50 CFR Part 648

53404

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 168 / Thursday, August 29, 2013 / Proposed Rules

(e)(5)(ii) of this section, that vessel is
assumed to be fishing under the
requirements of paragraphs (e)(1)
through (3) of this section until the
vessel owner or operator makes another
declaration under this paragraph (e)(5).
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2013–21067 Filed 8–28–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 648
[Docket No. 100120035–3705–02]
RIN 0648–AY26

Fisheries of the Northeastern United
States; Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and
Butterfish Fisheries; Amendment 14
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule, request for
comments.
AGENCY:

NMFS proposes regulations to
implement measures in Amendment 14
to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid and
Butterfish Management Plan. The MidAtlantic Fishery Management Council
developed Amendment 14 to improve
catch monitoring for the Atlantic
mackerel, squid, and butterfish fisheries
and to address incidental catch of river
herring and shad through responsible
management. Amendment 14
management measures include: Revising
dealer and vessel reporting
requirements, and requirements for
vessel monitoring systems; increasing
observer coverage on midwater trawl
mackerel and Tier 1, 2 and 3 small-mesh
bottom trawl mackerel vessels;
implementing partial industry funding
for observer coverage; revising vessel
requirements to improve at-sea
sampling by observers; establishing
slippage caps to discourage the
discarding of catch prior to sampling by
observers; and establishing a mortality
cap for river herring and shad with
amounts to be set during specifications.
DATES: Public comments must be
received on or before October 11, 2013.
ADDRESSES: Copies of supporting
documents used by the Mid-Atlantic
Fishery Management Council (Council),
including the Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) and Regulatory Impact
Review (RIR)/Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), are
available from: Dr. Christopher M.

sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

SUMMARY:

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:54 Aug 28, 2013

Jkt 229001

Moore, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic
Fishery Management Council, Room
2115, Federal Building, 300 South New
Street, Dover, DE 19904–6790. The EA/
RIR/IRFA is accessible via the Internet
at http://www.nero.noaa.gov.
You may submit comments on this
document, identified by NOAA–NMFS–
2013–0128, by any of the following
methods:
• Electronic Submission: Submit all
electronic public comments via the
Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to
www.regulations.gov/
#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-20130128, click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon,
complete the required fields, and enter
or attach your comments.
• Mail: John K. Bullard, Regional
Administrator, NMFS, Northeast
Regional Office, 55 Great Republic
Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the
outside of the envelope, ‘‘Comments on
the MSB Amendment 14 Proposed
Rule.’’
• Fax: (978) 281–9135, Attn: Aja
Szumylo.
Instructions: 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 by NMFS. 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.),
confidential business information, or
otherwise sensitive information
submitted voluntarily by the sender will
be publicly accessible. NMFS will
accept anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/
A’’ in the required fields if you wish to
remain anonymous). Attachments to
electronic comments will be accepted in
Microsoft Word, Excel, or Adobe PDF
formats only.
Written comments regarding the
burden-hour estimates or other aspects
of the collection-of-information
requirements contained in this proposed
rule may be submitted to NMFS,
Northeast Regional Office and by email
to OIRA Submission@omb.eop.gov, or
fax to 202–395–7285.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Aja
Szumylo, Fishery Policy Analyst, 978–
281–9195, fax 978–281–9135.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On June 9, 2010 (75 FR 32745), the
Council published a notice of intent
(NOI) to prepare an EIS for Amendment
14 to the Atlantic mackerel, squid, and
butterfish (MSB) Fishery Management
Plan (FMP) to consider measures to:
Implement catch share systems for the

PO 00000

Frm 00035

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

squid fisheries, increase fishery
monitoring to determine the
significance of river herring and shad
incidental catch in the MSB fisheries,
and measures to minimize bycatch and/
or incidental catch of river herring and
shad. The Council subsequently
conducted scoping meetings during
June 2010 to gather public comments on
these issues. Based on the comments
submitted during scoping, the Council
removed consideration of catch shares
for squids from Amendment 14 at its
August 2010 meeting.
Following further development of
Amendment 14, the Council conducted
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act
(MSA) and National Environmental
Policy Act public hearings in April and
May 2012, and, following the public
comment period on the draft EIS that
ended on June 4, 2012, the Council
adopted Amendment 14 on June 14,
2012. The Council submitted
Amendment 14 to NOAA Fisheries
Service (NMFS) for review on February
26, 2012. Following a series of revisions,
the Council submitted a revised version
of Amendment 14 to NMFS on June 3,
2013. This action proposes management
measures that were recommended by
the Council in Amendment 14. If
implemented, these management
measures would:
• Require weekly vessel trip reports
(VTRs) for all MSB permits, consistent
with VTR provisions for other fisheries;
• Require a 48-hr pre-trip notification
in order to retain, possess, or transfer
more than 20,000 lb (9.07 mt) of
Atlantic mackerel (mackerel) in order to
facilitate observer placement;
• Require the use of vessel
monitoring systems (VMS), as well as
the submission of daily VMS catch
reports, for limited access mackerel and
longfin squid/butterfish moratorium
permits to facility quota monitoring;
• Require a 6-hr pre-landing
notification via VMS in order to land
more than 20,000 lb (9.07 mt) of
mackerel, to facilitate enforcement;
• Expand dealer reporting
requirements;
• Increase observer coverage on
limited access mackerel vessels using
midwater and small-mesh bottom trawl,
and require industry contributions of
$325 per day;
• Expand vessel requirements related
to at-sea observer sampling to help
ensure safe sampling and improve data
quality;
• Establish measures to minimize the
discarding of catch before it has been
made available for sampling;
• Require that the Council meet
formally to review the results of the

E:\FR\FM\29AUP1.SGM

29AUP1

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 168 / Thursday, August 29, 2013 / Proposed Rules

sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Sustainable Fisheries Coalition/
University of Massachusetts Dartmouth
School of Marine Science and
Technology river herring and shad
bycatch avoidance project, and consider
the appropriateness of developing a
framework adjustment to implement the
catch avoidance strategies suggested in
the study;
• Establish a mortality cap for river
herring and shad to directly control
mortality in the mackerel fishery, with
cap amounts set during the
development of specifications; and
• Add river herring and shad
mortality caps and time/area hotspot
closures to the list of measures that can
be addressed via framework adjustment.
A Notice of Availability (NOA) for
Amendment 14, as submitted by the
Council for review by the Secretary of
Commerce, was published in the
Federal Register on August 12, 2013 (78
FR 48852). The comment period on
Amendment 14 NOA ends on October
11, 2013. Comments submitted on the
NOA and/or this proposed rule prior to
October 11, 2013, will be considered in
NMFS’s decision to approve, partially
approve, or disapprove Amendment 14.
NMFS will consider comments received
by the end of the comment period for
this proposed rule October 15, 2013 in
its decision regarding measures to be
implemented.
Proposed Measures
The proposed regulations are based
on the measures in Amendment 14, and
contain many measures that would
improve data collection and reduce
catch of river herring and shad and that
can be administered by NMFS. NMFS
supports improvements to fishery
dependent data collections, either
through increasing reporting
requirements or expanding the at-sea
monitoring of the MSB fisheries. NMFS
also shares the Council’s concern for
reducing incidental catch and
unnecessary discarding. However,
NMFS believes that a few measures in
Amendment 14 may lack adequate
rationale or development by the
Council, and NMFS has concerns about
the potential utility and legality of the
approval and implementation of these
measures. These measures include: A
dealer reporting requirement; a cap that,
if achieved, would require vessels
discarding catch before it had been
sampled by observers to return to port;
and a recommended 100-percent
observer coverage on midwater trawl
and Tier 1 small-mesh bottom trawl
mackerel vessels, 50 percent coverage
on Tier 2 small-mesh bottom trawl
mackerel vessels, and 25 percent on Tier
3 small-mesh bottom trawl mackerel

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:54 Aug 28, 2013

Jkt 229001

vessels, with the industry contributing
$325 per day toward observer costs.
The measures NMFS has concern
with in Amendment 14 are the same or
similar to measures that NMFS
disapproved on July 19, 2013, in the
New England Fishery Management
Council’s (NEFMC) Amendment 5 to the
Atlantic Herring FMP (Amendment 5).
A proposed rule to implement
Amendment 5 (78 FR 33020) was
published on June 3, 2013, with a
comment period ending July 18, 2013. A
summary of the comments received,
NMFS’s responses to those comments,
and the full rationale for the disapproval
of certain measures, will be published
in the final rule implementing
Amendment 5.
This proposed rule for Amendment 14
describes potential concerns about these
measures’ consistency with the MSA
and other applicable law, and
summarizes the disapproval rationale
for similar measures in Amendment 5.
While the measures disapproved in
Amendment 5 are very similar to
measures in Amendment 14, we are
considering the two actions and their
supporting analyses separately.
Following public comment, NMFS will
determine if these measures in
Amendment 14 can be approved or if
they must be disapproved. NMFS seeks
public comments on all proposed
measures in Amendment 14, and in
particular, NMFS seeks public comment
on the proposed measures for which
NMFS has approvability concerns.
Amendment 14 proposes several
measures to address the catch of river
herring and shad in the mackerel
fishery. River herring (the collective
term for alewife and blueback herring)
and shad (American shad and hickory
shad) are anadromous species that cooccur seasonally with mackerel and are
harvested as incidental catch in the
mackerel fishery. For the purposes of
this rulemaking, the term ‘‘river herring
and shad’’ refers to all four species.
When river herring are encountered in
the mackerel fishery, they are either
discarded at sea (bycatch) or retained
and sold as part of the mackerel catch
(incidental catch). For the purposes of
this rulemaking, the terms bycatch and
incidental catch are used
interchangeably.
Several sections of regulatory text
affected by Amendment 14 are also
affected by Amendment 5. The
proposed regulations for both actions
will present adjustments to the existing
regulatory text. In the likely event that
Amendment 5 is finalized prior to
Amendment 14, the finalized
regulations for Amendment 14 will be
presented as modifications to the

PO 00000

Frm 00036

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

53405

regulations that will be implemented in
Amendment 5, and will thus differ in
structure, but not content, from the
regulations as presented in this
proposed rule. The adjustments will be
similar to those in this proposed rule.
1. Adjustments to the Fishery
Management Program
Amendment 14 would revise several
existing fishery management provisions,
including dealer reporting requirements,
VTR requirements, and VMS
requirements and reporting.
VTR Frequency Requirements
Currently MSB permit holders are
required to submit fishing vessel logs,
known as VTRs, on a monthly basis.
Amendment 14 would implement a
weekly VTR submission requirement for
all MSB permits. This measure would
require that VTRs be postmarked or
received by midnight of the first
Tuesday following the end of the
reporting week. If an MSB permit holder
did not make a trip during a given
reporting week, a vessel representative
would be required to submit a report to
NMFS stating so by midnight of the first
Tuesday following the end of the
reporting week. Any fishing activity
during a particular reporting week (i.e.,
starting a trip, landing, or offloading
catch) would constitute fishing during
that reporting week and would
eliminate the need to submit a negative
fishing report to NMFS for that
reporting week. For example, if a vessel
began a fishing trip on Wednesday, but
returned to port and offloaded its catch
on the following Thursday (i.e., after a
trip lasting 8 days), the VTR for the
fishing trip would need to be submitted
by midnight Tuesday of the third week,
but a negative report (i.e., a ‘‘did not
fish’’ report) would not be required for
either earlier week. If implemented, the
weekly VTR reporting requirement
would bring MSB reporting
requirements in line with other
Northeast Region fisheries, improve
monitoring of directed and incidental
catch, and facilitate cross-checking with
other data sources.
VMS Requirement, Daily Catch Reports
and Pre-Landing Notifications
Amendment 14 would implement
VMS requirements for vessels with
limited access mackerel permits and
longfin squid/butterfish moratorium
permits to improve monitoring of
directed and incidental catch. Currently,
vessels with these permits are not
required to have VMS, to submit catch
reports, or to submit pre-landing
notifications, although many vessels
already possess VMS units due to

E:\FR\FM\29AUP1.SGM

29AUP1

53406

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 168 / Thursday, August 29, 2013 / Proposed Rules

sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

requirements for other fisheries for
which they hold permits.
Amendment 14 would require limited
access mackerel and longfin squid/
butterfish moratorium permit holders to
purchase and maintain a VMS unit.
Vessels would be required to declare
into the fishery for trips targeting
mackerel or longfin squid, and would be
required to transmit location
information at least every hour, 24
hours a day, throughout the year (see
existing operating requirements at
§ 648.10(c)(1)(i)). Vessel owners may
request a letter of exemption from the
NMFS Regional Administrator for
permission to power down their VMS
units if the vessel is out of the water for
more than 72 consecutive hours (see
existing Power-down exemption
regulations at § 648.10(c)(2)). Vessels
that do not already have VMS units
installed would have to confirm that
their VMS units were operational by
notifying the NMFS Office of Law
Enforcement (OLE) (see existing
installation notification procedures at
§ 648.10(e)(1)).
Amendment 14 would require daily
VMS catch reporting for all limited
access mackerel permits and longfin
squid/butterfish moratorium permits.
Daily VMS catch reports would need to
include: The VTR serial number for the
current trip; month and day mackerel
and/or longfin squid were caught; and
total pounds retained and total pounds
discarded. Daily mackerel and/or
longfin squid VMS catch reports would
need to be submitted in 24-hr intervals
for each day and would have to be
submitted by 0900 hr of the following
day. Reports would be required even if
mackerel and/or longfin squid caught
that day had not yet been landed.
Amendment 14 would also require that
vessels landing more than 20,000 lb
(9.07 mt) of mackerel submit a prelanding notification, in which the vessel
would report the time and place of
offloading. That notification must be
submitted at least 6 hr prior to crossing
the VMS demarcation line on their
return trip to port, or, for a vessel that
has not fished seaward of the VMS
demarcation line, at least 6 hr prior to
landing.
Dealer Reporting Requirement
During the development of
Amendment 14, some stakeholders
expressed concern that MSB catch is not
accounted for accurately and that there
needs to be a standardized method to
determine catch. In an effort to address
those concerns, Amendment 14 would
require MSB dealers to accurately weigh
all fish or use volume-to-weight
conversions for all transactions with

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:54 Aug 28, 2013

Jkt 229001

over 2,500 lb (1.13 mt) of longfin squid
or 20,000 lb (9.07 mt) of mackerel. If
catch is not sorted by species, dealers
would be required to document for each
transaction how they estimate relative
species composition.
During the development of
Amendment 14, NMFS identified
potential concerns with the utility of
this measure. Dealers are currently
required to accurately report the weight
of fish, which is obtained by scale
weights and/or volumetric estimates.
Because this proposed measure does not
specify how fish are to be weighed, the
measure may not change dealer
behavior and, therefore, the requirement
may not lead to any measureable change
in the accuracy of catch weights
reported by dealers. Further, this
measure does not provide standards for
estimating species composition.
Without standards for estimating
species composition or for measuring
the accuracy of the estimation method,
NMFS may be unable to evaluate the
sufficiency of methods used to estimate
species composition. For these reasons,
the requirement for dealers to document
the methods used to estimate species
composition may not improve the
accuracy of dealer reporting.
While the measure requiring dealers
to document methods used to estimate
species composition may not have
direct utility in monitoring catch in the
mackerel and longfin squid fisheries, it
may still inform NMFS’ and the
Council’s understanding of the methods
used by dealers to determine species
weights. That information may aid in
development of standardized methods
for purposes of future rulemaking.
Furthermore, full and accurate reporting
is a permit requirement; failure to do so
could render dealer permit renewals
incomplete, precluding renewal of the
dealer’s permit. Therefore, there is
incentive for dealers to make reasonable
efforts to document how they estimate
relative species composition, which
may increase the likelihood that useful
information will be obtained as a result
of this requirement.
Amendment 5 contained a dealer
reporting requirement similar to the one
proposed here in Amendment 14. The
Amendment 5 measure would have
required identical reporting measures
for herring dealers related to all Atlantic
herring transactions. NMFS disapproved
this measure in Amendment 5 because
we believe that it does not comply with
National Standard 7’s requirement to
minimize costs and avoid unnecessary
duplication, and the Paperwork
Reduction Act’s (PRA) requirement for
the utility of the measure to outweigh

PO 00000

Frm 00037

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

the additional reporting and
administrative burden on the dealers.
In light of the foregoing, NMFS seeks
public comment on the extent to which
the proposed Amendment 14 measure
has practical utility, as required by the
MSA and the PRA, that outweighs the
additional reporting and administrative
burden on the dealers. In particular,
NMFS seeks public comment on
whether and how the proposed measure
would help prevent overfishing,
promote the long-term health and
stability of the mackerel and longfin
squid resources, monitor the fisheries,
facilitate in-season management, or
judge performance of the management
regime.
2. Adjustments to At-Sea Catch
Monitoring
One of the primary goals of
Amendment 14 is to improve catch
monitoring in the mackerel and longfin
squid fisheries. Amendment 14 would
codify a number of requirements to
facilitate At-Sea Catch Monitoring,
including adding a pre-trip notification
for mackerel, observer assistance
requirements, and proper notice of
pumping and/or net haulback for
observers in the mackerel and longfin
squid fisheries. Amendment 14 would
also revise observer coverage levels and
establish new provisions, such as
industry funding to pay for increased
observer coverage and measures to
minimize the discarding of catch before
it has been sampled by an observer, to
monitor catch in the mackerel fishery.
Pre-Trip Notification in the Mackerel
Fishery
Amendment 14 would require a 48-hr
pre-trip notification for all vessels
intending to retain, possess or transfer
20,000 lb (9.07 mt) or more of Atlantic
mackerel in order to facilitate observer
placement. Currently mackerel vessels
have no pre-trip notifications. This
measure would assist NMFS’s
scheduling and deployment of observers
on directed mackerel trips, with
minimal additional burden on the
industry, helping ensure that observer
coverage target for the mackerel fishery
is met. The list of information that must
be provided to NMFS as part of this pretrip observer notification is described in
the proposed regulations. If this
measure is approved, details of how
vessels should contact NMFS will be
provided in the small entity compliance
guide. If a vessel operator is required to
notify NMFS to request an observer
before embarking on a fishing trip, but
does not notify NMFS before beginning
the fishing trip, that vessel would be
prohibited from possessing, harvesting,

E:\FR\FM\29AUP1.SGM

29AUP1

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 168 / Thursday, August 29, 2013 / Proposed Rules
or landing more than 20,000 lb (9.07 mt)
of mackerel on that trip. If a fishing trip
is cancelled, a vessel representative
must notify NMFS of the cancelled trip,
even if the vessel is not selected to carry
observers. All waivers or selection
notices for observer coverage would be
issued by NMFS to the vessel via VMS
so the vessel would have an on-board
verification of either the observer
selection or waiver.

sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Observer Assistance Requirements
Northeast fisheries regulations (found
at 50 CFR part 648) specify
requirements for vessels carrying
NMFS-approved observers, such as
providing observers with food and
accommodations equivalent to those
available to the crew; allowing observers
to access the vessel’s bridge, decks, and
spaces used to process fish; and
allowing observers access to vessel
communication and navigations
systems. Amendment 14 would expand
these requirements, such that vessels
issued limited access mackerel and
longfin squid/butterfish moratorium
permits and carrying NMFS-approved
observers must provide observers with
the following: (1) A safe sampling
station adjacent to the fish deck, and a
safe method to obtain and store samples;
(2) reasonable assistance to allow
observers to complete their duties; (3)
advance notice when pumping or net
haulback will start and end and when
sampling of the catch may begin; and (4)
visual access to net/codend or purse
seine and any of its contents after
pumping has ended, including bringing
the codend and its contents aboard if
possible. These measures are
anticipated to help improve at-sea catch
monitoring in the mackerel and longfin
squid/butterfish fisheries by enhancing
the observer’s ability to collect quality
data in a safe and efficient manner.
Currently many vessels already provide
this assistance.
Observer Coverage Levels
Currently, observer coverage in the
MSB fisheries is determined by the
Northeast Fisheries Science Center,
based on the standardized bycatch
reporting methodology (SBRM), after
consultations with the Council, and
funded by NMFS. In Amendment 14,
the Council recommended increases in
the observer coverage in the mackerel
fishery, specifically 100-percent
observer coverage on all limited access
mackerel vessels using midwater trawl
(i.e., Tiers 1, 2 and 3) and Tier 1
mackerel vessels using small-mesh
bottom trawl, 50-percent coverage on
Tier 2 mackerel vessels using smallmesh bottom trawl, and 25-percent on

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:54 Aug 28, 2013

Jkt 229001

Tier 3 mackerel vessels using smallmesh bottom trawl. Many stakeholders
believe that this measure is necessary to
accurately determine the extent of
incidental catch of river herring and
shad in the mackerel fishery. The
Council recommended this measure to
gather more information on the
mackerel fishery so that it may better
evaluate and, if necessary, address
issues involving catch and discarding.
The increased observer coverage
recommendations are coupled with a
target maximum industry contribution
of $325 per day. The at-sea costs
associated with an observer in the
mackerel fishery are higher than $325
per day and, currently, there is no
mechanism to allow cost-sharing of atsea costs between NMFS and the
industry.
Throughout the development of
Amendment 14, NMFS advised the
Council that Amendment 14 must
identify a funding source for increased
observer coverage because NMFS’s
annual appropriations for observer
coverage are not guaranteed. Because
Amendment 14 does not identify a
funding source to cover all of the
increased costs of observer coverage, the
proposed increase in coverage levels
many not be sufficiently developed to
approve at this time.
Amendment 5 contains similar
observer coverage measures to those
proposed in Amendment 14. NMFS
disapproved the 100-percent observer
coverage requirement and the $325 per
day industry contribution in
Amendment 5 because the amendment
did not identify a funding source to
cover all of the increased costs of
observer coverage. The Amendment 5
measures would have required 100percent observer coverage on Category A
and B herring vessels, with a target
maximum industry contribution of $325
per day. For both the Atlantic herring
and mackerel fisheries, the at-sea costs
associated with an observer are higher
than $325 per day. The Department of
Commerce (DOC) Office of General
Counsel has advised that such costsharing violates the Anti-Deficiency Act.
Based on DOC’s advice, there is no
current legal mechanism to allow costsharing of at-sea costs between NMFS
and the industry. Budget uncertainties
prevent NMFS from being able to
commit to paying for increased observer
coverage in the herring fishery.
Requiring 100-percent observer coverage
would amount to an unfunded mandate.
NMFS is working with both the MidAtlantic and New England Fishery
Management Councils to address the
funding challenges identified in
Amendments 14 and 5. A technical

PO 00000

Frm 00038

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

53407

team comprised of Mid-Atlantic Fishery
Management Council, New England
Fishery Management Council and
NMFS staff is currently attempting to
develop a legal mechanism to allow the
at-sea costs of increased observer
coverage to be funded by the industry.
Even if the specified recommended
observer coverage measures in
Amendment 14 cannot be approved at
this time, the team will continue to
work on finding a funding solution to
pay for the at-sea cost of observer
coverage in the mackerel fishery. If the
technical team can develop a legal way
to fund the at-sea costs of increased
observer coverage for the mackerel
fishery, a measure requiring increased
observer coverage in line with the
Council’s recommendations could be
implemented in a future action, subject
to NMFS’s budget appropriations and
other observer data collection needs in
the Northeast Region and elsewhere in
the country.
Other measures proposed in
Amendment 14 would help improve
monitoring in the mackerel fishery,
regardless of whether the increased
observer coverage measure is approved
at this time. These proposed measures
include the requirement for vessels to
contact NMFS at least 48 hr in advance
of a fishing trip to facilitate the
placement of observers, and observer
sample station and reasonable
assistance requirements to improve an
observer’s ability to collect quality data
in a safe and efficient manner.
The same measure that would require
increased observer coverage, coupled
with a maximum $325 contribution by
the industry, would also require that: (1)
The increased observer coverage
requirement would be re-evaluated by
the Council 2 years after
implementation; (2) the increased
observer coverage requirement would be
waived if no observers were available;
and (3) observer service provider
requirements for the Atlantic sea scallop
fishery would apply to observer service
providers for the mackerel fishery.
Because these additional measures
appear inseparable from the increased
observer coverage requirement, their
approval or disapproval is dependent
upon the approvability of the partially
industry-funded increased observer
coverage measure.
Measures To Prevent Catch Discards
Before Observer Sampling
Amendment 14 would require limited
access mackerel and longfin squid
moratorium vessels to bring all catch
aboard the vessel and make it available
for sampling by an observer. The
Council recommended this measure to

E:\FR\FM\29AUP1.SGM

29AUP1

sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

53408

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 168 / Thursday, August 29, 2013 / Proposed Rules

improve the quality of at-sea monitoring
data by reducing the discarding of
unsampled catch. If catch is discarded
before it has been made available to the
observer for sampling, that catch is
defined as slippage. Fish that cannot be
pumped and remain in the net at the
end of pumping operations are
considered operational discards and not
slipped catch. Some stakeholders
believe that slippage is a serious
problem in the mackerel and longfin
squid fisheries because releasing catch
before an observer can estimate its
species composition undermines
accurate catch accounting.
Amendment 14 would allow catch to
be slipped if: (1) Bringing catch aboard
compromises the safety of the vessel or
crew; (2) mechanical failure prevents
the catch from being brought aboard; or
(3) spiny dogfish prevents the catch
from being pumped aboard. If catch is
slipped, even for the exempted reasons,
the vessel operator would be required to
complete a released catch affidavit
within 48 hr of the end of the fishing
trip. The released catch affidavit would
detail: (1) Why catch was slipped; (2) an
estimate of the quantity and species
composition of the slipped catch and
any catch brought aboard during the
haul; and (3) the time and location of
the slipped catch. Additionally,
Amendment 14 would establish
slippage caps for the mackerel fishery.
Once there have been 10 slippage events
by limited access mackerel vessels that
are carrying an observer, limited access
mackerel vessels that subsequently slip
catch while carrying an observer would
be required to immediately return to
port. NMFS would track slippage events
and notify the fleet once a slippage cap
had been reached. The Council
recommended these slippage caps to
discourage the inappropriate use of the
slippage exceptions, and to allow for
some slippage, without unduly
penalizing the fleet.
Amendment 5 contained a slippage
measure similar to that proposed here in
Amendment 14. The Amendment 5
measures would prohibit slippage on
limited access herring trips with an
observer aboard, would require a
released catch affidavit to document
slippage events, and would require trip
termination after 10 slippage events in
a herring management area by vessels
using a particular gear type (including
midwater trawl, bottom trawl, and purse
seine). NMFS did approve the
prohibition on slippage and the released
catch affidavit requirement in
Amendment 5. However, we were
concerned about the rationale for, and
legality of, the slippage caps in
Amendment 5, and ultimately

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:54 Aug 28, 2013

Jkt 229001

disapproved that aspect of the measure.
We found the slippage caps in
Amendment 5 to be inconsistent with
National Standards 2 and 10. The
threshold for triggering a slippage cap
(10 slippage events by area and gear
type) does not have a strong biological
or administrative justification in the
supporting analysis in the EIS for
Amendment 5, which made approval of
this measure inconsistent with National
Standard 2. Once a slippage cap has
been met, vessels that slip catch, even
if the reason for slipping was safety or
mechanical failure, would be required
to return to port. In addition, the
structure of this measure in Amendment
5 raises safety concerns, implicating
National Standard 10 of the MagnusonStevens Act, because a vessel operator
may be forced to bring catch aboard,
despite dangerous conditions, to avoid
returning to port.
Throughout the development of
Amendment 14, NMFS expressed
concerns with the rationale for, and
legality of, the slippage caps for the
Atlantic mackerel fleet. The need for,
and threshold for triggering, a slippage
cap (10 slippage events for the entire
fleet) does not have a strong biological
or operational basis. From 2006–2010
approximately 26 percent (73 of 277 or
15 per year) of hauls on observed
mackerel trips (trips that caught 50
percent or more mackerel or at least
100,000 lb (45.34 mt) of mackerel) had
some unobserved catch. Hauls may be
unobserved for a variety of reasons—for
example, transfer of catch to another
vessel without an observer, observers
not being on deck to sample a given
haul, or hauls released from the net
while still in the water. The estimate of
15 unobserved hauls per year would
thus be an upper bound on slippage
events. Once a slippage cap has been
met, vessels that slip catch with an
observer aboard for reasons other than
safety, mechanical failure, or spiny
dogfish in the pump would be required
to return to port. Vessels could continue
fishing following slippage events 1
thorough 10, but must return to port
following the 11th slippage event,
regardless of the vessel’s role in the first
10 slippage events. The Council’s
analysis noted that while documents
slippage events are relatively infrequent,
increases above the estimated 15
unobserved hauls per year could
compromise observer data because large
quantities of fish can be caught in a
single tow. However, the Council’s
analysis does not provide sufficient
rationale for why it is biologically or
operationally acceptable to allow the
fleet 10 un-exempted slippage events

PO 00000

Frm 00039

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

prior to triggering the trip termination
requirement.
The measures to minimize slippage
are based on the sampling requirements
for midwater trawl vessels fishing in
Groundfish Closed Area I. However,
there are important differences between
these measures. Under the Closed Area
I requirements, if midwater trawl
vessels slip catch, they are allowed to
continue fishing, but they must leave
Closed Area I for the remainder of that
trip. The requirement to leave Closed
Area I is less punitive than the proposed
requirement to return to port.
Additionally, because the consequences
of slipping catch apply uniformly to all
vessels under the Closed Area I
requirements, inequality among the fleet
is not an issue for the Closed Area I
requirements, like it appears to be for
the proposed slippage caps.
In 2010, the Northeast Fisheries
Observer Program (NEFOP) revised the
training curriculum for observers
deployed on herring vessels to focus on
effective sampling in high-volume
fisheries. NEFOP also developed a
discard log to collect detailed
information on discards in the highvolume fisheries, including slippage,
such as why catch was discarded, the
estimated amount of discarded catch,
and the estimated composition of
discarded catch. Recent slippage data
collected by observers indicate that
information about these events, and the
amount and composition of fish that are
slipped, has improved, and that the
number of slippage events has declined.
Given NEFOP’s recent training changes
and its addition of a discard log, NMFS
believes that observer data on slipped
catch, rather than released catch
affidavits, provide the best information
to account for discards. However, there
is still a compliance benefit to requiring
a released catch affidavit because it
would provide enforcement with a
sworn statement regarding the
operator’s decisions and may help to
understand why slippage occurs.
In summary, NMFS seeks public
comment on whether there is a
biological need for the proposed
slippage cap, whether the trigger (10
slippage events for the entire mackerel
fleet) for the proposed slippage cap has
adequate justification, and whether the
requirement to return to port would be
inequitable. After evaluating public
comment, NMFS will determine
whether the proposed slippage cap can
be approved. Even if the slippage cap
must be disapproved, the ongoing data
collection by NEFOP and the released
catch affidavit requirement would still
allow for improved monitoring in the
mackerel fishery, increased information

E:\FR\FM\29AUP1.SGM

29AUP1

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 168 / Thursday, August 29, 2013 / Proposed Rules

sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

regarding discards, and an incentive to
minimize the discarding of unsampled
catch.
Lastly, Amendment 14 proposes that
a number of measures related to at-sea
sampling could be modified through the
specifications process, including: (1)
The observer provisions to maximize
sampling; (2) the industry contribution
amount for at-sea observer coverage; (3)
exceptions for the requirement to pump/
haul aboard all fish from net for
inspection by at-sea observers; and (4)
trip termination requirements for
mackerel vessels.
3. Measures To Address River Herring
and Shad Interactions
River herring and shad are managed
by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries
Commission (ASMFC) and individual
states. According to the most recent
ASMFC stock assessments for river
herring (May 2012) and shad (August
2007), river herring and shad
populations have declined from historic
levels and many factors will need to be
addressed to allow their recovery,
including fishing (in both state and
Federal waters), river passageways,
water quality, predation, and climate
change. In an effort to aid in the
recovery of depleted or declining stocks,
the ASMFC, in cooperation with
individual states, prohibited state
waters commercial and recreational
fisheries that did not have approved
sustainable fisheries management plans,
effective January 1, 2012. NMFS
recently completed a comprehensive
review of the status of river herring (but
not shad) in response to a petition
submitted by the Natural Resources
Defense Council requesting that we list
alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus) and
blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis) as
threatened under the Endangered
Species Act throughout all or a
significant portion of their range or as
specific distinct population segments
identified in the petition. Based on the
best scientific and commercial
information available, we determined
that listing alewife as threatened or
endangered under the ESA is not
warranted at this time (August 12, 2013;
78 FR 48944).
Amendment 14 would establish a
mortality cap on river herring and shad
in the mackerel fishery, where the
mackerel fishery would close once it has
been determined to cause a certain
amount of river herring and/or shad
mortality. Based on the results of the
ASMFC’s assessments for river herring
and shad, data do not appear to be
robust enough to determine a
biologically based catch cap for these
species, and/or the potential effects on

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:54 Aug 28, 2013

Jkt 229001

these populations if a catch cap is
implemented on a coast-wide scale.
Nevertheless, the Council believes that
capping the allowed level of river
herring and shad catch in the mackerel
fishery would provide a strong incentive
for the industry to avoid river herring
and shad, and would help to minimize
encounters with these species.
The likelihood of a mackerel closure
related to the river herring and shad cap
would depend on the value the Council
proposes for the cap for a given year, the
availability of mackerel for that year,
and the realized incidental catch of river
herring and shad for that year. The
analysis presented in Amendment 14
estimated that total ocean fishing
mortality (all gear types and fisheries)
ranged from 244 to 672 mt for both river
herring species (2006–2010), and 47 to
70 mt for both shad species (2007–
2010). To qualitatively evaluate the
biological and economic impacts of a
river herring and/or shad cap,
Amendment 14 presented an analysis in
which the cap was set equal to 35
percent of total ocean fishing mortality
for river herring, and 12 percent of total
ocean fishing mortality for shad. These
percentages correspond to the estimated
amount of mid-water trawl mortality for
these species in Quarter 1 of the fishing
year, which largely encompasses
mackerel fishing activity. The proposed
mortality cap on river herring and shad
would use a similar method to that used
for the butterfish mortality cap in the
longfin squid fishery, where the ratio of
river herring and shad caught to total
catch on observed hauls would be
applied to all catch. The analysis in
Amendment 14 applies this
methodology to mimic low, medium,
and high rates of river herring and shad
encounters on mackerel trips. If the
mackerel fishery had been able to
harvest the entire 115,000-mt mackerel
quota in any year from 2006 to 2010, a
river herring cap equal to 35 percent of
total river herring ocean catch would
have resulted in closures of the
mackerel fishery in 3 of the years if
there were low river herring encounter
rates, and all of the years if there were
medium and high river herring
encounter rates. Similarly, a shad cap
equal to 12 percent of the total shad
ocean catch would not have caused a
closure of the mackerel fishery in any of
the years if there were low shad
encounter rates, but would have
resulted in a closure in all of the years
with medium and high shad encounter
rates. The analysis concluded that,
because river herring and shad catch
vary substantially from year to year, the
realized combination of these factors

PO 00000

Frm 00040

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

53409

may cause an early closure of the
mackerel fishery in some years, and in
other years may not result in a closure
at all.
While the concept of the cap and
general methodology are analyzed in
Amendment 14, the Council’s proposal
deferred the establishment of the actual
cap amount and other logistical details
of the cap (e.g., the closure threshold
and post-closure possession limit) to the
MSB specifications process for the 2014
fishing year. The process for 2014 MSB
specifications began in May 2013 with
a MSB Monitoring Committee meeting
to develop technical recommendations
on the cap level and any necessary
management measures. At its June 2013
meeting, the Council selected a
combined catch cap for river herring
and shad of 236 mt, a closure threshold
of 95 percent, and a post-closure
incidental trip limit of 20,000 lb (9.07
mt). The Council is finalizing its
analysis of these measures and will
submit its final recommendation to
NMFS shortly as part of the 2014 MSB
specifications package. Because the
details of the cap are being fully
analyzed in a separate action, NMFS
only requests comments in this
rulemaking on the concept of using a
catch cap in the mackerel fishery to
limit encounters with river herring and
shad. The public will be given the
opportunity to comment on the actual
proposed cap level and management
measures related to the cap in the
proposed rule for 2014 MSB
specifications. Secretarial approval of
both Amendment 14 and the 2014 MSB
specifications are necessary for
implementation of the river herring and
shad caps in the mackerel fishery,
which is targeted for the start of the
2014 fishing year (January 1, 2014).
The New England Fishery
Management Council is also considering
establishing a catch cap for river herring
and shad in the Atlantic herring fishery
in Framework 3 to the Atlantic Herring
FMP. Due to the mixed nature of the
herring and mackerel fisheries,
especially during the period from
January through April, the potential for
the greatest river herring catch
reduction would come from the
implementation of a joint river herring
catch and shad cap for both the
fisheries. On May 23, 2013, the New
England and Mid-Atlantic Councils’
technical teams for the herring and
mackerel fisheries met to begin
development of the catch caps. In
addition, at its June 2013 meeting, the
New England Council discussed some
details of the cap, including the possible
division of the cap into areas to match
the activity of the herring fishery by

E:\FR\FM\29AUP1.SGM

29AUP1

sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

53410

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 168 / Thursday, August 29, 2013 / Proposed Rules

season. The New England Council is
working towards a target of
implementing the cap in mid-2014.
Amendment 14 would establish a
mechanism to develop, evaluate, and
consider regulatory requirements for a
river herring bycatch avoidance strategy
in small-mesh pelagic fisheries. The
river herring bycatch avoidance strategy
would be developed and evaluated by
the Council, in cooperation with
participants in the mackerel fishery,
specifically the Sustainable Fisheries
Coalition (SFC); the Massachusetts
Division of Marine Fisheries (MA DMF);
and the University of Massachusetts
Dartmouth School of Marine Science
and Technology (SMAST). This measure
is based on the existing river herring
bycatch avoidance program involving
SFC, MA DMF, and SMAST. This
voluntary program seeks to reduce river
herring and shad bycatch by working
within current fisheries management
programs, without the need for
additional regulatory requirements. The
river herring bycatch avoidance program
includes portside sampling, real-time
communication with the SFC on river
herring distribution and encounters in
the herring fishery, and data collection
to evaluate if oceanographic features
may predict high rates of river herring
encounters.
Amendment 14 would require that,
within 6 months of completion of the
existing SFC/MA DMF/SMAST river
herring bycatch avoidance project, the
Council would review and evaluate the
results from the river herring bycatch
avoidance project, and consider a
framework adjustment to the MSB FMP
to establish river herring bycatch
avoidance measures. Measures that may
be considered as part of the framework
adjustment include: (1) Mechanisms to
track herring fleet activity, report
bycatch events, and notify the herring
fleet of encounters with river herring;
(2) the utility of test tows to determine
the extent of river herring bycatch in a
particular area; (3) the threshold for
river herring bycatch that would trigger
the need for vessels to be alerted and
move out of a given area; and (4) the
distance and/or time that vessels would
be required to move from an area.
The Council considered other
measures to address river herring and
shad bycatch in Amendment 14,
including closed areas. Because the
seasonal and inter-annual distribution
of river herring and shad is highly
variable in time and space, the Council
determined that the most effective
measures in Amendment 14 to address
river herring and shad bycatch would be
those that increase monitoring, bycatch
accounting, and promote cooperative

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:54 Aug 28, 2013

Jkt 229001

efforts with the industry to minimize
bycatch to the extent practicable. In
order to streamline the regulatory
process necessary to adjust the river
herring and shad mortality caps, or
enact time area management for river
herring and shad, should scientific
information to support such
management measures become
available, the Council proposed that
Amendment 14 would add river herring
and shad catch caps and time/area
closures to the list of measures that can
be addressed via framework adjustment.
4. Adding Individual River Herring and
Shad Species as Stocks in the MSB
Fishery
Initially, the Council considered
alternatives in Amendment 14 intended
to add, in a future action, alewife,
blueback herring, American shad, and/
or hickory shad as stocks in the MSB
FMP. Instead, the Council decided that
it would initiate a future Council
amendment that would consider adding
these as stocks in the fishery and
analyze all of the MSA provisions (i.e.,
various management reference points,
description and delineation of essential
fish habitat (EFH), etc.), and initiated
Amendment 15 to MSB FMP to explore
the need for conservation and
management of these species more
thoroughly. Scoping for MSB
Amendment 15 began in October 2012
(77 FR 65867), and the technical team
for the MSB FMP is currently working
to develop this action.
Classification
Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the
MSA, the NMFS Assistant
Administrator has determined that this
proposed rule is consistent with
Amendment 14 to the MSB FMP, other
provisions of the MSA, and other
applicable law, subject to further
consideration after public comment and
the concerns noted in the preamble.
This proposed rule has been
determined to be not significant for
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
The Council prepared a final
environmental impact statement (FEIS)
for Amendment 14. A notice of
availability for the FEIS was published
on August 16, 2013 (78 FR 50054). The
FEIS describes the impacts of the
proposed measures on the environment.
Proposed revisions to fishery
management program measures,
including dealer and vessel reporting
requirements and trip notification, are
expected to improve catch monitoring
in the MSB fisheries with positive
biological impacts to the MSB fisheries
and minimal negative economic impacts
on human communities. Proposed

PO 00000

Frm 00041

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

increases to observer coverage
requirements, measures to improve atsea sampling by observers, and
measures to minimize discarding of
catch before it has been sampled by
observers are also expected to improve
catch monitoring and have positive
biological impacts on the MSB fisheries.
The economic impacts of these
proposed measures on human
communities are varied, but negative
economic impacts may be substantial
compared to the status quo. Proposed
measures to address bycatch to the
extent practicable are expected to have
positive biological impacts and
moderate negative impacts on human
communities. Lastly, all proposed
measures are expected to have positive
biological impacts on non-target species
and neutral impacts on habitat and
protected resources.
Description and Estimate of Number of
Small Entities to Which the Rule Will
Apply
On June 20, 2013, the Small Business
Administration (SBA) issued a final rule
revising the small business size
standards for several industries effective
July 22, 2013 (78 FR 37398). The rule
increased the size standard for Finfish
Fishing from $4.0 to $19.0 million,
Shellfish Fishing from $4.0 to $5.0
million, and Other Marine Fishing from
$4.0 to $7.0 million. NMFS has
reviewed the analyses prepared for this
action in light of the new size standards.
Under the former, lower size standards,
all entities subject to this action were
considered small entities, thus they all
would continue to be considered small
under the new standards. NMFS has
determined that the new size standards
do not affect the analyses prepared for
this action.
The proposed measures in
Amendment 14 could affect any vessel
holding an active Federal permit to fish
for Atlantic mackerel, longfin squid,
Illex squid, or butterfish. All of the
potentially affected businesses are
considered small entities under the
standards described in NMFS
guidelines, because they have gross
receipts that do not exceed $19 million
annually. In 2012, 1,835 commercial
vessels possessed Atlantic mackerel
permits (132 limited access permits and
1,703 open access permits), 329 vessels
possessed longfin squid/butterfish
moratorium permits, 72 vessels
possessed Illex permits, 1,578 vessels
possessed incidental squid/butterfish
permits, and 705 vessels possessed
squid/mackerel/butterfish party/charter
permits. Many vessels participate in
more than one of these fisheries;

E:\FR\FM\29AUP1.SGM

29AUP1

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 168 / Thursday, August 29, 2013 / Proposed Rules
therefore, permit numbers are not
additive.
Available data indicate that no single
fishing entity earned more than $19
million annually. Although there are
likely to be entities that, based on rules
of affiliation, would qualify as large
business entities, due to lack of reliable
ownership affiliation data NMFS cannot
apply the business size standard at this
time. NMFS is currently compiling data
on vessel ownership that should permit
a more refined assessment and
determination of the number of large
and small entities for future actions. For
this action, since available data are not
adequate to identify affiliated vessels,
each operating unit is considered a
small entity for purposes of the RFA,
and, therefore, there is no differential
impact between small and large entities.
Therefore, there are no disproportionate
economic impacts on small entities.
Section 6.7 in Amendment 14 describes
the vessels, key ports, and revenue
information for the MSB fisheries;
therefore, that information is not
repeated here.
Description of Projected Reporting,
Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance

sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Requirements
Minimizing Significant Economic
Impacts on Small Entities
This proposed rule contains
collection-of-information requirements
subject to review and approval by the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the PRA. The new
requirements, which are described in
detail in this preamble, have been
submitted to OMB for approval as a new
collection.
Amendment 14 would increase VTR
reporting submission frequency for all
MSB permit holders from monthly to
weekly. MSB permit holders currently
submit 12 VTRs per year, so the
additional cost of submitting VTRs on a
weekly basis is $18. This cost was
calculated by multiplying 40 (52 weeks
in a year minus 12 (number of monthly
reports)) by $0.46 to equal $18. The VTR
is estimated to take 5 min to complete.
Therefore the total annual burden
estimate of weekly VTRs is $18, and 3
hr and 20 min.
This action proposes that limited
access mackerel and longfin squid/
butterfish moratorium permit holders
purchase and maintain a VMS. Because
other Northeast Federal permits require
vessels to maintain a VMS, it is
estimated that only 80 vessels do not
already have a VMS. The average cost of
purchasing and installing a VMS is
$3,400, the VMS certification form takes
an estimated 5 min to complete and

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:54 Aug 28, 2013

Jkt 229001

costs $0.46 to mail, and the call to
confirm a VMS unit takes an estimated
5 min to complete and costs $1. The
average cost of maintaining a VMS is
$600 per year. Northeast regulations
require VMS activity declarations and
automated polling of VMS units to
collect position data. Each activity
declaration takes an estimated 5 min to
complete and costs $0.50 to transmit. If
a longfin squid/butterfish moratorium
permit holder takes 22 trips per year,
the burden estimate for activity
declarations would be 1 hr and 50 min,
and $11. If a limited access mackerel
permit holder takes 8 trips per year, the
burden estimate for activity declarations
would be 40 min and $4. Each
automated polling transmission costs
$0.06 and a vessel is polled once per
hour every day of the year. The annual
estimated cost associated with polling is
$526. Vessels may request a powerdown exemption to stop position
transmission under certain provisions,
as described in the preamble. The form
to request a power down exemption
letter takes 5 min to complete, and costs
$0.46 to mail. If each vessel submits a
power down exemption request 2 times
a year, the total estimated burden is 10
min and $1. In summary, the total
annual burden estimate for a vessel to
purchase and maintain a VMS would be
2 hr 10 min and $4,540 for a longfin
squid/butterfish moratorium permit
holder, and 1 hr and $4,533 for a limited
access mackerel permit holder.
Amendment 14 would require that
limited access mackerel and longfin
squid/butterfish moratorium permit
holders submit daily VMS reports. The
cost of transmitting a catch report via
VMS is $0.60 per transmission, and it is
estimated to take 5 min to complete. If
a longfin squid/butterfish moratorium
permit holder takes 22 trips per year
and each trip lasts an average of 2 days,
the burden estimate for activity
declarations would be 1 hr and 50 min,
and $14. If a limited access mackerel
permit holder takes 8 trips per year and
each trip lasts an average of 3 days, the
burden estimate for activity declarations
would be 40 min, and $5.
This action would require limited
access mackerel vessels to submit a prelanding notification to NMFS OLE via
VMS 6 hr prior to landing. Each VMS
pre-landing notification is estimated to
take 5 min to complete and cost $1.
Limited access mackerel permit holders
are estimated to take 8 trip per year, so
the total annual burden estimate is 40
min, and $8.
Amendment 14 would require MSB
dealers to document, for each
transaction, how they estimate the
relative composition of catch, if catch is

PO 00000

Frm 00042

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

53411

not sorted by species. This requirement
would apply to all transactions with
over 20,000 lb (9.07 mt) of mackerel,
and all transactions with over 2,500 lb
(1.13 mt) of longfin squid, and would be
in addition to existing dealer reporting
requirements. The additional reporting
burden of documenting relative species
composition of each of the above
transactions is expected to take 5 min
per transaction. In July 2013, there were
214 entities that held MSB permits.
Dealers make an average of 1,700
mackerel or longfin squid transactions
meeting the above descriptions per year.
Therefore, the annual burden associated
with documenting relative species
composition for each MSB dealer is
estimated to be 142 hr.
Amendment 14 would increase the
reporting burden for measures designed
to improve at-sea sampling by NMFSapproved observers. Limited access
mackerel vessels would be required to
notify NMFS to request an observer at
least 48 hr prior to beginning a trip
where they intend to land over 20,000
lb (9.07 mt) of mackerel. The phone call
is estimated to take 5 min to complete
and is free. If a vessel has already
contacted NMFS to request an observer
and then decides to cancel that fishing
trip, Amendment 14 would require that
vessel to notify NMFS of the trip
cancellation. The call to notify NMFS of
a cancelled trip is estimated to take 1
min and is free. If a vessel takes an
estimated 8 trips per year, the total
annual reporting burden associated with
pre-trip observer notification would be
40 min.
Amendment 14 would require a
released catch affidavit for limited
access mackerel and longfin squid/
butterfish moratorium permit holders
that discard catch before it had been
made available to an observer for
sampling (slipped catch). The reporting
burden for completion of the released
catch affidavit is estimated to average 5
min. The cost associated with the
affidavit is the postage to mail the form
to NMFS ($0.46). The affidavit
requirement would affect an estimated
312 longfin squid/butterfish moratorium
permit holders, and 132 limited access
mackerel permit holders. If the longfin
squid/butterfish moratorium permit
holders slipped catch once per trip with
an observer aboard, and took an
estimated 22 trips per year, the total
annual reporting burden for the released
catch affidavit would be 1 hr 50 min
and $10. If the limited access mackerel
permit holders slipped catch once per
trip with an observer aboard, and took
an estimated 8 trips per year, the total
annual reporting burden for the released
catch affidavit would be 40 min, and $4.

E:\FR\FM\29AUP1.SGM

29AUP1

53412

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 168 / Thursday, August 29, 2013 / Proposed Rules

Amendment 14 would require 100percent observer coverage on all limited
access mackerel trips using mid-water
trawl and Tier 1 trips using small-mesh
bottom trawl; 50-percent coverage on
Tier 2 mackerel trips using small-mesh
bottom trawl; and 25-percent coverage
on Tier 3 mackerel trips using smallmesh bottom trawl. There are an
estimated 132 limited access mackerel
permit holders that may use midwater
trawl to target mackerel. Vessels go on
an average of 6 midwater trawl trips per
year and spend an average of 3 days at
sea. If these permit-holders are
responsible for paying for 100-percent of
coverage on a total of 18 days at sea per
year, the total annual estimated cost
would be $5,850. There are an estimated
30 Tier 1 vessels that spend an average
of 16 days at sea per year on small-mesh
bottom trawl trips, and if these vessels
were responsible for paying for 100
percent of the cost of coverage the total
annual estimated cost would be $5,200.
There are an estimated 23 Tier 2 vessels
that spend an average of 16 days at sea
per year on small-mesh bottom trawl
mackerel trips, and if these vessels were
responsible for paying for 50 percent of
the cost of coverage, the total annual
estimated cost would be $2,600. There
are an estimated 79 Tier 3 vessels that
spend an average of 16 days at sea per
year on small-mesh bottom trawl
mackerel trips, and if these vessels were
responsible for paying for 25 percent of
the cost of coverage, the total annual
estimated cost would be $1,300.
Under the proposed industry-funded
observer program, limited access

mackerel permit holders would be
required to contact an observer service
provider to request an observer. An
estimated 132 vessels would be subject
to this requirement. If those vessels took
an estimated 8 trips per year and the
call to the observer service provider
took an estimated 10 min to complete
and cost $1, the annual reporting
burden of the proposed notification
requirement is estimated to be 1 hr 20
min, and $8. If an observer service
provider had no observer available,
limited access mackerel permit holders
would be required to notify NMFS to
request an observer waiver. The
likelihood of an observer not being
available is anticipated to be low.
Therefore, if on two occasions the
vessels needed to contact NMFS to
request a waiver, and the call took an
estimated 5 min to complete and was
free, the annual reporting burden to
request a waiver is estimated to be 10
min.
NMFS expects that additional
observer service providers may apply
for certification under the observer
certification procedures found at
§ 648.11(h). NMFS estimates that three
additional providers may apply for
certification. In addition, existing
providers, and the three potential
additional providers, would be required
to submit additional reports and
information required of observer service
providers as part of their certification.
NMFS expects that six providers would
be subject to these new requirements.
Observer service providers must comply
with the following requirements,
Number
of entities

sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Observer provider requirements

Total
Number
of items

submitted via email, fax, or postal
service: Submit applications for
approval as an observer service
provider; formally request observer
training by NEFOP; submit observer
deployment reports and biological
samples; give notification of whether a
vessel must carry an observer within 24
hr of the vessel owner’s notification of
a prospective trip; maintain an updated
contact list of all observers that includes
the observer identification number;
observer’s name mailing address, email
address, phone numbers, homeports or
fisheries/trip types assigned, and
whether or not the observer is ‘‘in
service.’’ The regulations would also
require observer service providers to
submit any outreach materials, such as
informational pamphlets, payment
notification, and descriptions of
observer duties, as well as all contracts
between the service provider and
entities requiring observer services for
review to NMFS. Observer service
providers also have the option to
respond to application denials, and
submit a rebuttal in response to a
pending removal from the list of
approved observer providers. NMFS
expects that all of these reporting
requirements combined are expected to
take 1,734 hr of response time per year,
for a total annual cost of $25,363 for the
affected observer providers. The
following table provides the detailed
time and cost information for each
response item.
Time
(hours)
per
response

Total time
burden
(hours)

Cost per
response

Annual
cost

Observer deployment report by email .....................................................
Observer availability report by email .......................................................
Safety refusals by email ..........................................................................
Raw observer data by express mail ........................................................
Observer debriefing .................................................................................
Other reports ............................................................................................
Biological samples ...................................................................................
New application to be a service provider ................................................
Applicant response to denial ...................................................................
Request for observer training ..................................................................
Rebuttal of pending removal from list of approved observer providers ..
Observer contact list updates ..................................................................
Observer availability updates ...................................................................
Service provider material submissions ....................................................
Service provider contracts .......................................................................

6
6
6
6
6
6
6
3
1
3
1
3
3
6
6

1,500
900
150
1,500
420
210
1,500
3
1
6
1
36
36
12
12

0.167
0.167
0.5
0.083
2
0.5
0.083
10
10
0.5
8
0.083
0.017
0.5
0.5

251
150
75
125
840
105
125
30
10
3
8
3
1
6
6

$0
0
0
13
12
0
0.50
0.44
0
1.80
0
0
0
2.50
2.50

$0
0
0
19,500
5,040
0
750
1
0
11
0
0
0
30
30

Total ..................................................................................................

................

................

................

1,736

................

25,363

Public comment is sought regarding:
Whether this proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the
agency, including whether the

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:54 Aug 28, 2013

Jkt 229001

information shall have practical utility;
the accuracy of the burden estimate;
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and ways to minimize the

PO 00000

Frm 00043

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

burden of the collection of information,
including through the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of
information technology. Send comments
on these or any other aspects of the

E:\FR\FM\29AUP1.SGM

29AUP1

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 168 / Thursday, August 29, 2013 / Proposed Rules
collection of information to the Regional
Administrator (see ADDRESSES), and
email to OIRA_Submission@
omb.eop.gov or fax to 202–395–7285.
Notwithstanding any other provision
of the law, no person is required to
respond to, and no person shall be
subject to penalty for failure to comply
with, a collection of information subject
to the requirements of the PRA, unless
that collection of information displays a
currently valid OMB Control Number.
The Council prepared an IRFA, as
required by section 603 of the RFA. The
IRFA describes the economic impact
this proposed rule, if adopted, would
have on small entities. A description of
the action, why it is being considered,
and the legal basis for this action are
contained at the beginning of this
section in the preamble and in the
SUMMARY. 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.

sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Economic Impacts of the Proposed
Action Compared to Significant NonSelected Alternatives
1. Adjustments to the Fishery
Management Program
Amendment 14 proposes to revise
several existing fishery management
provisions, including VTR and VMS
requirements, and dealer reporting
requirements, to better administer the
MSB fisheries. The proposed action
(Alternative 1c in the FEIS) would
require all MSB permit holders to
submit VTRs on a weekly basis. The no
action (alternative 1a) would have
maintained monthly reporting
requirements for all MSB permit
holders, and two additional alternatives
would have instituted weekly reporting
for just mackerel permit holders
(alternative 1bMack) or longfin squid/
butterfish permit holders (alternative
1bLong). Weekly VTRs would cost an
additional $18 per year compared to
status quo, but any permit holders
already submit weekly VTRs related to
other Northeast Region permits. The
proposed action could improve data for
quota monitoring, and bring VTR
requirements in line with those for other
Northeast Region permits.
The proposed action requires VMS for
limited access mackerel and longfin
squid/butterfish moratorium permit
holders (alternatives 1eMack and
1eLong), requires trip declarations and
daily VMS catch reports for these permit
holders (alternatives 1fMack and
1fLong), and requires a pre-landing
notifications via VMS in order to land
more than 20,000 lb (9.07 mt) of

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:54 Aug 28, 2013

Jkt 229001

mackerel (alternative 1gMack). The no
action alternative (alternative 1a) would
not impose VMS requirements for these
permit holders. As with the VTR
requirements, many limited access
mackerel and longfin squid/butterfish
moratorium permit holders already have
VMS related to other Northeast Region
permits. For permit holders obtaining a
new VMS, the proposed VMS
requirements would cost roughly $4,500
for the first year of operation. The FEIS
for Amendment 14 discussed that the
economic impacts of these reporting
requirements is mixed compared to
status quo. While short-term operating
costs for these fishing vessels is
increased compared to status quo, these
measures may have long-term positive
impacts if they result in less uncertainty
and, ultimately, additional harvest being
made available to MSB fishery
participants.
Amendment 14 would require that
MSB dealers weigh all landings related
to mackerel transactions over 20,000 lb
(9.07 mt) (alternative 2d), and all longfin
squid transactions over 2,500 lb (1.13
mt) (alternative 2f), and if these
transactions were not sorted by species,
would be required to document, with
each transaction, how they estimated
the relative composition of catch.
Dealers would be permitted to use
volume-to-weight conversions if they
were not able to weigh landings
(alternative 2g). Dealers currently report
the weight of fish, obtained by scale
weights and/or volumetric estimates.
Because the proposed action does not
specify how fish are to be weighed, the
proposed action is not anticipated to
change dealer behavior, and, therefore,
is expected to have neutral impacts in
comparison to the no action alternative.
Amendment 14 considered four
alternatives to the proposed action: The
no action alternative; and alternatives
2b, 2c and 2e. Alternative 2b would
require that a vessel confirm MSB dealer
reports for mackerel landings over
20,000 lb (9.07 mt), Illex squid landings
over 10,000 lb (4.53 mt), and longfin
squid landings over 2,500 lb (1.13 mt).
Alternatives 2c and 2e are similar to the
proposed alternative in that they would
require dealers to weigh all landings
related to mackerel transactions over
20,000 lb (9.07 mt) (alternative 2c), and
all longfin squid transactions over 2,500
lb (1.13 mt) (alternative 2e), but would
have required that relative species
composition be documented annually
instead of at each transaction. Overall,
relative to the no action alternative, the
proposed action and Alternatives 2c and
2e may have low negative impacts on
dealers due to the regulatory burden of

PO 00000

Frm 00044

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

53413

documenting how species composition
is estimated. In comparison, Alternative
2b may have a low positive impact on
fishery participants, despite an
increased regulatory burden, if it
minimizes any lost revenue due to data
errors in the dealer reports and/or the
tracking of MSB catch.
2. Adjustments to At-Sea Catch
Monitoring
Amendment 14 would require a 48-hr
pre-trip notification for all vessels
intending to retain, possess or transfer
20,000 lb (9.07 mt) or more of Atlantic
mackerel in order to facilitate observer
placement (alternative 1d48). In
addition to the no action alternative
(alternative 1a), Amendment 14 also
considered requiring a 72-hr pre-trip
notification requirement (alternative
1d72). Compared to the no action
alternative, both action alternatives may
mean that fishermen are not able to
embark on fishing trips on short notice,
especially if they are selected to take an
observer. The proposed alternative
would, however, improve observer
placement compared to the no action
alternative.
Amendment 14 recommends
increases in the observer coverage in the
mackerel fishery, specifically 100percent observer coverage on all (Tiers
1, 2 and 3) midwater mackerel trawl
vessels (alternative 5b4) and Tier 1
small-mesh bottom trawl mackerel
vessels, 50-percent coverage on Tier 2
small-mesh bottom trawl mackerel
vessels, and 25-percent on Tier 3 smallmesh bottom trawl mackerel vessels
(alternative 5c4), with an industry
contribution of $325 per day (alternative
5f). Amendment 14 considers four
alternatives to the proposed coverage
level recommendations: The no action
alternative (alternative 5a); 25-percent
(alternative 5b1), 50-percent (alternative
5b2), and 75-percent (alternative 5b3)
coverage levels for all (Tiers 1, 2 and 3)
mid-water trawl mackerel vessels; 25percent (alternative 5c1), 50-percent
(alternative 5c2), and 75-percent
(alternative 5c3) coverage levels for all
(Tiers 1, 2 and 3) small-mesh bottom
trawl mackerel vessels; and coverage
levels necessary to achieve target
coefficients of variation for river herring
bycatch using midwater trawl gear
(alternatives 5e1 and 5e2) and smallmesh bottom trawl gear (5e3 and 5e4).
Additionally, Amendment 14
considered a phased-in industry
funding option (5g) that would shift the
cost of the at-sea portion of observer
coverage from NMFS to the industry
over a 4-yr period. The specific coverage
levels under the no action alternative
and the 5e alternatives are unknown at

E:\FR\FM\29AUP1.SGM

29AUP1

sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

53414

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 168 / Thursday, August 29, 2013 / Proposed Rules

this time, because they would depend
on an analysis of fishery data from
previous years, but coverage levels
under these alternatives are expected to
be less than 100 percent. Compared to
the no action alternative, the proposed
$325 contribution per day would
increase daily trip costs by 9 percent for
single midwater trawl mackerel vessels,
and 12 percent for paired midwater
trawl mackerel vessels, and 20 percent
for small-mesh bottom trawl vessels. In
general, higher coverage levels, which
would result in higher increases in daily
costs for fishery participants, would
have a negative economic impact on
fishery participants, potentially
resulting in less effort and lower catch.
In the long-term, increased monitoring
and improved data collections for the
mackerel fishery may translate to
improved management of the mackerel
fishery that would benefit fisheryrelated businesses and communities.
Amendment 14 would require limited
access mackerel and longfin squid/
butterfish moratorium permit holders to
bring all catch aboard the vessel and
make it available for sampling by an
observer (alternative 3j). Catch slipped
before being sampled by an observer
would count against a slippage cap and
require that a released catch affidavit be
completed. If a slippage cap is reached,
a vessel would be required to return to
port immediately following any
additional slippage events (alternative
3l). Amendment 14 considered the no
action alternative, and nine other
alternatives to the proposed action. The
no action alternative would not
establish slippage prohibitions, released
catch affidavit requirements, slippage
caps, or trip termination requirements.
The other non-selected alternatives
include various elements of the
proposed action, including a
requirement for mackerel and longfin
squid permit holders to complete a
released catch affidavit (alternative 3e),
a requirement to prohibit mackerel
(alternative 3f) and longfin squid
(alternative 3g) permit holders from
releasing discards before they are
bought aboard for sampling, trip
termination requirements after 1
(alternative 3h), 2 (alternative 3i), 5
(alternative 3k), or 10 (alternative 3n)
fleet-wide slipped hauls on mackerel or
longfin squid vessels carrying observers,
individual slippage caps resulting in
trip termination (alternative 3p), and a
requirement that vessels that terminate
a trip would have to take observers on
the immediate subsequent trip
(alternative 3o).
Negative impacts associated with all
of these alternatives include increased
time spent pumping fish aboard the

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:54 Aug 28, 2013

Jkt 229001

vessel to be sampled by an observer,
potential decrease in vessel safety
during poor operating conditions, and
the administrative burden of completing
a released catch affidavit. The penalties
associated with slippage vary slightly
across the alternatives. The overall
impacts of the options that propose trip
termination (proposed action) are
negative in comparison to the no action
alternative. Costs associated with
mackerel and longfin squid fishing trips
are high, particularly with the current
cost of fuel. Trips terminated
prematurely could result in unprofitable
trips, leaving not only the owners with
debt, but crewmembers without income,
and negative impacts on fishery-related
businesses and communities.
3. Measures To Address River Herring
and Shad Interactions
Amendment 14 would establish catch
caps for river herring (alternative 6b)
and shad (alternative 6c) in the
mackerel fishery. Two alternatives, the
proposed action and the no action, were
considered. Compared to the no action
alternative, the action alternatives have
the possibility of resulting in a closure
of the directed mackerel fishery before
the mackerel quota is reached. This
could result in revenue losses as high as
$15 million based on 2010 ex-vessel
prices, depending on how early the
fishery is closed. While there is no
direct linkage between river herring and
shad catch and stock status, a closure
that results from a catch cap in the
mackerel fishery could limit the
fisheries mortality on these stocks.
The proposed action also includes
support for the existing river herring
bycatch avoidance program involving
SFC, MA DMF, and SMAST. This
voluntary program seeks to reduce river
herring bycatch with real-time
information on river herring distribution
and mackerel fishery encounters. This
aspect of the proposed action has the
potential to mitigate some of the
negative impacts of the proposed action
by developing river herring bycatch
avoidance measures in cooperation with
the fishing industry.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648
Fisheries, Fishing, Recordkeeping and
reporting requirements.
Dated: August 23, 2013.
Alan D. Risenhoover,
Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries,
performing the functions and duties of the
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:

PO 00000

Frm 00045

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

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, the definition of
‘‘Slippage in the Atlantic mackerel and
longfin squid fisheries’’ is added in
alphabetical order to read as follows:

■

§ 648.2

Definitions.

*

*
*
*
*
Slippage in the Atlantic mackerel and
longfin squid fisheries means catch that
is discarded prior to being brought
aboard a vessel issued an Atlantic
mackerel or longfin squid permit and/or
prior to making the catch available for
sampling and inspection by a NMFSapproved observer. Slippage includes
catch released from a codend or seine
prior to the completion of pumping
catch aboard and catch released from a
codend or seine while the codend or
seine is in the water. Fish that cannot
be pumped and that remain in the net
at the end of pumping operations are
not considered slippage. Discards that
occur at sea after the catch is brought on
board and sorted are also not considered
slippage.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 3. In § 648.7, paragraphs (a)(1)(iv),
(b)(3)(ii), and (b)(3)(iii) are added, and
paragraph (f)(2)(i) is revised to read as
follows:
§ 648.7 Recordkeeping and reporting
requirements.

(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(iv) Dealer reporting requirements for
Atlantic mackerel and longfin squid. In
addition to the requirements under
paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section,
dealers issued an MSB dealer permit
must accurately weigh all fish or use
volume-to-weight conversions for all
transactions containing more than 2,500
lb (1.13 mt) of longfin squid or 20,000
lb (9.07 mt) of mackerel. If dealers do
not sort by species, dealers are required
to document, for each report submitted,
how the species composition of the
catch is determined.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(3) * * *
(ii) Atlantic mackerel owners or
operators. The owner or operator of a
vessel issued a limited access mackerel
permit must report catch (retained and
discarded) of mackerel daily via VMS,
unless exempted by the Regional
Administrator. The report must include
at least the following information, and
any other information required by the

E:\FR\FM\29AUP1.SGM

29AUP1

sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 168 / Thursday, August 29, 2013 / Proposed Rules
Regional Administrator: Fishing Vessel
Trip Report serial number; month and
day mackerel was caught; total pounds
of mackerel retained and total pounds of
all fish retained. Daily mackerel VMS
catch reports must be submitted in 24hr intervals for each day and must be
submitted by 0900 hr on the following
day. Reports are required even if
mackerel caught that day have not yet
been landed. This report does not
exempt the owner or operator from
other applicable reporting requirements
of this section.
(iii) Longfin squid/butterfish
moratorium permit owners or operators.
The owner or operator of a vessel issued
a longfin squid/butterfish moratorium
permit must report catch (retained and
discarded) of longfin squid daily via
VMS, unless exempted by the Regional
Administrator. The report must include
at least the following information, and
any other information required by the
Regional Administrator: Fishing Vessel
Trip Report serial number; month and
day longfin squid was caught; total
pounds longfin squid retained and total
pounds of all fish retained. Daily longfin
squid VMS catch reports must be
submitted in 24-hr intervals for each
day and must be submitted by 0900 hr
on the following day. Reports are
required even if longfin squid caught
that day have not yet been landed. This
report does not exempt the owner or
operator from other applicable reporting
requirements of this section.
*
*
*
*
*
(f) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) For any vessel not issued a NE
multispecies; Atlantic herring permit; or
any Atlantic mackerel, longfin squid,
Illex squid, or butterfish permit; fishing
vessel log reports, required by paragraph
(b)(1)(i) of this section, must be
postmarked or received by NMFS
within 15 days after the end of the
reporting month. If such a vessel makes
no fishing trip during a particular
month, a report stating so must be
submitted, as instructed by the Regional
Administrator. For any vessel issued a
NE multispecies permit; Atlantic
herring permit; or any Atlantic
mackerel, longfin squid, Illex squid, or
butterfish permit; fishing vessel log
reports must be postmarked or received
by midnight of the first Tuesday
following the end of the reporting week.
If such a vessel makes no fishing trip
during a reporting week, a report stating
so must be submitted and received by
NMFS by midnight of the first Tuesday
following the end of the reporting week,
as instructed by the Regional
Administrator. For the purposes of this

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:54 Aug 28, 2013

Jkt 229001

paragraph (f)(2)(i), the date when fish
are offloaded will establish the reporting
week or month the VTR must be
submitted to NMFS, as appropriate. Any
fishing activity during a particular
reporting week (i.e., starting a trip,
landing, or offloading catch) will
constitute fishing during that reporting
week and will eliminate the need to
submit a negative fishing report to
NMFS for that reporting week. For
example, if a vessel issued a NE
multispecies permit; Atlantic herring
permit; or Atlantic mackerel, longfin
squid, Illex squid or butterfish permit;
begins a fishing trip on Wednesday, but
returns to port and offloads its catch on
the following Thursday (i.e., after a trip
lasting 8 days), the VTR for the fishing
trip would need to be submitted by
midnight Tuesday of the third week, but
a negative report (i.e., a ‘‘did not fish’’
report) would not be required for either
earlier week.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 4. In § 648.10, paragraphs (b)(9),
(b)(10), (m), and (n) are added to read
as follows:
§ 648.10 VMS and DAS requirements for
vessel owners/operators.

*

*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(9) Vessels issued a Tier 1, Tier 2, or
Tier 3 limited access Atlantic mackerel
permit; or
(10) Vessels issued a longfin squid/
butterfish moratorium permit.
*
*
*
*
*
(m) Limited access Atlantic mackerel
VMS notification requirements. (1) A
vessel issued a limited access Atlantic
mackerel permit intending to declare
into the mackerel fishery must notify
NMFS by declaring a mackerel trip prior
to leaving port at the start of each trip
in order to harvest, possess, or land
mackerel on that trip.
(2) A vessel issued a limited access
Atlantic mackerel permit intending to
land more than 20,000 lb (9.07 mt) of
mackerel must notify NMFS of the time
and place of offloading at least 6 hr
prior to crossing the VMS demarcation
line on its return trip to port, or, for a
vessel that has not fished seaward of the
VMS demarcation line, at least 6 hr
prior to landing. The Regional
Administrator may adjust the prior
notification minimum time through
publication in the Federal Register
consistent with the Administrative
Procedure Act.
(n) Longfin squid/butterfish VMS
notification requirements. A vessel
issued a longfin squid/butterfish
moratorium permit intending to declare
into the longfin squid fishery must
notify NMFS by declaring a longfin

PO 00000

Frm 00046

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

53415

squid trip prior to leaving port at the
start of each trip in order to harvest,
possess, or land longfin squid on that
trip.
■ 5. In § 648.11, paragraphs (h)(1),
(h)(3)(vi), (h)(3)(ix), (h)(4)(i) through
(iii), (h)(5)(i), (h)(5)(ii)(B) and (C),
(h)(5)(iii), (h)(5)(vi), (h)(5)(viii)(A),
(h)(7), (i)(2), and (i)(3)(ii) are revised,
and paragraph (m) is added to read as
follows:
§ 648.11 At-sea sea sampler/observer
coverage.

*

*
*
*
*
(h) * * *
(1) General. An entity seeking to
provide observer services to the Atlantic
sea scallop or Atlantic mackerel fishery
must apply for and obtain approval from
NMFS following submission of a
complete application to The Observer
Program Branch Chief, 25 Bernard St.
Jean Drive, East Falmouth, MA 02536. A
list of approved observer service
providers shall be distributed to scallop
or Atlantic mackerel vessel owners and
shall be posted on NMFS’s Web page, as
specified in paragraph (g)(4) of this
section.
*
*
*
*
*
(3) * * *
(vi) A description of the applicant’s
ability to carry out the responsibilities
and duties of a scallop or Atlantic
mackerel fishery observer services
provider as set out in paragraph (h)(5)
of this section, and the arrangements to
be used.
*
*
*
*
*
(ix) The names of its fully equipped,
NMFS/NEFOP certified observers on
staff or a list of its training candidates
(with resumes) and a request for a
NMFS/NEFOP Sea Scallop or Atlantic
mackerel High Volume Fisheries
Certification Observer Training class.
The NEFOP training has a minimum
class size of eight individuals, which
may be split among multiple vendors
requesting training. Requests for
training classes with fewer than eight
individuals will be delayed until further
requests make up the full training class
size.
*
*
*
*
*
(4) * * *
(i) NMFS shall review and evaluate
each application submitted under
paragraphs (h)(2) and (h)(3) of this
section. Issuance of approval as an
observer provider shall be based on
completeness of the application, and a
determination by NMFS of the
applicant’s ability to perform the duties
and responsibilities of a sea scallop or
Atlantic mackerel fishery observer
service provider, as demonstrated in the

E:\FR\FM\29AUP1.SGM

29AUP1

sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

53416

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 168 / Thursday, August 29, 2013 / Proposed Rules

application information. A decision to
approve or deny an application shall be
made by NMFS within 15 days of
receipt of the application by NMFS.
(ii) If NMFS approves the application,
the observer service provider’s name
will be added to the list of approved
observer service providers found on
NMFS’ Web site specified in paragraph
(g)(4) of this section, and in any
outreach information to the industry.
Approved observer service providers
shall be notified in writing and
provided with any information
pertinent to its participation in the sea
scallop or Atlantic mackerel fishery
observer program.
(iii) An application shall be denied if
NMFS determines that the information
provided in the application is not
complete or NMFS concludes that the
applicant does not have the ability to
perform the duties and responsibilities
of a sea scallop or Atlantic mackerel
fishery observer service provider. NMFS
shall notify the applicant in writing of
any deficiencies in the application or
information submitted in support of the
application. An applicant who receives
a denial of his or her application may
present additional information, in
writing, to rectify the deficiencies
specified in the written denial, provided
such information is submitted to NMFS
within 30 days of the applicant’s receipt
of the denial notification from NMFS. In
the absence of additional information,
and after 30 days from an applicant’s
receipt of a denial, an observer provider
is required to resubmit an application
containing all of the information
required under the application process
specified in paragraph (h)(3) of this
section to be re-considered for being
added to the list of approved observer
service providers.
*
*
*
*
*
(5) * * *
(i) An observer service provider must
provide observers certified by NMFS/
NEFOP pursuant to paragraph (i) of this
section for deployment in the sea
scallop or Atlantic mackerel fishery
when contacted and contracted by the
owner, operator, or vessel manager of a
vessel fishing in the scallop or Atlantic
mackerel fishery, unless the observer
service provider does not have an
available observer within 24 hr of
receiving a request for an observer from
a vessel owner, operator, and/or
manager, or refuses to deploy an
observer on a requesting vessel for any
of the reasons specified in paragraph
(h)(5)(viii) of this section. An observer’s
first three deployments and the
resulting data shall be immediately
edited and approved after each trip, by

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:54 Aug 28, 2013

Jkt 229001

NMFS/NEFOP, prior to any further
deployments by that observer. If data
quality is considered acceptable, the
observer will be certified.
*
*
*
*
*
(ii) * * *
(B) Lodging, per diem, and any other
services necessary for observers
assigned to a scallop or Atlantic
mackerel vessel or to attend a NMFS/
NEFOP Sea Scallop or Atlantic mackerel
High Volume Fisheries Certification
Observer Training class;
(C) The required observer equipment,
in accordance with equipment
requirements listed on NMFS’ Web site
specified in paragraph (g)(4) of this
section under the Sea Scallop and
Atlantic mackerel Observer Program,
prior to any deployment and/or prior to
NMFS observer certification training;
and
*
*
*
*
*
(iii) Observer deployment logistics.
Each approved observer service
provider must assign an available
certified observer to a vessel upon
request. Each approved observer service
provider must provide for access by
industry 24 hr per day, 7 days per week,
to enable an owner, operator, or
manager of a vessel to secure observer
coverage when requested. The
telephone system must be monitored a
minimum of four times daily to ensure
rapid response to industry requests.
Observer service providers approved
under paragraph (h) of this section are
required to report observer deployments
to NMFS daily for the purpose of
determining whether the predetermined
coverage levels are being achieved in
the scallop or Atlantic mackerel fishery.
(vi) Observer training requirements.
The following information must be
submitted to NMFS/NEFOP at least 7
days prior to the beginning of the
proposed training class: A list of
observer candidates; observer candidate
resumes; and a statement signed by the
candidate, under penalty of perjury, that
discloses the candidate’s criminal
convictions, if any. All observer trainees
must complete a basic cardiopulmonary
resuscitation/first aid course prior to the
end of a NMFS/NEFOP Sea Scallop or
Atlantic mackerel High Volume
Fisheries Observer Training class.
NMFS may reject a candidate for
training if the candidate does not meet
the minimum qualification
requirements as outlined by NMFS/
NEFOP Minimum Eligibility Standards
for observers as described on the NMFS/
NEFOP Web site.
*
*
*
*
*
(viii) * * *

PO 00000

Frm 00047

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

(A) An observer service provider may
refuse to deploy an observer on a
requesting scallop or Atlantic mackerel
vessel if the observer service provider
does not have an available observer
within 72 hr of receiving a request for
an observer from a scallop vessel or
within 48 hr of receiving a request for
an observer from an Atlantic mackerel
vessel.
*
*
*
*
*
(7) Removal of observer service
provider from the list of approved
observer service providers. An observer
provider that fails to meet the
requirements, conditions, and
responsibilities specified in paragraphs
(h)(5) and (h)(6) of this section shall be
notified by NMFS, in writing, that it is
subject to removal from the list of
approved observer service providers.
Such notification shall specify the
reasons for the pending removal. An
observer service provider that has
received notification that it is subject to
removal from the list of approved
observer service providers may submit
written information to rebut the reasons
for removal from the list. Such rebuttal
must be submitted within 30 days of
notification received by the observer
service provider that the observer
service provider is subject to removal
and must be accompanied by written
evidence rebutting the basis for removal.
NMFS shall review information
rebutting the pending removal and shall
notify the observer service provider
within 15 days of receipt of the rebuttal
whether or not the removal is
warranted. If no response to a pending
removal is received by NMFS within 30
days of the notification of removal, the
observer service provider shall be
automatically removed from the list of
approved observer service providers.
The decision to remove the observer
service provider from the list, either
after reviewing a rebuttal, or
automatically if no timely rebuttal is
submitted, shall be the final decision of
the Department of Commerce. Removal
from the list of approved observer
service providers does not necessarily
prevent such observer service provider
from obtaining an approval in the future
if a new application is submitted that
demonstrates that the reasons for
removal are remedied. Certified
observers under contract with an
observer service provider that has been
removed from the list of approved
service providers must complete their
assigned duties for any scallop or
Atlantic mackerel trips on which the
observers are deployed at the time the
observer service provider is removed
from the list of approved observer

E:\FR\FM\29AUP1.SGM

29AUP1

sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 168 / Thursday, August 29, 2013 / Proposed Rules
service providers. An observer service
provider removed from the list of
approved observer service providers is
responsible for providing NMFS with
the information required in paragraph
(h)(5)(vii) of this section following
completion of the trip. NMFS may
consider, but is not limited to, the
following in determining if an observer
service provider may remain on the list
of approved observer service providers:
*
*
*
*
*
(i) * * *
(2) Observer training. In order to be
deployed on any Atlantic mackerel
vessel, a candidate observer must have
passed a NMFS/NEFOP or Atlantic
mackerel High Volume Fisheries
Certification/Observer Training course.
If a candidate fails training, the
candidate shall be notified in writing on
or before the last day of training. The
notification will indicate the reasons the
candidate failed the training. A
candidate that fails training shall not be
able to enroll in a subsequent class.
Observer training shall include an
observer training trip, as part of the
observer’s training, aboard a scallop or
Atlantic mackerel vessel with a trainer.
A certified observer’s first deployment
and the resulting data shall be
immediately edited, and approved, by
NMFS prior to any further deployments
of that observer.
(3) * * *
(ii) Be physically and mentally
capable of carrying out the
responsibilities of an observer on board
scallop or Atlantic mackerel vessels,
pursuant to standards established by
NMFS. Such standards are available
from NMFS/NEFOP Web site specified
in paragraph (g)(4) of this section and
shall be provided to each approved
observer service provider;
*
*
*
*
*
(m) Atlantic mackerel, squid, and
butterfish observer coverage—(1) Pretrip notification. (i) A vessel issued a
limited access Atlantic mackerel permit
or longfin squid/butterfish moratorium
permit, as specified at § 648.4(a)(5)(i),
must, for the purposes of observer
deployment, have a representative
provide notice to NMFS of the vessel
name, vessel permit number, contact
name for coordination of observer
deployment, telephone number or email
address for contact; and the date, time,
port of departure, gear type (for
mackerel trips), and approximate trip
duration, at least 48 hr, but no more
than 10 days, prior to beginning any
fishing trip, unless it complies with the
possession restrictions in paragraph
(m)(1)(iii) of this section.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:54 Aug 28, 2013

Jkt 229001

(ii) A vessel that has a representative
provide notification to NMFS as
described in paragraph (a) of this
section may only embark on a mackerel
or longfin squid trip without an
observer if a vessel representative has
been notified by NMFS that the vessel
has received a waiver of the observer
requirement for that trip. NMFS shall
notify a vessel representative whether
the vessel must carry an observer, or if
a waiver has been granted, for the
specified mackerel or longfin squid trip,
within 24 hr of the vessel
representative’s notification of the
prospective mackerel or longfin squid
trip, as specified in paragraph (a) of this
section. Any request to carry an
observer may be waived by NMFS. A
vessel that fishes with an observer
waiver confirmation number that does
not match the mackerel or longfin squid
trip plan that was called in to NMFS is
prohibited from fishing for, possessing,
harvesting, or landing mackerel or
longfin squid except as specified in
paragraph (c) of this section.
Confirmation numbers for trip
notification calls are only valid for 48 hr
from the intended sail date.
(iii) Trip limits. (A) A vessel issued a
longfin squid and butterfish moratorium
permit, as specified in § 648.4(a)(5)(i),
that does not have a representative
provide the trip notification required in
paragraph (a) of this section is
prohibited from fishing for, possessing,
harvesting, or landing more than 2,500
lb (1.13 mt) of longfin squid per trip at
any time, and may only land longfin
squid once on any calendar day, which
is defined as the 24-hr period beginning
at 0001 hours and ending at 2400 hours.
(B) A vessel issued a limited access
mackerel permit, as specified in
§ 648.4(a)(5)(i), that does not have a
representative provide the trip
notification required in paragraph (a) of
this section is prohibited from fishing
for, possessing, harvesting, or landing
more than 20,000 lb (9.07 mt) of
mackerel per trip at any time, and may
only land mackerel once on any
calendar day, which is defined as the
24-hr period beginning at 0001 hours
and ending at 2400 hours.
(iv) If a vessel issued a longfin squid
and butterfish moratorium permit, as
specified in § 648.4(a)(5)(i), intends to
possess, harvest, or land more than
2,500 lb (1.13 mt) of longfin squid per
trip or per calendar day, or a vessel
issued a limited access Atlantic
mackerel permit, as specified in
§ 648.4(a)(5)(i), intends to possess,
harvest, or land more than 20,000 lb
(9.07 mt) of mackerel per trip or per
calendar day, and has a representative
notify NMFS of an upcoming trip, is

PO 00000

Frm 00048

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

53417

selected by NMFS to carry an observer,
and then cancels that trip, the
representative is required to provide
notice to NMFS of the vessel name,
vessel permit number, contact name for
coordination of observer deployment,
and telephone number or email address
for contact, and the intended date, time,
and port of departure for the cancelled
trip prior to the planned departure time.
In addition, if a trip selected for
observer coverage is cancelled, then that
vessel is required to carry an observer,
provided an observer is available, on its
next trip.
(2) Sampling requirements for limited
access Atlantic mackerel and longfin
squid/butterfish moratorium permit
holders. In addition to the requirements
in paragraphs (d)(1) through (7) of this
section, an owner or operator of a vessel
issued a limited access Atlantic
mackerel or longfin squid/butterfish
moratorium permit on which a NMFSapproved observer is embarked must
provide observers:
(i) A safe sampling station adjacent to
the fish deck, including: A safety
harness, if footing is compromised and
grating systems are high above the deck;
a safe method to obtain samples; and a
storage space for baskets and sampling
gear.
(ii) Reasonable assistance to enable
observers to carry out their duties,
including but not limited to assistance
with: Obtaining and sorting samples;
measuring decks, codends, and holding
bins; collecting bycatch when requested
by the observers; and collecting and
carrying baskets of fish when requested
by the observers.
(iii) Advance notice when pumping
will be starting; when sampling of the
catch may begin; and when pumping is
coming to an end.
(3) Measures to address slippage in
the Atlantic mackerel and longfin squid
fisheries. (i) No vessel issued a limited
access Atlantic mackerel permit or a
longfin squid/butterfish moratorium
permit and carrying a NMFS-approved
observer may release fish from the net,
transfer fish to another vessel that is not
carrying a NMFS-approved observer, or
otherwise discard fish at sea, unless the
fish has first been brought on board the
vessel and made available for sampling
and inspection by the observer, except
in the following circumstances:
(A) The vessel operator has
determined, and the preponderance of
available evidence indicates that, there
is a compelling safety reason; or
(B) A mechanical failure precludes
bringing some or all of the catch on
board the vessel for sampling and
inspection; or

E:\FR\FM\29AUP1.SGM

29AUP1

sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

53418

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 168 / Thursday, August 29, 2013 / Proposed Rules

(C) The vessel operator determines
that pumping becomes impossible as a
result of spiny dogfish clogging the
pump intake. The vessel operator shall
take reasonable measures, such as
strapping and splitting the net, to
remove all fish that can be pumped from
the net prior to release.
(ii) If fish are released prior to being
brought on board the vessel, including
catch released due to any of the
exceptions in paragraphs (m)(3)(i)(A)–
(C) of this section, the vessel operator
must complete and sign a Released
Catch Affidavit detailing the vessel
name and permit number; the VTR
serial number; where, when, and for
what reason the catch was released; the
estimated weight of each species
brought on board (if only part of the tow
was released) or released on that tow. A
completed affidavit must be submitted
to NMFS within 48 hr of the end of the
trip.
(4) At-sea observer coverage
requirements for the Atlantic mackerel
fishery. (i) Vessels issued a limited
access Atlantic mackerel permit may not
fish for, take, retain, possess, or land
Atlantic mackerel without carrying a
NMFS-approved observer, unless the
vessel owner, operator, and/or manager
has been notified that the vessel has
received a waiver of this observer
requirement for that trip pursuant to
paragraph (m)(4)(iv) of this section.
(ii) An owner, operator, or manager of
a vessel required to carry an observer
under paragraph (m)(4)(i) of this section
must arrange for carrying an observer
certified through the Atlantic Mackerel
High Volume Fisheries observer training
class operated by the NMFS/NEFOP
from an observer service provider
approved by NMFS under paragraph (h)
of this section. The owner, operator, or
vessel manager of a vessel selected to
carry an observer must contact the
observer service provider and must
provide at least 48-hr notice in advance
of the fishing trip for the provider to
arrange for observer deployment for the
specified trip. The observer service
provider will notify the vessel owner,
operator, or manager within 24 hr
whether they have an available
observer. A list of approved observer
service providers shall be posted on the
NMFS/NEFOP Web site at http://
www.nefsc.noaa.gov/femad/fsb/.
(iii) An owner, operator, or vessel
manager of a vessel that cannot procure
a certified observer within 24 hr of the
advance notification to the provider due
to the unavailability of an observer may
request a waiver from NMFS/NEFOP
from the requirement for observer
coverage for that trip, but only if the
owner, operator, or vessel manager has

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:54 Aug 28, 2013

Jkt 229001

contacted all of the available observer
service providers to secure observer
coverage and no observer is available.
(iv) NMFS/NEFOP shall issue such a
waiver within 12 hr if the conditions of
paragraph (m)(4) of this section are met.
A vessel may not begin the trip without
being issued a waiver. All waivers for
observer coverage will be issued to the
vessel by VMS so a vessel must have on
board a verification of the waiver.
(v) When selected to carry an observer
on a declared mackerel trip, owners of
vessels issued a limited access Atlantic
mackerel permit must pay observer
service providers $325 per sea day.
■ 6. In § 648.14, paragraphs (g)(2)(v)
through (viii) are added to read as
follows:
§ 648.14

Prohibitions.

*

*
*
*
*
(g) * * *
(2) * * *
(v) Reporting requirements in the
limited access Atlantic mackerel and
longfin squid/butterfish moratorium
fisheries. (A) Fail to declare via VMS
into the mackerel or longfin squid/
butterfish fisheries by entering the
fishery code prior to leaving port at the
start of each trip to harvest, possess, or
land Atlantic mackerel or longfin squid,
if a vessel has been issued a Limited
Access Atlantic mackerel permit or
longfin squid/butterfish moratorium
permit, pursuant to § 648.10.
(B) Fail to notify NMFS Office of Law
Enforcement through VMS of the time
and place of offloading at least 6 hr
prior to crossing the VMS demarcation
line on their return trip to port, or, for
a vessel that has not fished seaward of
the VMS demarcation line, at least of 6
hr prior to landing, if a vessel has been
issued a Limited Access Atlantic
mackerel permit, pursuant to § 648.10.
(vi) Release fish from the codend of
the net, transfer fish to another vessel
that is not carrying a NMFS-approved
observer, or otherwise discard fish at sea
before bringing the fish aboard and
making it available to the observer for
sampling, unless subject to one of the
exemptions defined at § 648.11(m)(3) if
issued a Limited Access Atlantic
mackerel permit, or a longfin squid/
butterfish moratorium permit.
(vii) Fail to complete, sign, and
submit an affidavit if fish are released
pursuant to the requirements at
§ 648.11(m)(3).
(viii) Fail to immediately return to
port after slipping catch while carrying
a NMFS-approved observer after NMFS
has determined that the slippage cap
has been reached, pursuant to § 648.24.
*
*
*
*
*

PO 00000

Frm 00049

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

7. In § 648.22, paragraphs (b)(2)(vi)
and (b)(4) are added to read as follows:

■

§ 648.22 Atlantic mackerel, squid, and
butterfish specifications.

*

*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(vi) River herring and shad catch cap.
The Monitoring Committee shall
provide recommendations regarding a
cap on the catch of river herring (alewife
and blueback) and shad (American and
hickory) in the Atlantic mackerel fishery
based on best available scientific
information, as well as measures
(seasonal or regional quotas, closure
thresholds) necessary for
implementation.
*
*
*
*
*
(4) Additional measures. The
Monitoring Committee may also provide
recommendations on the following
items, if necessary:
(i) Observer provisions to maximize
sampling at § 648.11(m)(2);
(ii) Industry contribution amount for
at-sea observer coverage at
§ 648.11(m)(2);
(iii) Exceptions for the requirement to
pump/haul aboard all fish from net for
inspection by at-sea observers in
§ 648.11(n)(2);
(iv) Trip termination requirements
after slippage for mackerel vessels in
§ 648.24(b)(7).
*
*
*
*
*
■ 8. In § 648.24, paragraph (b)(7) is
added to read as follows:
§ 648.24 Fishery closures and
accountability measures.

*

*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(7) Slippage caps. If NMFS
determines that there have been 10
slippage events by vessels issued
limited access Atlantic mackerel
permits and carrying NMFS-approved
observers, vessels with limited access
mackerel permits that subsequently slip
catch while carrying a NMFS-approved
observer must immediately stop fishing
and return to port after each slippage
event. NMFS shall implement these
restrictions in accordance with the
Administrative Procedure Act.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 9. In § 648.25, paragraph (a)(1) is
revised to read as follows:
§ 648.25 Atlantic mackerel, squid and
butterfish framework adjustments to
management measures.

(a) * * *
(1) Adjustment process. The MAFMC
shall develop and analyze appropriate
management actions over the span of at
least two MAFMC meetings. The

E:\FR\FM\29AUP1.SGM

29AUP1

sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 168 / Thursday, August 29, 2013 / Proposed Rules
MAFMC must provide the public with
advance notice of the availability of the
recommendation(s), appropriate
justification(s) and economic and
biological analyses, and the opportunity
to comment on the proposed
adjustment(s) at the first meeting and
prior to and at the second MAFMC
meeting. The MAFMC’s
recommendations on adjustments or
additions to management measures
must come from one or more of the
following categories: Adjustments
within existing ABC control rule levels;
adjustments to the existing MAFMC risk
policy; introduction of new AMs,
including sub-ACTs; minimum fish size;
maximum fish size; gear restrictions;
gear requirements or prohibitions;
permitting restrictions, recreational
possession limit; recreational seasons;
closed areas; commercial seasons;
commercial trip limits; commercial
quota system, including commercial
quota allocation procedure and possible
quota set-asides to mitigate bycatch;
recreational harvest limit; annual
specification quota setting process; FMP
Monitoring Committee composition and
process; description and identification
of EFH (and fishing gear management
measures that impact EFH); description
and identification of habitat areas of
particular concern; overfishing
definition and related thresholds and
targets; regional gear restrictions;
regional season restrictions (including
option to split seasons); restrictions on
vessel size (LOA and GRT) or shaft
horsepower; any other management
measures currently included in the
FMP, set aside quota for scientific
research, regional management; process
for inseason adjustment to the annual
specification; mortality caps for river
herring and shad species; time/area
management for river herring and shad
species; and provisions for river herring
and shad incidental catch avoidance
program, including adjustments to the
mechanism and process for tracking
fleet activity, reporting incidental catch
events, compiling data, and notifying
the fleet of changes to the area(s); the
definition/duration of ‘test tows,’ if test
tows would be utilized to determine the
extent of river herring incidental catch
in a particular area(s); the threshold for
river herring incidental catch that
would trigger the need for vessels to be
alerted and move out of the area(s); the
distance that vessels would be required
to move from the area(s); and the time
that vessels would be required to remain
out of the area(s). Measures contained
within this list that require significant
departures from previously
contemplated measures or that are

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:54 Aug 28, 2013

Jkt 229001

otherwise introducing new concepts
may require amendment of the FMP
instead of a framework adjustment.
*
*
*
*
*
§ 648.27
■

[Removed]

10. Remove § 648.27.

[FR Doc. 2013–21052 Filed 8–28–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 679
RIN 0648–BC39

Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic
Zone Off Alaska; Groundfish of the
Gulf of Alaska; Amendment 95 to the
Fishery Management Plan for
Groundfish
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notification of availability of
fishery management plan amendment;
request for comments.
AGENCY:

NMFS announces that the
North Pacific Fishery Management
Council has submitted Amendment 95
to the Fishery Management Plan for
Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP)
for review by the Secretary of
Commerce. If approved, Amendment 95
would modify the FMP to: establish
halibut prohibited species catch (PSC)
limits for the Gulf of Alaska (GOA) in
Federal regulation; reduce the GOA
halibut PSC limits for trawl and hookand-line gear; reduce trawl halibut PSC
sideboard limits for American Fisheries
Act, Amendment 80, and Central GOA
Rockfish Program vessels; and provide
two additional management measures
associated with halibut PSC accounting
for Amendment 80 vessels subject to
halibut PSC sideboards and for halibut
PSC made by trawl vessels from May 15
through June 30, which would maintain
groundfish harvest while achieving the
halibut PSC limit reductions intended
by this action. This action is necessary
to reduce halibut bycatch in the GOA,
and is intended to promote the goals
and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management
Act, the FMP, and other applicable law.
DATES: Comments on Amendment 95
must be received on or before October
28, 2013.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by FDMS Docket Number
SUMMARY:

PO 00000

Frm 00050

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

53419

NOAA–NMFS–2012–0151, by any one
of the following methods:
• Electronic Submissions: Submit all
electronic public comments via the
Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to
www.regulations.gov/
#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-20120151 click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon,
complete the required fields, and enter
or attach your comments.
• Mail: Submit written comments to
Glenn Merrill, Assistant Regional
Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries
Division, Alaska Region NMFS, Attn:
Ellen Sebastian. Mail comments to P.O.
Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802–1668.
• Fax: Address written comments to
Glenn Merrill, Assistant Regional
Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries
Division, Alaska Region NMFS, Attn:
Ellen Sebastian. Fax comments to 907–
586–7557.
Instructions: 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 by NMFS. All comments
received are a part of the public record
and will generally be posted for public
viewing on http://www.regulations.gov
without change. All personal identifying
information (e.g., name, address),
confidential business information, or
otherwise sensitive information
submitted voluntarily by the sender will
be publicly accessible. NMFS will
accept anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/
A’’ in the required fields if you wish to
remain anonymous). Attachments to
electronic comments will be accepted in
Microsoft Word, Excel, or Adobe PDF
file formats only.
Electronic copies of Amendment 95 to
the FMP, the Regulatory Impact Review
(RIR), the Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (IRFA), and the Environmental
Assessment (EA), prepared for this
action are available from http://
www.regulations.gov or from the Alaska
Region Web site at http://
alaskafisheries.noaa.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Rachel Baker or Obren Davis, 907–586–
7228.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act
(Magnuson-Stevens Act) requires that
each regional fishery management
council submit any fishery management
plan amendment it prepares to NMFS
for review and approval, disapproval, or
partial approval by the Secretary of
Commerce (Secretary). The MagnusonStevens Act also requires that NMFS,
upon receiving a fishery management
plan amendment, immediately publish a
notice in the Federal Register

E:\FR\FM\29AUP1.SGM

29AUP1