24.714 of this chapter) and/or 

transfer restrictions (see § 24.839 of this 

chapter) may enter into a spectrum 

manager leasing arrangement with a 

spectrum lessee, regardless of whether 

the spectrum lessee meets the 

Commission’s designated entity 

eligibility requirements (see § 1.2110) or 

its entrepreneur eligibility requirements 

to hold certain C and F block licenses 

in the broadband personal 

communications services (see § 1.2110 

and § 24.709 of this chapter), so long as 

the spectrum manager leasing 

arrangement does not result in the 

spectrum lessee’s becoming a 

‘‘controlling interest’’ or ‘‘affiliate’’ (see 

§ 1.2110) of the licensee such that the 

licensee would lose its eligibility as a 

designated entity or entrepreneur. 

* * * * * 

PART 27—MISCELLANEOUS 

WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS 

SERVICES 

■ 8. The authority citation for part 27 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 302a, 303, 

307, 309, 332, 336, 337, 1403, 1404, 1451, 

and 1452, unless otherwise noted. 

■ 9. Section 27.1301 is amended by 

removing the undesignated introductory 

text and revising paragraph (a) to read 

as follows: 

§ 27.1301 Designated entities in the 600 

MHz band. 

(a) Eligibility for small business 

provisions. 

(1) A small business is an entity that, 

together with its affiliates, its 

controlling interests, the affiliates of its 

controlling interests, and the entities 

with which it has an attributable 

material relationship, has average gross 

revenues not exceeding $55 million for 

the preceding three (3) years. 

(2) A very small business is an entity 

that, together with its affiliates, its 

controlling interests, the affiliates of its 

controlling interests, and the entities 

with which it has an attributable 

material relationship, has average gross 

revenues not exceeding $20 million for 

the preceding three (3) years. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2014–26924 Filed 11–13–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 648 

[Docket No. 140902739–4739–01] 

RIN 0648–BE49 

Fisheries of the Northeastern United 

States; Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and 

Butterfish Fisheries; Specifications 

and Management Measures 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule, request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes 2015 

specifications and management 

measures for Atlantic mackerel, 2015– 

2017 specifications for Illex squid, 

2015–2017 specifications for longfin 

squid, and 2015–2017 specifications for 

butterfish. This action also proposes 

simplifying the butterfish fishery 

closure mechanism. These proposed 

specifications and management 

measures are intended to promote the 

utilization and conservation of the 

Atlantic mackerel, squid, and butterfish 

resources. 

DATES: Public comments must be 

received no later than 5 p.m., eastern 

standard time, on December 15, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Copies of supporting 

documents used by the Mid-Atlantic 

Fishery Management Council, including 

the Environmental Assessment (EA) and 

Regulatory Impact Review (RIR)/Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), 

are available from: Dr. Christopher M. 

Moore, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic 

Fishery Management Council, Suite 201, 

800 N. State Street, Dover, DE 19901. 

The EA/RIR/IRFA is accessible via the 

Internet at http://h http://

www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/. 

You may submit comments, identified 

by NOAA–NMFS–2014–0139, by any 

one of the following methods: 

• Electronic Submission: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal e-Rulemaking Portal 

www.regulations.gov. To submit 

comments via the e-Rulemaking Portal, 

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

then enter NOAA–NMFS–2014–0139 in 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 220 / Friday, November 14, 2014 / Proposed Rules 68203 

the keyword search. Locate the 

document you wish to comment on 

from the resulting list and click on the 

‘‘Submit a Comment’’ icon on the right 

of that line. 

• Mail to NMFS, Greater Atlantic 

Regional Fisheries Office, 55 Great 

Republic Dr, Gloucester, MA 01930. 

Mark the outside of the envelope 

‘‘Comments on 2015 Mackerel, Squid 

and Butterfish Specifications.’’ 

• Fax: (978) 281–9135, Attn: Aja 

Szumylo. 

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 for public viewing 

on www.regulations.gov without change. 

All personal identifying information 

(e.g., name, address, etc.) submitted 

voluntarily by the sender will 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 or Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe 

PDF file formats only. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Aja 

Szumylo, Fishery Policy Analyst, 978- 

281–9195, fax 978–281–9135. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

This rule proposes specifications, 

which are the combined suite of 

commercial and recreational catch 

levels established for one or more 

fishing years. The specifications 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 Atlantic Mackerel, Squid and 

Butterfish Fishery Management Plan 

(FMP) and its implementing regulations, 

as well as requirements established by 

the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act. 

Specifically, section 302(g)(1)(B) of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act states that the 

Scientific and Statistical Committee 

(SSC) for each Regional Fishery 

Management Council shall provide its 

Council ongoing scientific advice for 

fishery management decisions, 

including recommendations for 

acceptable biological catch (ABC), 

preventing overfishing, maximum 

sustainable yield, and achieving 

rebuilding targets. The ABC is a level of 

catch that accounts for the scientific 

uncertainty in the estimate of the stock’s 

defined overfishing level (OFL). The 

Council’s SSC met on May 7 and 8, 

2014, to recommend ABCs for the 2015 

Atlantic mackerel specifications, and 

the 2015–2017 butterfish, Illex squid, 

and longfin squid specifications. 

The FMP’s implementing regulations 

require the Council’s Mackerel, Squid, 

and Butterfish Monitoring Committee to 

consider and develop specification 

recommendations for each species. 

Since the Magnuson-Stevens Act 

requirements for the SSC to recommend 

ABC became effective, the monitoring 

committees’ role has largely been to 

recommend any reduction in catch 

limits from the SSC-recommended 

ABCs to account for management 

uncertainty, and to recommend other 

management measures (e.g., gear and/or 

possession restrictions) needed for the 

efficient management of the fishery. The 

Monitoring Committee met via webinar 

on May 13 and 27, 2014, to discuss 

recommendations for the 2015 mackerel 

fishery, and the 2015–2017 butterfish, 

Illex squid, and longfin squid fisheries. 

The Council considered the 

recommendations of the SSC, the 

Monitoring Committee, and public 

comments at its June 11, 2014, meeting 

in Freehold, NJ, and made its 

specification recommendations. The 

Council submitted the 

recommendations, along with the 

required analyses, for agency review on 

July 28, 2014, with final submission on 

October 20, 2014. NMFS must review 

the Council’s recommendations for 

compliance with the FMP and 

applicable law, and conduct notice-andcomment rulemaking to propose and 

implement the final specifications. 

The regulations for the FMP require 

the specification of annual catch limits 

(ACL) and accountability measure (AM) 

provisions for mackerel and butterfish. 

Both squid species are exempt from the 

ACL/AM requirements because they 

have a life cycle of less than 1 year. In 

addition, the regulations require the 

specification of domestic annual harvest 

(DAH), domestic annual processing 

(DAP), total allowable level of foreign 

fishing (TALFF), joint venture 

processing (JVP), commercial and 

recreational annual catch targets (ACT), 

and a river herring and shad catch cap 

for mackerel, the butterfish mortality 

cap in the longfin squid fishery, and 

initial optimum yield (IOY) for both 

squid species. 

In addition to the specifications, this 

action would also simplify the 

management measures for the direct 

butterfish fishery and changes the 

regulations in regard to possession 

limits. 

Proposed 2015 Specifications for 

Atlantic Mackerel 

TABLE 1—PROPOSED 2015 SPECIFICATIONS IN METRIC TONS (mt) FOR ATLANTIC MACKEREL

Overfishing limit (OFL) Unknown 

ABC .............................................. 40,165 

ACL ............................................... 25,039 

Commercial ACT .......................... 21,138 

Recreational ACT/Recreational 

Harvest Limit (RHL) .................. 1,397 

1,397.

DAH/DAP ...................................... 20,872 

JVP ............................................... 0 

TALFF ........................................... 0 

The most recent U.S. stock assessment 

for mackerel was conducted by the 

Transboundary Resources Assessment 

Committee (TRAC) in March 2010. The 

2010 TRAC Status Report indicated 

reduced productivity in the stock and a 

lack of older fish in both the survey and 

catch data; however, the status of the 

mackerel stock is unknown because 

biomass reference points could not be 

determined. Due to uncertainty in the 

assessment, the TRAC Status Report 

recommended that total annual 

mackerel catches not exceed 80,000 mt 

(average total U.S. and Canadian 

landings from 2006–2008) until new 

information is available. 

Since 2010, the SSC has 

recommended a stock-wide ABC of 

80,000 mt based on the recommendation 

in the TRAC status report. NMFS 

previously implemented specifications 

that matched the recommendation in 

the TRAC Status Report for the 2013– 

2015 fishing years as part of the 2013 

specifications for the FMP (January 16, 

2013; 78 FR 3346). However, given 

uncertainty in 2010 mackerel 

assessment, low U.S. landings in recent 

years, and results from a 2014 Canadian 

assessment that suggest the stock is 

doing poorly, the SSC concluded that 

the foundation that it used for 

developing its previous ABC was 

inappropriate because 2006–2008 was a 

period of unusually high catches. In 

order to capture the highly periodic 

nature of mackerel catches, the SSC 

recommended a stock-wide ABC of 

40,165 mt (median of 1978–2013 U.S. 

and Canadian catches) for the 2015 

fishing year only. This period was 

chosen as a time when fisheries 

operations have been relatively 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

68204 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 220 / Friday, November 14, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

consistent and foreign fleets were not in 

operation. 

According to the FMP, the mackerel 

ABC must be calculated using the 

formula U.S. ABC = Stock-wide ABC ¥ 

C, where C is the estimated catch of 

mackerel in Canadian waters for the 

upcoming fishing year. Canadian catch 

was estimated at 15,126 mt (2014 

Canadian mackerel quota of 10,000 mt, 

plus a discard rate of 1.26 percent, plus 

5,000 mt estimated unreported catch). 

The Council deducted estimated 

Canadian catch from the stockwide ABC 

to a recommended U.S. ABC of 25,039 

mt (40,165 mt minus 15,126 mt). 

The Council recommended a 

recreational allocation of 1,552 mt (6.2 

percent of the U.S. ABC). The proposed 

recreational ACT of 1,397 mt (90 

percent of 1,552 mt) accounts for 

uncertainty in recreational catch and 

discard estimates. The Recreational ACT 

is equal to the Recreational Harvest 

Limit (RHL), which would be the 

effective cap on recreational catch. 

For the commercial mackerel fishery, 

the Council recommended a commercial 

fishery allocation of 23,487 mt (93.8 

percent of the U.S. ABC, the portion of 

the ACL that was not allocated to the 

recreational fishery). The recommended 

Commercial ACT of 21,138 mt (90 

percent of 23,487 mt) compensates for 

management uncertainty in estimated 

Canadian landings, uncertainty in 

discard estimates, and possible 

misreporting of mackerel catch. The 

Commercial ACT would be further 

reduced by a discard rate of 1.26 percent 

to arrive at the proposed DAH of 20,872 

mt. The DAH would be the effective cap 

on commercial catch. 

Consistent with the Council’s 

recommendation, NMFS proposes 

mackerel specifications that would set 

the U.S. ACL at 25,039 mt, the 

Commercial ACT at 21,138 mt, the DAH 

and DAP at 20,872 mt, and the 

Recreational ACT at 1,397 mt. 

Additionally, as recommended by the 

Council, NMFS proposes to maintain 

JVP 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 10 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. 

The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides 

that the specification of TALFF, if any, 

shall be the portion of the optimum 

yield (OY) of a fishery that will not be 

harvested by U.S. vessels. TALFF would 

allow foreign vessels to harvest U.S. fish 

and sell their product on the world 

market, in direct competition with U.S. 

industry efforts to expand exports. 

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 

global mackerel market and possible 

increases in U.S. production levels, the 

Council concluded that specifying a 

DAH/DAP that would result in zero 

TALFF would yield positive social and 

economic benefits to both U.S. 

harvesters and processors, and to the 

Nation. For these reasons, consistent 

with the Council’s recommendation, 

NMFS proposes to specify DAH at a 

level that can be fully harvested by the 

domestic fleet, thereby precluding the 

specification of a TALFF, in order to 

support the U.S. mackerel industry. 

NMFS concurs that it is reasonable to 

assume that in 2015 the commercial 

fishery has the ability to harvest 20,872 

mt of mackerel. 

2015 Proposed River Herring and Shad 

Catch Cap in the Mackerel Fishery 

In order to limit river herring and 

shad catch, Amendment 14 to the FMP 

(February 24, 2014; 79 FR 10029) allows 

the Council to set a river herring and 

shad cap through annual specifications. 

For 2015 the Council recommended that 

the cap be set at 89 mt initially, but if 

mackerel landings surpass 10,000 mt 

before closure, then the cap would 

increase to 155 mt. The 89-mt cap 

represents the median annual river 

herring and shad catch by all vessels 

landing over 20,000 lb (9.08 mt) of 

mackerel per trip from 2005–2012. 

These were years when the fishery 

caught about 13,000 mt of mackerel. The 

155-mt cap is based on the median river 

herring and shad catch by all vessels 

landing over 20,000 lb (9.08 mt) of 

mackerel per trip from 2005–2012, 

adjusted to the 2015 proposed DAH 

(20,872 mt). The Council recommends 

the two-tier system in order to 

encourage the fishery to avoid river 

herring and shad regardless of the rate 

of mackerel catches. If mackerel catch is 

low, the 89-mt cap would encourage 

fishermen to avoid catching river 

herring and shad. If mackerel catch 

increases, the 155-mt cap should still 

allow mackerel fishing to occur as long 

as river herring and shad catch rates 

remain below the recent median. Once 

the mackerel fishery catches 95 percent 

of the river herring and shad cap, we 

will close the directed mackerel fishery 

and implement a 20,000-lb (9.08-mt) 

incidental catch trip limit for the 

remainder of the year. 

2015–2017 Proposed Illex Specifications 

TABLE 2—PROPOSED 2015–2017 

SPECIFICATIONS IN METRIC TON (mt) 

FOR ILLEX SQUID

OFL Unknown 

ABC .............................................. 24,000 

Initial Optimum Yield (IOY) ........... 22,915 

DAH/DAP ...................................... 22,915 

The Illex stock was most recently 

assessed at the 42nd Northeast Regional 

Stock Assessment Workshop in late 

2005. The assessment did not generate 

reliable estimates of stock biomass or 

fishing mortality. In the absence of an 

updated stock assessment, the SSC 

recommended the status quo ABC of 

24,000 mt. Landings of 24,000–26,000 

mt do not appear to have caused harm 

to the Illex stock, based on trawl survey 

indices and landings in years following 

when landings were in the range of 

24,000–26,000 mt. 

The Council recommended that the 

ABC be reduced by the status quo 

discard rate of 4.52 percent, which 

results in an IOY, DAH, and DAP for 

recommendation of 22,915 mt for the 

2015–2017 fishing years. These levels 

are the same as was specified for the 

Illex fishery in 2012–2014. The Council 

will review this decision during its 

annual specifications process and may 

make a change for 2016 or 2017 if new 

information is available. 

Consistent with the Council’s 

recommendation, NMFS proposes to 

specify the Illex ABC as 24,000 mt, and 

to specify IOY, DAH, and DAP as 22,915 

mt for the 2015–2017 fishing years. 

2015–2017 Proposed Longfin Squid 

Specifications 

TABLE 3—PROPOSED 2015–2017 

SPECIFICATIONS IN METRIC TONS

(mt) FOR LONGFIN SQUID

OFL Unknown 

ABC .............................................. 23,400 

IOY ................................................ 22,445 

DAH/DAP ...................................... 22,445 

The 51st Northeast Regional Stock 

Assessment Workshop, published in 

January 2011, found that the longfin 

squid stock is not overfished, but that 

the overfishing status is unknown. The 

SSC used the stock assessment 

information to recommend an ABC of 

23,400 mt for the 2012–2014 fishing 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 220 / Friday, November 14, 2014 / Proposed Rules 68205 

years, subject to annual review. This 

recommendation corresponds to catch 

in the year with the highest observed 

exploitation fraction (catch divided by 

estimated biomass) during a period of 

light exploitation (1976–2009). The SSC 

interpreted this level of exploitation to 

be sustainable over the long term. In 

absence of newer information, the SSC 

recommended renewing current levels 

for another three years, subject to 

annual review, resulting in an ABC of 

23,400 mt for the 2015–2017 fishing 

years. 

The Council recommended that the 

ABC be reduced by the status quo 

discard rate of 4.08 percent, which 

results in an IOY, DAH, and DAP for 

recommendation of 22,445 mt for the 

2015–2017 fishing years. 

Consistent with the Council’s 

recommendation, NMFS proposes an 

ABC of 23,400 mt, and an IOY, DAH, 

and DAP of 22,445 mt for the 2015–2017 

fishing years. 

Distribution of the Longfin DAH 

The Council did not recommend any 

changes to the trimester allocation of the 

2015–2017 longfin DAH. Therefore 

allocations would remain at 2012–2014 

levels according to percentages 

specified in the FMP, as follows: 

TABLE 4—PROPOSED 2015–2017 TRIMESTER ALLOCATION OF LONGFIN

QUOTA

Trimester Percent Metric 

tons 

I (Jan–Apr) ................ 43 9,651 

II (May–Aug) ............. 17 3,816 

III (Sep–Dec) ............ 40 8,978 

Total ...................... 100 22,445 

2015–2017 Proposed Butterfish 

Specifications 

TABLE 5—PROPOSED 2015–2017 SPECIFICATIONS IN METRIC TONS (mt) FOR BUTTERFISH

2015 2016 2017 

OFL .............................................................................................................................................. 41,092 N/A N/A 

ABC .............................................................................................................................................. 33,278 31,412 30,922 

Commercial ACT (ABC minus 10-percent buffer) ....................................................................... 29,950 28,271 27,830 

DAH (ACT minus butterfish cap and discards) ........................................................................... 22,530 21,043 20,652 

Directed Fishery closure limit (DAH minus 1,411 mt buffer) ...................................................... 21,119 19,631 20,652 

Butterfish Cap (in the longfin squid fishery) ................................................................................ 3,884 3,884 3,884 

The status of the butterfish stock was 

updated in the 58th Northeast Regional 

Stock Assessment Workshop (March 

2014), which concluded that the stock 

was above target stock size and 

experiencing low fishing mortality. The 

stock is now considered fully rebuilt. 

The SSC derived an OFL of 41,092 mt 

by applying estimated natural and 

fishing mortality to the size of the 

existing stock. The SSC recommended a 

2015 ABC of 33,278 mt (increased 

dramatically from 9,100 mt in 2014) to 

account for the increased stock size and 

estimated expected fishing mortality in 

2014. The SSC recommended an ABC of 

31,412 mt in 2016, and 30,922 mt in 

2017 to account for fishing mortality in 

2015 and 2016, respectively, with a 60- 

percent probability of not overfishing as 

required by the Council risk policy. 

The Council recommended setting the 

butterfish ACL equal to the ABC, and 

establishing a 10-percent buffer between 

ACL and ACT for management 

uncertainty, which would result in an 

ACT of 29,950 mt in 2015, 28,271 mt in 

2016, and 27,830 mt in 2017. To prevent 

butterfish catch from exceeding the 

ACT, the Council subtracts butterfish 

catch in the longfin squid fishery, catch 

in other fisheries, and discards in the 

directed fishery. The Council 

recommended leaving the butterfish cap 

at the 2014 level of 3,884 mt for each 

year. This cap is not constraining on the 

longfin fishery and reserves most of the 

available butterfish quota for the 

directed butterfish fishery. The 

maximum amount of butterfish discards 

in non-longfin fisheries from 2011–2013 

was 637 mt. Therefore, 4,521 mt (3,884- 

mt butterfish cap plus 637 mt of 

discards) are subtracted from the ACT. 

Because there are no recent observed 

trips with substantial butterfish 

landings, the Council looked to 

observed trips that landed over 25,000 

lb (9.33 mt) butterfish between 1989 and 

2000, which had a butterfish discard 

rate of 11.4 percent. The Council 

identified this discard rate as the best 

approximation for the fishery under 

current conditions. Therefore, the 

Council recommended setting the DAH 

at 22,530 mt in 2015, 21,042 mt in 2016, 

and 20,652 in 2017. Butterfish TALFF is 

only specified to address bycatch by 

foreign fleets targeting mackerel TALFF. 

Because there is no mackerel TALFF, 

butterfish TALFF would also be set at 

zero. 

NMFS proposes specifications, 

consistent with the Council’s 

recommendation, as outlined in Table 5. 

NMFS also proposes that the 2015 

butterfish mortality cap be allocated by 

Trimester as follows: 

TABLE 6—PROPOSED TRIMESTER ALLOCATION OF BUTTERFISH MORTALITY CAP ON THE LONGFIN SQUID

FISHERY FOR 2015 

Trimester Percent Metric 

tons 

I (Jan–Apr) ................ 43 1,670 

II (May–Aug) ............. 17 660 

TABLE 6—PROPOSED TRIMESTER ALLOCATION OF BUTTERFISH MORTALITY CAP ON THE LONGFIN SQUID

FISHERY FOR 2015—Continued 

Trimester Percent Metric 

tons 

III (Sep–Dec) ............ 40 1,554 

Total ...................... 100 3,844 

Butterfish Directed Fishery Closure 

Mechanism 

Due to the dramatic increase in 

butterfish availability and proposed 

DAH, the Council recommended 

simplifying the three-phase butterfish 

management season enacted in 2013 

(January 16, 2013; 78 FR 3346). Instead 

of the phased system which implements 

different trip limits depending on catch 

levels, the Council recommended that 

vessels issued a longfin squid/butterfish 

moratorium permit (as specified at 

§ 648.4(a)(5)(i)) be allowed to land 

unlimited amounts of butterfish if using 

mesh greater than or equal to 3 inches 

(76 mm) until projected landings reach 

within 1,411 mt of a given year’s DAH. 

Once landings are within 1,411 mt of 

the DAH, NMFS would implement a 

5,000-lb (2.27-mt) trip limit. Vessels 

issued a longfin squid/butterfish 

moratorium permit fishing with mesh 

less than 3 inches (76 mm) are currently 

prohibited from landing more than 

2,500 lb (1.13 mt) of butterfish per trip, 

and no changes are proposed for those 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

68206 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 220 / Friday, November 14, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

vessels. The Council identified 1,411 mt 

as the amount that would allow some 

landings under a 5,000-lb (2.27-mt) trip 

limit without reaching the DAH. In the 

unlikely event that projected landings 

reach the annual DAH, then Council 

recommended that the trip limit be 

reduced to 600 lb (0.27 mt) to prevent 

an overage of the ACT. 

Consistent with Council 

recommendations, NMFS proposes to 

implement the simplified closure 

mechanism, and the proposed 

specifications detailed in Table 5. 

Corrections 

This proposed rule also contains a 

minor adjustment to an existing 

regulation. The vessel monitoring 

system (VMS) power-down exemption 

for vessels that will be at the dock for 

more than 30 consecutive days, at 

§ 648.10(c)(2)(i)(B), currently lists 

specific eligible permits. The proposed 

regulatory text is simplified to clarify 

that the exemption is available to all 

permits that are required to have VMS. 

Classification 

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

Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS 

Assistant Administrator has determined 

that this proposed rule is consistent 

with the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and 

Butterfish FMP, other 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 IRFA, as 

required by section 603 of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The 

IRFA describes the economic impact 

this proposed rule, if adopted, would 

have on small entities. A summary of 

the analysis follows. A copy of this 

analysis is available from the Council or 

NMFS (see ADDRESSES) or via the 

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

Statement of Objective and Need 

This action proposes 2015 

specifications for mackerel, and 2015– 

2017 specifications for butterfish, Illex 

squid, and longfin squid. It also 

proposes to modify the river herring 

catch cap in the mackerel fishery and to 

simplify the closure mechanism in the 

butterfish fishery. A complete 

description of the reasons why this 

action is being considered, and the 

objectives of and legal basis for this 

action, are contained in the preamble to 

this proposed rule and are not repeated 

here. 

Description and Estimate of Number of 

Small Entities to Which the Rule Will 

Apply 

Based on permit data for 2013, the 

numbers of potential fishing vessels in 

the 2015 fisheries are as follows: 384 

separate vessels hold Atlantic mackerel, 

longfin squid, Illex squid, and butterfish 

limited access permits, 287 entities own 

those vessels, and, based on current 

Small Business Administration (SBA) 

definitions, 274 are small entities. Of 

the 274 small entities, 29 had no 

revenue in 2013 and those entities with 

no revenue are listed as small entities 

for the purposes of this analysis. All of 

the entities that had revenue fell into 

the finfish or shellfish categories, and 

the SBA definitions for those categories 

for 2014 are $20.5 million for finfish 

fishing and $5.5 million for shellfish 

fishing. Many vessels participate in 

more than one of these fisheries; 

therefore, permit numbers are not 

additive. The only proposed alternatives 

that involve increased restrictions apply 

to mackerel limited access permits, so 

those numbers are listed separately 

(they are a subset of the above entities). 

This analysis found that 150 separate 

vessels hold Atlantic mackerel, longfin 

squid, Illex squid, and butterfish limited 

access permits, 114 entities own those 

vessels, and, based on current SBA 

definitions, 107 are small entities. 

Description of Projected Reporting, 

Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 

Requirements 

There are no new reporting or record 

keeping 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 proposed rule. 

Minimizing Significant Economic 

Impacts on Small Entities 

The mackerel commercial DAH 

proposed in this action (20,872 mt) 

represents a reduction from status quo 

(2014 DAH = 33,821 mt). Despite the 

reduction, the proposed DAH is above 

recent U.S. landings; mackerel landings 

for 2010–2013 averaged 5,873 mt. Thus, 

the reduction does not pose a constraint 

to vessels relative to the landings in 

recent years. Even though the proposed 

2015 quota is lower than 2014, it would 

still allow more than a tripling of catch 

compared to any year 2011–2013. This 

action proposes a Recreational ACT/

RHL of 1,552 mt. Because recreational 

harvest from 2010–2013 averaged 850 

mt, it does not appear that the allocation 

for the recreational fishery will 

constrain recreational harvest. Overall, 

the proposed action is not expected to 

result in any reductions in revenues for 

vessels that participate in either the 

commercial or recreational mackerel 

fisheries. 

The proposed river herring and shad 

catch cap in the mackerel fishery has 

the potential to limit the fishery from 

achieving its full mackerel quota if the 

river herring and shad encounter rates 

are high, but it’s very unlikely that the 

fishery would close before exceeding 

the levels of landings experienced since 

2010, when landings have been less 

than 11,000 mt. Based on the operation 

of the cap in 2014 (the first year of the 

cap), as long as the fishery can maintain 

relatively low river herring and shad 

catch rates, this alternative is unlikely to 

constrain the mackerel fishery. 

Examination of river herring and shad 

catch rates in 2011–2013 suggest that 

the only year that the proposed cap 

would have been binding would have 

been 2012. In 2012, relevant trips 

landed 5,074 mt of mackerel, but the 

fishery would have closed at 

approximately 4,439 mt if the proposed 

cap been in place. Given the river 

herring and shad encounter rate in 2012, 

about 608 mt of mackerel landings 

would have been forgone. Using the 

2013 price of mackerel, 608 mt mackerel 

would have amount to $265,105 of 

potentially forgone ex-vessel revenues. 

However, based on the operation of the 

cap in 2014, actual river herring and 

shad catch rates may be lower under the 

cap and therefore the cap may not be 

binding. Therefore, we conclude that 

there is no impact to the relevant 

entities. 

The Illex IOY (22,915 mt) proposed in 

this action renews the status quo for 

three more years. Though annual Illex 

landings have approached this amount 

in some recent years (15,825 mt for 

2010, 18,797 mt for 2011, 11,709 mt for 

2012, and 3,835 mt for 2013), the 

landings were lower than the level being 

proposed. Thus, implementation of this 

proposed action should not result in a 

reduction in revenue or a constraint on 

expansion of the fishery in 2015–17. 

The proposed longfin squid IOY 

(22,445 mt) renews the status quo levels 

for three more years. Because longfin 

squid landings from 2010–2013 

averaged 10,093 mt, the proposed 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. 

The butterfish DAHs proposed in this 

action (21,119 mt in 2015, 19,631 mt in 

2016 and 19,241 mt in 2017) represents 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 220 / Friday, November 14, 2014 / Proposed Rules 68207 

a 660-percent increase over the 2014 

DAH (3,200 mt). Due to market 

conditions, there has not been a directed 

butterfish fishery in recent years; 

therefore, recent landings have been 

low. The proposed increase in the DAH 

has the potential to increase revenue for 

permitted vessels, having a positive 

economic impact. 

This action also proposes simplifying 

the closure mechanism for the butterfish 

fishery. This would allow permitted 

vessels to take butterfish when they are 

available or when dealers may process 

them, and should have a positive 

economic impact on the fishery. 

The proposed 2015–17 butterfish 

discard cap of 3,884 mt would renew 

the status quo for three more years. The 

longfin squid fishery will close during 

Trimester I, II, or III if the butterfish 

discards reach the trimester allocation. 

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 

is dependent upon the size of the 

butterfish discard cap. This cap level 

was in effect for the 2013 and 2014 

fishing years, and did not restrict the 

fishery in either year. For that reason, 

additional revenue losses are not 

expected as a result of this proposed 

action. 

Alternatives to the Proposed Rule 

The Council analysis evaluated two 

alternatives to the proposed 

specifications for mackerel. The 

proposed action would set the U.S. ABC 

at 40,165 mt, the Commercial ACT at 

21,138 mt, the DAH and DAP at 20,872 

mt, and the Recreational ACT at 1,397 

mt. The first alternative (status quo— 

least restrictive) would have resulted in 

a U.S. ABC of 43,781 mt, a Commercial 

ACT of 34,907 mt, a DAH/DAP of 

33,821 mt, and a Recreational ACT of 

2,443 mt. The status quo alternative was 

based previous SSC recommendations, 

and was not selected because due to 

increasing concern that low catches may 

indicate a decline in the status of the 

mackerel stock. The other alternative 

(most restrictive) was based on average 

catch from 1992 to 2001, the most recent 

period of time when mackerel catches 

were stable. This alternative would set 

the U.S. ABC and ACL at 18,274 mt, the 

Commercial ACT at 15,427 mt, the DAH 

and DAP at 15,233 mt, and the 

Recreational ACT at 1,020 mt. This 

alternative was not selected because it 

was inconsistent with the ABC 

recommended by the SSC. 

The Council considered two 

alternatives to the proposed 89-mt river 

herring and shad catch cap in the 

mackerel fishery. The proposed 

alternative was the most restrictive 

option. The status quo alternative (least 

restrictive) would maintain the cap at 

236 mt. The other alternative would set 

the cap at the median observed river 

herring and shad catch from each year 

2005–2012 as applied to the 2015 

proposed mackerel quota (155 mt). 

These alternatives were not selected 

because the Council believed they 

would be less protective of river herring 

and shad than the proposed alternative. 

The Council considered two 

alternatives to the preferred action for 

Illex. The proposed action would set the 

ABC at 24,000 mt, and the IOY, DAH, 

and DAP at 22,915 mt. The first 

alternative (least restrictive) would have 

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

and DAP at 28,644 mt. This alternative 

was not selected because the higher 

specifications were inconsistent with 

the results of the most recent stock 

assessment. The second alternative 

(most restrictive) would have set ABC at 

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

17,186 mt. The Council considered this 

alternative unnecessarily restrictive. 

The Council considered two 

alternatives to the preferred action for 

longfin squid. The preferred alternative 

would set the ABC at 23,400 mt, and the 

IOY, DAH, and DAP at 22,445 mt. The 

first alternative (least restrictive) would 

have set the ABC at 29,250 mt, and the 

IOY, DAH, and DAP at 28,057 mt. The 

second alternative (most restrictive) 

would have set the ABC at 17,550 mt, 

and the IOY, DAH and DAP at 16,834 

mt. These alternatives were not selected 

because they were all inconsistent with 

the ABC recommended by the SSC. 

There were two alternatives to the 

preferred action for butterfish that were 

not selected by the Council. The 

preferred alternative (least restrictive) 

would set the ABC/ACL at 33,278 mt in 

2015, the ACT at 29,950 mt, the DAH at 

22,530 mt, with slight decreases for the 

2015 and 2015 fishing years, and the 

butterfish cap at 3,884 mt from 2015 to 

2017. The first alternative (status quo— 

most restrictive) did not take into 

account the revised stock assessment, 

and would have set the ABC/ACL at 

9,100 mt, the ACT at 8,190 mt, the DAH 

at 3,200 mt, and the butterfish cap at 

3,884 mt. The second alternative would 

have increased butterfish quotas from 

status quo levels to SSC recommended 

levels slowly over three years with an 

ABC/ACL of 16,332 mt and a DAH of 

9,017 mt in 2015, a ABC/ACL of 23,627 

mt and DAH of 14,835 mt in 2016, and 

an ABC/ACL of 30,922 and DAH of 

20,652 mt in 2017. These two 

alternatives were not selected because 

they were both inconsistent with the 

ABC recommended by the SSC. Both the 

preferred alternative and the second 

alternative would also simplify the 

closure mechanism for butterfish, 

compared to the no action/status quo 

alternative, which features a phased 

closure mechanism. The simplified 

closure mechanism is less restrictive 

than the phased closure mechanism, 

and was selected over because the 

increased quota does not require the 

intensive management necessary for the 

phased closure mechanism. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648 

Fisheries, Fishing, Recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements. 

Dated: November 7, 2014. 

Samuel D. Rauch III, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Regulatory Programs, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is 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 § 648.10, paragraph (c)(2)(i)(B) is 

revised to read as follows: 

§ 648.10 VMS and DAS requirements for 

vessel owners/operators. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(B) The vessel owner signs out of the 

VMS program for a minimum period of 

30 consecutive days by obtaining a valid 

letter of exemption pursuant to 

paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of this section, the 

vessel does not engage in any fisheries 

or move from the dock/mooring until 

the VMS unit is turned back on, and the 

vessel complies with all conditions and 

requirements of said letter; 

* * * * * 

■ 3. In § 648.24, paragraph (c)(1) 

introductory text is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 648.24 Fishery closures and 

accountability measures. 

* * * * * 

(c) Butterfish AMs—(1) Directed 

butterfish fishery closure. When 

butterfish catch reaches the butterfish 

closure threshold as determined in the 

annual specifications, NMFS shall 

implement a 5,000-lb (2.27-mt) 

possession limit for vessels issued a 

longfin squid/butterfish moratorium 

permit and that are fishing with a 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

68208 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 220 / Friday, November 14, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

minimum mesh size of 3 inches (76 

mm). When the butterfish catch is 

projected to reach the butterfish DAH as 

determined in the annual specifications, 

NMFS shall implement a 600-lb (0.27- 

mt) possession limit for all vessels 

issued a longfin squid/butterfish 

moratorium or incidental catch permit. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. In § 648.26, paragraph (d) is revised 

to read as follows: 

§ 648.26 Mackerel, squid, and butterfish 

possession restrictions. 

* * * * * 

(d) Butterfish. (1) A vessel issued a 

longfin squid/butterfish moratorium 

permit (as specified at § 648.4(a)(5)(i)) 

fishing with a minimum mesh size of 3 

inches (76 mm) is authorized to fish for, 

possess, or land butterfish with no 

possession restriction in the EEZ per 

trip, and may only land butterfish once 

on any calendar day, which is defined 

as the 24-hr period beginning at 0001 

hours and ending at 2400 hours, 

provided that directed butterfish fishery 

has not been closed, and the reduced 

possession limit enacted pursuant to 

§ 648.24(c)(1). When butterfish harvest 

is projected to reach the threshold for 

the butterfish fishery (as described in 

§ 648.24(c)(1)), these vessels may not 

fish for, possess, or land more than 

5,000 lb (2.27 mt) of butterfish per trip 

at any time, and may only land 

butterfish once on any calendar day. 

When butterfish harvest is projected to 

reach the DAH limit (as described in 

§ 648.24(c)(1)), these vessels may not 

fish for, possess, or land more than 600 

lb (0.27 mt) of butterfish per trip at any 

time, and may only land butterfish once 

on any calendar day. 

(2) A vessel issued longfin squid/

butterfish moratorium permit fishing 

with mesh less than 3 inches (76 mm) 

may not fish for, possess, or land more 

than 2,500 lb (1.13 mt) of butterfish per 

trip at any time, and may only land 

butterfish once on any calendar day, 

provided that butterfish harvest has not 

reached the DAH limit and the reduced 

possession limit has not been 

implemented, as described in 

§ 648.24(c)(1). When butterfish harvest 

is projected to reach the DAH limit (as 

described in § 648.24(c)(1)), these 

vessels may not fish for, possess, or land 

more than 600 lb (0.27 mt) of butterfish 

per trip at any time, and may only land 

butterfish once on any calendar day. 

(3) A vessels issued a longfin squid/ 

butterfish incidental catch permit, 

regardless of mesh size used, may not 

fish for, possess, or land more than 600 

lb (0.27 mt) of butterfish per trip at any 

time, and may only land butterfish once 

on any calendar day, which is defined 

as the 24-hr period beginning at 0001 

hours and ending at 2400 hours. 

[FR Doc. 2014–26980 Filed 11–13–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS