[Federal Register: September 3, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 170)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 45597-45605]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr03se09-19]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 648
[Docket No. 0907021105-91234-02]
RIN 0648-AY00
Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Mackerel,
Squid, and Butterfish Fisheries; Amendment 10
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS proposes regulations to implement measures in Amendment
10 to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish (MSB) Fishery
Management Plan (FMP). Amendment 10 was developed by the Mid-Atlantic
Fishery Management Council (Council) to bring the FMP into compliance
with Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
(Magnuson-Stevens Act) requirements by establishing a rebuilding
program that allows the butterfish stock to rebuild and permanently
protects the long-term health and stability of the stock; and by
minimizing bycatch and the fishing mortality of unavoidable bycatch, to
the extent practicable, in the MSB fisheries. Amendment 10 would
increase the minimum codend mesh size requirement for the Loligo squid
(Loligo) fishery; establish a butterfish rebuilding program with a
butterfish mortality cap for the Loligo fishery; establish a 72-hr trip
notification requirement for the Loligo fishery; and require an annual
assessment of the butterfish rebuilding program by the Council's
Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC). This proposed rule would
also make minor, technical corrections to existing regulations.
DATES: Public comments must be received no later than 5 p.m., eastern
standard time, on October 19, 2009.
ADDRESSES: A final supplemental environmental impact statement (FSEIS)
was prepared for Amendment 10 that describes the proposed action and
other considered alternatives and provides a thorough analysis of the
impacts of the proposed measures and alternatives. Copies of Amendment
10, including the FSEIS, the Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), and the
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), are available from:
Daniel Furlong, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management
Council, Room 2115, Federal Building, 300 South New Street, Dover, DE
19904-6790. The FSEIS/RIR/IRFA is accessible via the Internet at http:/
/www.nero.nmfs.gov.
You may submit comments on this proposed rule, identified by RIN
0648-AY00, by any one of the following methods:
Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public
comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking portal http://
www.regulations.gov;
Fax: (978) 281-9135, Attn: Carrie Nordeen;
Mail to Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, NMFS,
Northeast Regional Office, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA
01930. Mark the outside of the envelope ``Comments on MSB Amendment
10.''
Instructions: All comments received are a part of the public record
and will generally be posted to http://www.regulations.gov without
change. All Personal Identifying Information (e.g., name, address)
voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do
not submit confidential business information or otherwise sensitive or
protected information. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter N/A
in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous). Attachments to
electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel,
WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF formats only.
Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other
aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this
proposed rule may be submitted to NMFS, Northeast Regional Office and
to David Rostker by e-mail David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov or fax (202) 395-
7285.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carrie Nordeen, Fishery Policy
Analyst, 978-281-9272, fax 978-281-9135.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
This amendment is needed to bring the MSB FMP into compliance with
[[Page 45598]]
Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements by: (1) Implementing a rebuilding
program that allows the butterfish stock to rebuild, and permanently
protects the long-term health and stability of the stock; and (2)
minimizing bycatch, and the fishing mortality of unavoidable bycatch,
to the extent practicable, in the MSB fisheries.
In February 2005, NMFS notified the Council that the butterfish
stock was overfished, which triggered Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements
to implement rebuilding measures for the stock. In response, an
amendment to the MSB FMP was initiated by the Council in October 2005.
Management measures for rebuilding butterfish are designed to reduce
the fishing mortality on butterfish that occurs through discarding of
butterfish caught in other directed fisheries, which is the primary
source of butterfish fishing mortality. Measures that reduce the
discarding of butterfish are expected to also reduce the bycatch of
other finfish species in MSB fisheries.
Initially, Amendment 9 to the MSB FMP was intended to bring the MSB
FMP into compliance with Magnuson-Stevens Act bycatch requirements, and
contained several management alternatives to address deficiencies in
the FMP that related to discarding, especially as they affected
butterfish. Amendment 9 considered management measures to reduce
finfish discards by MSB fisheries by implementing mesh size increases
in the directed Loligo fishery, removing mesh size exemptions for the
directed Illex squid (Illex) fishery, and establishing seasonal gear
restricted areas (GRAs). However, those specific management
alternatives were developed in 2004, prior to the butterfish stock
being declared overfished. On June 13, 2007, the Council recommended
that all management measures developed as part of Amendment 9 to
correct deficiencies in the FMP related to bycatch of finfish,
especially butterfish, be considered in Amendment 10. Accordingly, no
action was taken in Amendment 9 to address bycatch, and these
alternatives were evaluated in Amendment 10.
The Council held three public meetings on Amendment 10 during June
2008. Following the public comment period that ended on June 23, 2008,
the Council adopted Amendment 10 on October 16, 2008.
This action proposes management measures that were recommended by
the Council as part of Amendment 10. If implemented, these management
measures would:
Establish a minimum mesh size increase to 2-1/8 inches (54
mm) (from 1-7/8 inches (48 mm)) for the Loligo fishery during
Trimesters I (Jan - Apr) and III (Sep - Dec), starting in 2010;
Establish a butterfish mortality cap program for the
Loligo fishery, starting in 2011;
Establish a 72-hr trip notification requirement for the
Loligo fishery, to facilitate the placement of NMFS observers on Loligo
trips, starting in 2011; and
Require an annual assessment of the butterfish mortality
cap program by the Council's SSC and, if necessary, implementation of
additional butterfish rebuilding measures through the annual
specifications process.
A Notice of Availability (NOA) for Amendment 10 was published on
July 14, 2009. The comment period on Amendment 10 ends on September 14,
2009.
Proposed Measures
Minimum Codend Mesh Size Increase for the Loligo Fishery
The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that conservation and management
measures, to the extent practicable, minimize bycatch, and to the
extent that bycatch cannot be avoided, minimize the mortality of such
bycatch. Of the three active MSB fisheries (i.e., Loligo, Illex, and
Atlantic mackerel), the discarding of non-target species, especially
butterfish, is highest in the Loligo fishery. During 2001-2006, the
Loligo fishery was responsible for the following percentages of
observed discards: 68 percent of butterfish, 8 percent of scup, 56
percent of silver hake, 31 percent of red hake, 10 percent of spiny
dogfish, 8 percent of striped bass, and 7 percent of summer flounder.
To bring the MSB FMP into compliance with Magnuson-Stevens Act bycatch
requirements, Amendment 10 considered minimum codend mesh size
increases for the Loligo fishery from 1-7/8 inches (48 mm) to a range
from 2-1/8 inches (54 mm) to 3 inches (76 mm).
Amendment 10 indicates that increases to Loligo codend mesh size
would increase escapement of most non-target species in proportion to
the size of the mesh increase. Increases in escapement of non-target
species ultimately reduces discarding of non-target species. The
largest reduction in bycatch would come from increasing the minimum
mesh size to 3 inches (76 mm); less bycatch reduction would result from
smaller mesh size increases (either 2-1/8 inches (54 mm) or 2-1/2
inches (64 mm)), or an increase that is only in effect for part of the
year. Increased harvest effort to compensate for increased escapement
of Loligo through the larger mesh is a potential effect of increasing
mesh size, and has the potential to increase with mesh size.
Certain characteristics of the trawl gear used in the Loligo
fishery result in an effective mesh size that is actually smaller than
the specified codend mesh size. The codend's diamond-shaped mesh
becomes constricted when towed under load stress and reduces the
effective mesh size of the gear. Additionally, the cover (minium mesh
size of 4-1/2 inches (11.43 cm)) used to strengthen the codend in this
volume fishery creates a masking effect and may further reduce the
effective mesh size. While the Loligo codend mesh size increase was
originally proposed for general bycatch reduction in the MSB fisheries,
a minimum codend mesh size increase could also aid in rebuilding the
butterfish stock.
There are no published gear studies of Loligo selectivity;
therefore, quantifying the Loligo retention effects associated with the
different mesh sizes is difficult. Studies of other squid species
suggest that squid, like fish, are size-selected by gear. However,
Loligo growth studies suggest that Loligo retention has the potential
to increase during the year, due to the rapid growth rate of squid. If
Loligo escapement occurs, survival rates are unknown. As long as
significant escapement mortality does not occur, increasing codend mesh
size in the Loligo fishery is not anticipated to increase the harvest
mortality on the Loligo stock, because harvesting would continue to be
controlled by trimester quotas. Amendment 10 proposes a minimum codend
mesh size increase for the Loligo fishery from 1-7/8 inches (48 mm) to
2-1/8 inches (54 mm). Of the mesh sizes considered in the amendment, a
minimum mesh size increase to 2-1/8 inches (54 mm) is anticipated to
result in the least additional escapement of bycatch and Loligo.
However, larger mesh size increases were deemed impracticable by the
Council.
When evaluating the effect of a Loligo minimum codend mesh size
increase on butterfish rebuilding, the amendment concludes that only a
codend mesh size increase to 3 inches (76 mm) would provide for
escapement of juvenile butterfish and a portion of the spawning stock.
Codend mesh size increases to less than 3 inches (76 mm) would
facilitate escapement of some juvenile butterfish, but not many of the
spawning stock. Therefore, as a stand-alone measure, a minimum codend
mesh size increase to 2-1/8 inches (54 mm) for the Loligo fishery would
be less
[[Page 45599]]
likely to both enable butterfish rebuilding and ensure the long-term
sustainability of the butterfish resource, as compared to a minimum
mesh size increase to 3 inches (76 mm).
Originally, the amendment considered a year-round minimum codend
mesh size increase for the Loligo fishery. During public comment on the
amendment, industry members expressed concern that economic effects
associated with additional harvest effort due to a minimum codend mesh
size increase during Trimester II (May-August) could be high because of
Loligo's reduced body size during that period, following summer
spawning. Additionally, industry members commented that discarding was
generally low during Trimester II. Analyses in the amendment support
the industry's beliefs that discarding of butterfish and other finfish
is low during Trimester II. For these reasons, Amendment 10 proposes
that the minimum mesh size increase for the Loligo fishery only be in
effect for Trimesters I and III. The Loligo quota allocated to
Trimester II is only 17 percent of the annual quota, so even if the
mesh size increase would not be in effect for Trimester II, it would
still be in effect during the harvesting of over 80 percent of the
quota.
Given the lack of gear selectivity information on Loligo, Amendment
10 proposes that the best way to comply with the Magnuson-Stevens Act
requirement to minimize bycatch in MSB fisheries, to the extent
practicable, is to proceed with a modest codend mesh size increase and
then re-evaluate the effects of the minimum codend mesh size increase
after the measure has been effective for 2 years. The evaluation would
examine Northeast Fisheries Observer Program (NEFOP) catch rate data,
before and after the mesh size increase, for both Loligo and non-target
species, as well as any other new scientific information (e.g., gear
selectivity information). The results of the evaluation would be used
to maintain or revise minimum codend mesh size requirements for the
Loligo fishery through the MSB specifications process.
Butterfish Rebuilding Program
Status of the Butterfish Stock
In 2004, the 38th Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop
(SAW-38) provided estimates of butterfish fishing mortality and stock
biomass estimates through 2002, and determined that butterfish was
overfished. Although the butterfish assessment stock size estimate was
highly imprecise (80 percent confidence interval ranged from 2,600 mt
to 10,900 mt), the overfished determination was based on the fact that
the 2002 biomass estimate for butterfish (7,800 mt) was below the
threshold level defining the stock as overfished (\1/2\ BMSY
=11,400 mt). The next butterfish stock assessment is scheduled for
November 2009.
SAW-38 advised that rebuilding of the butterfish stock will be
dependent upon increases in recruitment, which recently has been low to
intermediate. Rebuilding is further complicated because the natural
mortality rate of butterfish is high, butterfish have a short lifespan,
and fishing mortality is primarily attributed to discards (discards
have been estimated to equal twice the annual landings). Analyses have
shown that the primary source of butterfish discards is the Loligo
fishery because of the use of small-mesh, diamond codends (1-7/8-inches
(48-mm) minimum codend mesh size) and the year-round, co-occurrence of
butterfish and Loligo. Likely due to the lack of a market for
butterfish and sporadic butterfish availability, there has not been a
significant butterfish fishery since 2002 (recent annual landings have
been 437-544 mt), resulting in the discard of both butterfish juveniles
and spawning stock. In order to rebuild the butterfish stock, a
reduction of the amount of butterfish discards and an increase in
butterfish recruitment are both necessary.
Butterfish Rebuilding Projections
The Amendment 10 Fishery Management Action Team (FMAT) attempted to
update the model used in the SAW-38 stock assessment to estimate
recruitment and stock rebuilding for butterfish. However, because of
limited data on the age composition of butterfish catch from 2002 to
present, due to the absence of a directed fishery, it was not possible
to update the model. Therefore, in consultation with the Council's SSC,
the FMAT used an auto-regressive (AR) time-series model to forecast
recruitment biomass for stock recovery. The AR model was used to
forecast recruit biomass during 2007-2016; these forecasted recruitment
data were used in a projection to determine if and when the butterfish
stock would rebuild. To simulate a bycatch-only fishery (i.e., minimal
directed fishing, discards as the primary source of fishing mortality),
a fishing mortality rate (F) of 0.1 was found appropriate to project
the biomass of butterfish during 2005-2016. Using an F of 0.1, and an
estimate of long-term average recruitment, results from the AR model
indicated that the butterfish stock could rebuild to above BMSY (22,800
mt) in 2007, and remain above the target level of BMSY during 2007-
2016. While these projections suggest that the butterfish stock can
rebuild quickly, they do not represent stock status and, like the SAW-
38 butterfish stock biomass estimate, the projection estimates are
likely highly imprecise.
Determination of Butterfish Quotas
The rebuilding program proposed in Amendment 10 specifies that,
during the rebuilding period, quotas would be set through the
specifications process and would conform to the following control rule:
Allowable Biological Catch (ABC) would equal the yield associated with
applying an F of 0.1 to the most current estimate of stock biomass.
Butterfish stock status determinations and reference points status
would be determined periodically through the SAW process. During years
without updated SAW assessments, butterfish stock biomass would be
annually estimated during the specifications process by updating the
stock assessment model with current year data, including Northeast
Fisheries Science Center survey data, NEFOP data, and landings data.
The process for annually estimating the butterfish stock biomass would
be documented in a technical summary report. Once the stock is
determined to be rebuilt, ABC would be specified according to the
fishing mortality control rule currently specified in the FMP (i.e.,
the yield associated with 75 percent FMSY). Initial Optimum Yield
(IOY), Domestic Annual Harvesting (DAH) and Domestic Annual Processing
(DAP) would continue to be specified as they are currently, with DAH
equaling the amount available for landings after the deduction of
estimated discards from ABC. This process may be modified to more
explicitly account for scientific and management uncertainty in the
Council's Omnibus Annual Catch Limit and Accountability Measure
Amendment, expected to be implemented in 2011.
Butterfish Mortality Cap
As described previously, there has been no significant butterfish
fishery since 2002. In the absence of a directed fishery, butterfish
fishing mortality is primarily the result of discarding in other
fisheries. The year-round co-occurrence of Loligo and butterfish
results in over half of all observed butterfish discards occurring in
the Loligo fishery. For this reason, Amendment 10 proposes that a
mortality cap be set to control the amount of butterfish fishing
mortality in
[[Page 45600]]
the Loligo fishery. Because the butterfish mortality cap would account
for all butterfish caught by the Loligo fishery (discards as well as
landings), the mortality cap is specified to equal 75 percent of the
butterfish ABC. The remaining 25 percent of the butterfish ABC would be
allocated for butterfish catch in other fisheries, including trips
landing less than 2,500 lb (1.13 mt) of Loligo.
Harvesting in the Loligo squid fishery is currently regulated under
a commercial quota, which is allocated by trimester (Jan-Apr; May-Aug;
Sept-Dec). During each trimester, if Loligo landings are projected to
reach a specified level, the directed Loligo fishery is closed, and
vessels with Loligo permits are prohibited from landing more than 2,500
lb (1.13 mt) of Loligo. The butterfish mortality cap proposed in
Amendment 10 would also require the closure of the directed Loligo
fishery if the butterfish mortality cap is attained.
Amendment 10 indicates that the butterfish mortality cap would
limit the fishing mortality on butterfish spawning stock and juveniles,
thereby improving the likelihood of increasing recruitment and
rebuilding and maintaining the butterfish stock. The amendment also
concludes that the butterfish mortality cap for the Loligo fishery is
the most effective measure to rebuild the butterfish stock, as it is
currently the only way to directly control butterfish fishing mortality
and allow for the reduction in butterfish bycatch that will promote
rebuilding of the stock.
In addition to being an effective rebuilding measure for the
butterfish stock, the butterfish mortality cap would provide the Loligo
industry with incentives to reduce interactions with butterfish. During
the development of Amendment 10, industry advisors indicated that they
are able to prosecute the Loligo fishery with minimal associated
bycatch of butterfish. Should modified fishing practices reduce
interactions between the Loligo fishery and butterfish, then Loligo
harvest may only be minimally affected by the butterfish mortality cap.
Since the Loligo quota is allocated by trimester, Amendment 10
proposes that the butterfish mortality cap for the Loligo fishery also
be allocated by trimester. Observer data would be used to allocate the
butterfish mortality cap to the trimesters based on butterfish bycatch
rates in the Loligo fishery. Therefore, the butterfish mortality cap
would be allocated to the Loligo fishery as follows: Trimester I - 65
percent; Trimester II - 3.3 percent; Trimester III - 31.7 percent.
Originally, Amendment 10 proposed that butterfish mortality caps
would be monitored during all three Loligo trimesters, with closures of
the Loligo fishery if the mortality cap was projected to be attained.
However, based on input during public hearings, the Council modified
this provision in Amendment 10. Amendment 10 would close the directed
Loligo fishery during Trimesters I and III, if the butterfish mortality
cap was harvested, but would not close during Trimester II. Because the
butterfish mortality cap allocated to Trimester II is relatively small
(3.3 percent of the total butterfish mortality cap) and butterfish
bycatch during Trimester II has historically been low, closure
predictions would be based on limited data and would be variable. To
minimize uncertainty associated with closing the directed Loligo
fishery during Trimester II, Amendment 10 proposes that the butterfish
mortality cap be tracked during Trimester II, but that butterfish catch
and the mortality cap for Trimester II be applied to Trimester III.
Therefore, operationally, the butterfish mortality caps from Trimesters
II and III would be combined, such that 35 percent of the total
butterfish morality cap would be tracked during Trimester III.
Additionally, any overages/underages from the butterfish mortality cap
during Trimester I would be applied to Trimester III. As a precaution
against exceeding the butterfish quota, Amendment 10 also proposes that
closure thresholds be established for the butterfish mortality cap by
trimester. Therefore, closures of the directed Loligo fishery would
occur if 80 percent of the butterfish mortality cap for Trimester I was
projected to be harvested, and/or if 90 percent of the cap for
Trimester III was projected to be harvested. If Trimester II bycatch
levels are high, reducing the butterfish mortality cap for Trimester
III, the Council could recommend the in-season closure mechanism for
Trimester II in future specifications. Exempting the Loligo fishery
from a closure in response to butterfish bycatch during Trimester II is
not expected to undermine the butterfish rebuilding program's ability
to control the fishing mortality of butterfish, because all bycatch is
tracked and applied to the butterfish mortality cap for Trimester III.
As such, there should be no negative biological impacts related to the
modification of this measure.
The butterfish mortality cap will be monitored by NMFS's Fishery
Statistics Office (FSO). Butterfish catch data from observed trips with
2,500 lb (1.13 mt) or more of Loligo onboard will be applied to Loligo
landings (2,500 lb (1,134 kg) or more) in the dealer database to
calculate total butterfish catch in the Loligo fishery. When butterfish
catch in the Loligo fishery is projected to reach the specified
trimester closure thresholds, the directed Loligo fishery would close.
The exact projection methodology will be developed by FSO, reviewed
annually during the MSB specifications process, and be revised as
appropriate.
While an industry-funded observer program was considered by the
Council, analyses in Amendment 10 demonstrate that status quo levels of
observer coverage would be sufficient for the purpose of administering
the butterfish mortality cap. To facilitate the placement of observers
on Loligo trips, Amendment 10 proposes a trip notification requirement.
In order for a vessel to possess 2,500 lb (1.13 mt) or more of Loligo,
a vessel representative would be required to phone NMFS to request an
observer at least 72 hrs prior to embarking on a fishing trip. If the
vessel representative does not make this required trip notification to
NMFS, the vessel would be prohibited from possessing or landing more
than 2,500 lb (1,134 kg) of Loligo. If a vessel is selected by NMFS to
carry an observer, the vessel would be required to carry an observer
(provided an observer is available) or the vessel would be prohibited
from possessing or landing more than 2,500 lb (1,134 kg) of Loligo. If
a trip is cancelled, a vessel representative would be required to
notify NMFS of the cancelled trip (even if the vessel was not selected
to carry an observer). If a vessel representative cancels a trip after
its vessel was selected to carry an observer, that vessel would be
assigned an observer on its next trip.
The SSC would annually review the performance of the butterfish
mortality cap program during the specification process. The items
considered by the SSC would include, but arenot limited to the:
Coefficient of variation (CV) of the butterfish bycatch estimate;
estimate of butterfish mortality; and status and trend of the
butterfish stock. If the CV of the butterfish mortality estimate or
another butterfish mortality cap performance parameter is found to be
unacceptable by the SSC, NEFOP will be consulted to evaluate if
observer coverage could be increased to acceptable levels. If
increasing NEFOP coverage is not possible, the Council would next
consider implementation of an industry funded observer program in a
subsequent action. If increased observer coverage proves impractical or
ineffective, the SSC could recommend
[[Page 45601]]
one or more of following for the upcoming fishing year:
(1) Modification to the Loligo quota;
(2) Modification to the butterfish quota;
(3) Increases to minimum codend mesh size for the Loligo fishery;
(4) Establishing GRAs; or
(5) Establishing any measure that could be implemented via the MSB
specification process.
If the Council does not adopt the SSC recommendations, then NMFS
would implement measures through the MSB annual specifications process
to assure the rebuilding of the butterfish stock, consistent with
existing MSB regulations at Sec. 648.2(d)(2).
As previously described, in conjunction with the butterfish
mortality cap, 25 percent of the butterfish ABC would be allocated for
direct harvest and discard mortality in other fisheries. Butterfish
landings and observed discards in other fisheries would be monitored by
FSO, but would not result in fisheries closures. These data would be
reviewed as part of the annual assessment of the performance of the
butterfish mortality cap program during the specification process. If
butterfish landings and observed discards in other fisheries are found
to exceed the 25 percent of the butterfish ABC, then the allocation of
the butterfish quota between the Loligo fishery and other fisheries
would be revised, or other measures (e.g., reduced trip limits) would
be implemented to constrain the other fisheries to 25 percent of the
butterfish ABC.
The process for closing the directed butterfish fishing would be
status quo (fishery closure at 80 percent of IOY). All butterfish
landings would count against the butterfish quota to determine when the
directed butterfish fishery is closed. Projected landings would be
based on dealer data and would be monitored weekly. If the directed
butterfish fishery is closed, vessels with Loligo/butterfish moratorium
permits would be subject to the closure-related incidental trip limits
set in the specifications.
Butterfish Rebuilding Program Timeline
Amendment 10 proposes a 5-year butterfish rebuilding program; the
rebuilding program would extend from 2010 to 2014. Section 304(e) of
the Magnuson-Steven Act specifies that rebuilding periods for
overfished species be as short as possible, taking into account the
biology of the stock and the needs of fishing communities. Butterfish
rebuilding periods of 7 and 10 years were considered by the Council,
but rejected because the biology of the stock allows for rapid
rebuilding. Rebuilding periods of less than 5 years were rejected by
the Council due to the potential for negative economic effects
associated with a compressed rebuilding schedule. A 5-year rebuilding
program is proposed to balance Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements while
considering the biology of the stock and the needs of fishing
communities. Even though the proposed butterfish rebuilding plan is a
5-year plan, the primary measures of the rebuilding plan, such as the
butterfish mortality cap and minimum codend mesh size increase for the
Loligo fishery, would need to be permanent to ensure long-term
sustainability of the butterfish stock.
During Year 1 (2010) of the rebuilding program, the 2009 quotas
would be maintained (ABC specification for butterfish at 1,500 mt;
landings limited to 500 mt). Butterfish landings would be monitored and
the butterfish fishery would be closed when landings are projected to
reach 80 percent of the butterfish quota. Additionally, as described
previously, the minimum codend mesh size requirement for the Loligo
fishery would be increased from 1-7/8 inches (48 mm) to 2-1/8 inches
(54 mm) during Trimesters I and III. The goal of the rebuilding plan
during Year 1 would be to further butterfish rebuilding by keeping
landings levels low, thereby discouraging a directed fishery, and by
increasing some escapement of juvenile butterfish with a minimum codend
mesh size increase up to 2-1/8 inches (54 mm). During Year 2 (2011) of
the rebuilding program, in addition to management measures effective
during Year 1 of the rebuilding plan, the butterfish mortality cap for
the Loligo fishery would be implemented. The butterfish mortality cap
for the Loligo fishery would directly control the butterfish landings
and discards (of all ages) in the Loligo fishery, the primary source of
butterfish fishing mortality, and facilitate rebuilding of the stock
and protection of the rebuilt stock.
The rebuilding program in Amendment 10 is expected to rebuild the
butterfish stock within the 5-year rebuilding period. This conclusion
is supported by the SSC-reviewed AR model, which suggests that the
butterfish stock is able to rebuild within 1 year, provided long-term
average recruitment occurs and F is kept at 0.1. Assuming future
butterfish recruitment is similar to butterfish recruitment seen during
1968-2002, implementing the butterfish mortality cap in 2011 achieves
an 88-percent probability of at least one large recruitment event
occurring during years 2-5 of the butterfish rebuilding period. If the
butterfish mortality cap is implemented in 2010, then the probability
of at least one large recruitment event occurring during years 1-5 of
the rebuilding period rises to 94 percent. In other words, implementing
the butterfish mortality cap in 2011, rather than 2010, increases the
risk of failing to take advantage of a good recruitment event (from 6
percent to 12 percent).
The Council recommended the 5-year rebuilding timeline, in part,
due to concerns that the SAW-38 stock estimate for 2002 would have to
be used to set the butterfish mortality cap for 2010. Best available
science suggests that the butterfish stock size has been highly
variable during 1968-2002. Using the SAW-38 assessment data, the
butterfish mortality cap for the Loligo fishery would be fairly low
(approximately 580 mt for Trimester I, and 320 mt for Trimester III)
and could result in closures of the Loligo fishery. If the butterfish
mortality cap is set too low, given the current butterfish stock
conditions, the measure could have unnecessarily severe economic
effects on the Loligo fishery. Because a butterfish stock assessment is
scheduled for November 2009, Amendment 10 proposes using the updated
stock information when specifying a butterfish mortality cap for the
Loligo fishery. A 2011 implementation of the butterfish mortality cap
would allow the updated butterfish stock estimate to be used when
setting the butterfish mortality cap, but the updated stock estimate
would not yet be available when setting a butterfish mortality cap for
2010.
In addition, the rebuilding program specifies that the minimum
codend mesh size increase for the Loligo fishery would be implemented
prior to the butterfish mortality cap. Amendment 10 proposes using a
weighted average of the current and the previous year's data for to
track the butterfish mortality cap for the Loligo fishery. If the
butterfish mortality cap were to be implemented in 2010, then 2009 data
(i.e., data prior to the implementation of the mesh size increase)
would be used to calculate the butterfish mortality cap. Because the
mesh size increase is expected to increase the escapement of juvenile
butterfish, the Council thought it inappropriate to use data from 2009,
when much of the industry used a smaller minimum codend mesh size, to
calculate/track the butterfish mortality cap harvested by a fishery
required to use gear with a larger mesh size. By implementing the
butterfish mortality cap in 2011, the data used to monitor the
butterfish mortality cap would better
[[Page 45602]]
reflect the new 2-1/8-inch (54-mm) codend mesh size requirement.
Corrections
This proposed rule also contains minor corrections to existing
regulations. These corrections would not revise the intent of any
regulations; they would only clarify the intent of existing regulations
by correcting technical errors. In Sec. 648.48.13(a), transfer-at-sea
requirements for squid and butterfish would be revised to omit
references to a mackerel permit. In Sec. 648.14(g)(2)(ii)(C), the
reference to possession allowances would be corrected. In Sec.
648.21(f)(1), the description of Loligo trimesters would be corrected.
Lastly, in Sec. 648.25(a), possession restrictions for mackerel would
be revised to omit references to the butterfish fishery.
Public comments are being solicited on Amendment 10 and its
incorporated documents through the end of the comment period, September
14, 2009, stated in the NOA for Amendment 10 (74 FR 33986). All
comments received by September 14, 2009, whether specifically directed
to Amendment 10 or this proposed rule, will be considered in the
approval/disapproval decision on Amendment 10. Public comments must be
received by September 14, 2009, to be considered in the approval/
disapproval decision on the amendment. Comments received after 5 pm,
eastern standard time, will not be considered in the decision to
approve or disapprove Amendment 10. Public comments on this proposed
rule must be received no later than 5 p.m., eastern standard time, on
October 19, 2009.
Classification
Pursuant to section 304 (b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS
has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the FMP,
other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law,
subject to further consideration after public comment.
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
The Council prepared an FSEIS for Amendment 10; a notice of
availability was published on July 2, 2009 (74 FR 31733). The FSEIS
describes the impacts of the proposed Amendment 10 measures on the
environment. The proposed measure to increase minimum codend mesh size
from 1-7/8 inches (48 mm) to 2-1/8 inches (54 mm) for the Loligo
fishery during Trimesters I (Jan-Apr) and III (Sep-Dec) would minimize
bycatch and discards of non-target species to the extent practicable,
including butterfish, an overfished species. Loss of revenue due to
increased Loligo escapement associated with the mesh size increase
would depend on the actual amount of Loligo escapement, but revenue
loss would be mitigated because the mesh size increase would not be
effective during Trimester II. The proposed measure to establish a
butterfish mortality cap for the Loligo fishery would aid in the
rebuilding of the butterfish stocks by directly controlling butterfish
fishing mortality. If the butterfish mortality cap is attained and the
Loligo fishery closes, bycatch of butterfish and other non-target
species would be reduced. Loss of revenue is possible if the Loligo
quota could not be harvested because the fishery was closed in response
to butterfish bycatch. As the butterfish stock rebuilds and the
butterfish mortality cap increases as the stock size increases, the
likelihood of lost Loligo revenue associated with the butterfish
mortality cap is expected to decrease. The requirement that vessels
notify NMFS 72 hrs prior to embarking on a Loligo fishing trip is an
administrative measure, but it is anticipated to have biological
benefits by enhancing observer coverage of the Loligo fishery. The
annual review of the butterfish mortality cap program is expected to
have both biological and economic benefits by allowing new information
(e.g., changes in stock estimates or bycatch rates) to be quickly
incorporated into the management process for butterfish.
An IRFA was prepared, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA). The IRFA describes the economic impact this
proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A description
of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this
action are contained at the beginning of this section in the preamble
and in the SUMMARY section of the preamble. A summary of the analysis
follows. A copy of this analysis is available from the Council or NMFS
(see ADDRESSES).
Description and Estimate of Number of Small Entities to Which the Rule
Would Apply
The majority of participants in this fishery are small entities, as
only 2 grossed more than $4 million annually; therefore, there are no
disproportionate economic impacts on small entities. The proposed
measures in Amendment 10 would primarily affect vessels that
participate in the Loligo fishery. In 2009, there were 426 vessels
issued Loligo/butterfish moratorium permits. Section 10.10.14 in
Amendment 10 describes the vessels, key ports, and revenue information
for the Loligo fishery; therefore, that information is not repeated
here.
Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements
This action proposes a trip notification requirement for the Loligo
fishery. The rationale for and description of the measure is included
in the preamble of this rule; therefore, that information is not
repeated here. The phone call to NMFS to declare a Loligo fishing trip
is expected to be less than 2 min in duration. If a vessel
representative cancels a declared fishing trip, then a trip
cancellation call to NMFS would also be required. The 426 vessels
issued Loligo permits in 2009 averaged 12 Loligo trips per year;
therefore, each of these permit holders could average about 12 calls
per year. Assuming each trip could be cancelled, permit holders could
also place an average of 12 additional calls per year. The estimated
duration of the cancellation call is expected to be less than 1 min.
The cost of these calls would vary, based on where the calls
originated, but cost is expected to be minimal. This trip notification
requirement does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other
Federal rules.
Economic Impacts of the Proposed Action Compared to Significant Non-
Selected Alternatives
Some of the proposed measures (e.g., trip notification, minimum
mesh size increase, annual assessment of butterfish mortality cap
program) in Amendment 10 are expected to have economic impacts. A
detailed economic analysis of the proposed measures, as well as the
non-selected alternatives, is in Section 7.5.1 of Amendment 10.
Two of the proposed measures in Amendment 10 are not anticipated to
have more than minimal economic effects on MSB fishery participants.
The requirement that vessels notify NMFS 72 hrs prior to embarking on a
Loligo fishing trip is an administrative measure to facilitate the
placement of observers aboard the Loligo fleet. As described
previously, the economic burden on fishery participants associated with
this measure is expected to be minimal. This rule also proposes that
the butterfish mortality cap be reviewed by the Council's SSC on an
annual basis, and that modifications to the butterfish mortality cap be
implemented through the MSB specifications process. This measure is
also administrative and would have only minimal economic effects on
fishery participants.
[[Page 45603]]
Implementing a 2-1/8-inches (54-mm) minimum codend mesh size
requirement for the Loligo fishery is expected to have a larger
economic effect on fishery participants than the no action alternative
(maintaining the 1-7/8-inches (48-mm) minimum mesh size requirement),
but less of an economic effect than implementing any of the other
action alternatives (minimum mesh size requirements of 2-3/8 inches (60
mm), 2-1/2 inches (64 mm), or 3 inches (76 mm)). The factors considered
in evaluating economic effects of the action alternatives are the cost
of replacing a codend and the loss in revenue that may result from
increased harvest effort due to Loligo escapement through the larger
mesh. While the cost of replacing a codend may be substantial, fishery
participants routinely replace codends and, as such, the cost of a
codend with a larger minimum mesh size may not be a significant
additional cost. Replacing a codend can cost approximately between $200
and $700, depending on the size of the net. Notifying fishery
participants well in advance of regulatory changes may allow
participants to plan purchases, thereby minimizing costs associated
with a replacement codend. The cost of replacement codends is not
anticipated to vary by mesh size among the action alternatives.
The loss of revenue associated with increased harvest effort due to
Loligo escapement is difficult to quantify. There are no published gear
studies of Loligo selectivity; therefore, quantifying the Loligo
retention associated with the different mesh sizes is difficult.
Studies of other squid species suggest that squid, like fish, are size-
selected by gear. Given this, it could be expected that economic
effects associated with the action alternatives increase with mesh
size. Economic effects associated with an increased minimum mesh size
for the Loligo fishery are mitigated because the mesh size increase
would not be in effect during Trimester II (May-Aug). The rapid growth
of Loligo may allow fishery participants to minimize Loligo escapement
by shifting fishing effort to later in the year, when larger squid
would have an increased retention rate.
Implementing a butterfish mortality cap for the Loligo fishery has
the potential for greater economic effects on fishery participants than
the no action alternative (no butterfish mortality cap). Under the
action alternatives, the Loligo fishery would close when the butterfish
mortality cap was harvested. If the Loligo fishery is closed in
response to butterfish bycatch before the entire Loligo fishery is
harvested, then a loss of revenue is possible. If the Loligo fishery
can be prosecuted with minimal butterfish bycatch and without
triggering the butterfish mortality cap, then there would be no
economic differences between the no action and action alternatives.
However, there may be additional costs associated with butterfish
avoidance strategies. The potential for Loligo revenue loss would be
dependent upon the size of the butterfish mortality cap. As described
previously, the butterfish mortality cap is determined based on the
level of butterfish abundance. As the butterfish stock rebuilds, the
mortality cap would increase and the potential for lost Loligo revenue
should decrease. When the butterfish stock rebuilds, a directed
butterfish fishery could resume, provided discards were kept low, and
would have economic benefits for fishery participants.
The economic effects on fishery participants between the action
alternatives (butterfish mortality cap allocated by trimester in the
same proportions as the Loligo quota, Loligo landings, or butterfish
bycatch rates) is anticipated to be minimal. However, because the
proposed action (butterfish morality cap based on butterfish bycatch
rates) best approximates existing fishery conditions, by considering
the ratio of butterfish caught to Loligo landed, it is anticipated that
the proposed action would be less constraining on the Loligo fishery
than the non-selected action alternatives, butterfish mortality caps
based on only Loligo information. As described in Section 7.5.1. of the
amendment, if the butterfish mortality cap is based on accurate
assumptions about the size of the butterfish stock and butterfish
bycatch rates by trimester, then potential Loligo revenue loss may be
relatively small ($1.0 million), with maximum losses per vessel
averaging 0.6 percent and ranging up to 4.1 percent. If assumptions
about butterfish stock size and bycatch rates are incorrect, then
potential Loligo revenue loss may be relatively large ($15.8 million),
with maximum losses per vessel averaging 9.1 percent and ranging up to
65 percent. These ranges assume equal distribution of losses based on
distributions of landings, but vessels with access to other fisheries
may target those fisheries to mitigate lost Loligo revenue.
As a tool to minimize bycatch, Amendment 10 considered eliminating
current exemptions from Loligo minimum mesh size requirements for the
Illex fishery. There is no minimum codend mesh size requirement for
vessels retaining Illex, but there is a 1-7/8-inch (48-mm) minimum mesh
size requirement for vessels retaining Loligo. Because squid species
can seasonally co-occur, during the months of June-September, the Illex
fishery is exempt from the Loligo minimum mesh size requirement on the
Illex fishing grounds (i.e., the area seaward of 50-fm (91.45-m) depth
contour) where Loligo is less often present. Because the Loligo fishery
accounts for more bycatch than the Illex fishery, the Council
recommended maintaining the current exemption to the Loligo minimum
mesh size requirement for the Illex fishery. The economic effects on
fishery participants of maintaining the no action alternative are
expected to be less than the economic effects associated with any of
the action alternatives (Illex exemption during June-August, Illex
exemption during June-July, discontinuation of Illex exemption).
Similar to the economic effects associated with the proposed increase
to the minimum mesh size for Loligo, costs to Illex fishery
participants associated with any of the action alternatives would
include replacement codends and increased harvesting effort due to
Illex escapement. While the cost of replacing a codend may be
substantial, fishery participants routinely replace codends and, as
such, the cost of a codend with a larger minimum mesh size may not be a
significant additional cost. Additionally, the rapid growth of Illex
could allow fishery participants to minimize Illex escapement by
shifting effort to later in the year, when larger squid would have an
increased retention rate.
Lastly, Amendment 10 considered establishing GRAs to reduce
butterfish discards in MSB fisheries. The action alternatives included
four GRAs, to be effective during January-April, that varied by minimum
codend mesh size requirements (i.e., 3 inches (76 mm) or 3-3/4 inches
(96 mm)) and effective area (i.e., area accounting for 50 percent or 90
percent of MSB discards). Because the GRAs are limited in temporal and
geographic scope, the Council concluded they were not a viable solution
to butterfish discarding in MSB fisheries and did not recommend
establishing butterfish GRAs (no action alternative). Establishing GRAs
would likely have resulted in shifts in the distribution of fishing
effort with biological effects that would be difficult to predict.
Based on average annual revenue from trips that would be affected by
GRAs, potential economic effects associated with the action
alternatives per vessel ranged from revenue losses of $498,000-
$559,000. However, given that fishing vessels are
[[Page 45604]]
flexible in their fishing practices, these losses would most likely not
be fully realized.
This proposed rule contains a collection-of-information requirement
subject to review and approval by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This requirement has
been submitted to OMB for approval. Public reporting burden for a trip
notification requirement for the Loligo fishery is estimated to average
3 min per response, including the time for reviewing instructions,
searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data
needed, and completing and reviewing the collection information.
Public comment is sought regarding: Whether this proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall
have practical utility; the accuracy of the burden estimate; ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be
collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Send comments on
these or any other aspects of the collection of information to NMFS,
Northeast Regional Office at the ADDRESSES above, and to David Rostker
by e-mail David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov or fax (202) 395-7285.
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is
required to respond to, and no person shall be subject to penalty for
failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays
a currently valid OMB control number.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648
Fisheries, Fishing, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
Dated: August 28, 2009
James W. Balsiger,
Acting Assistant Administrator For Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is
proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 648--FISHERIES OF THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES
1. The authority citation for part 648 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
2. In Sec. 648.13, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 648.13 Transfers at sea.
(a) Only vessels issued a Loligo and butterfish moratorium or Illex
moratorium permit under Sec. 648.4(a)(5) and vessels issued a squid/
butterfish incidental catch permit and authorized in writing by the
Regional Administrator to do so, may transfer or attempt to transfer
Loligo, Illex, or butterfish from one vessel to another vessel.
* * * * *
3. In Sec. 648.14, paragraph (g)(1)(iii) is added and paragraph
(g)(2)(ii)(C) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 648.14 Prohibitions.
* * * * *
(g) ***
(1) ***
(iii) Observer requirements for Loligo fishery. Fail to comply with
any of the provisions specified in Sec. 648.26.
* * * * *
(2) ***
(ii) ***
(C) Take, retain, possess or land mackerel, squid, or butterfish in
excess of a possession allowance specified in Sec. 648.25.
* * * * *
4. In Sec. 648.21, paragraphs (a)(2) and (f)(1) are revised, and
paragraphs (b)(3)(iii) and (b)(3)(iv) are added to read as follows:
Sec. 648.21 Procedures for determining initial annual amounts.
(a) * * *
(2) IOY, including RQ, DAH, DAP, butterfish mortality cap for the
Loligo fishery, and bycatch level of the total allowable level of
foreign fishing (TALFF), if any, for butterfish, which, subject to
annual review, may be specified for a period of up to 3 years;
* * * * *
(b)* * *
(3) * * *
(iii) The butterfish mortality cap will be allocated to the Loligo
fishery as follows: Trimester I - 65 percent; Trimester II - 3.3
percent; and Trimester III - 31.7 percent.
(iv) Any underages of the butterfish mortality cap for Trimesters I
or II will be applied to Trimester III of the same year, and any
overages of the butterfish mortality cap for Trimesters I and II will
be applied to Trimester III of the same year.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(1) A commercial quota will be allocated annually for Loligo squid
into trimester periods based on the following percentages: Trimester I
(January-April) - 43.0 percent; Trimester II (May-August) - 17.0
percent; and Trimester III (September-December) - 40.0 percent.
* * * * *
5. In Sec. 648.22, paragraph (a)(5) is added to read as follows:
Sec. 648.22 Closure of the fishery.
(a)* * *
(5) NMFS shall close the directed fishery in the EEZ for Loligo
when the Regional Administrator projects that 80 percent of the
butterfish mortality cap is harvested in Trimester I and/or 90 percent
of the butterfish mortality cap is harvested in Trimester III.
* * * * *
6. In Sec. 648.23, paragraphs (a)(3) introductory text and
(a)(3)(i) are revised to read as follows:
Sec. 648.23 Gear restrictions.
(a) * * *
(3) Owners or operators of otter trawl vessels possessing Loligo
harvested in or from the EEZ may only fish with nets having a minimum
mesh size of 2-1/8 inches (54 mm), during Trimesters I (Jan-Apr) and
III (Sept-Dec), or 1-7/8 inches (48 mm), during Trimester II (May-Aug),
diamond mesh, inside stretch measure, applied throughout the codend for
at least 150 continuous meshes forward of the terminus of the net, or
for codends with less than 150 meshes, the minimum mesh size codend
shall be a minimum of one-third of the net measured from the terminus
of the codend to the headrope, unless they are fishing consistent with
exceptions specified in paragraph (b) of this section.
(i) Net obstruction or constriction. Owners or operators of otter
trawl vessels fishing for and/or possessing Loligo shall not use any
device, gear, or material, including, but not limited to, nets, net
strengtheners, ropes, lines, or chafing gear, on the top of the
regulated portion of a trawl net that results in an effective mesh
opening of less than 2-1/8 inches (54 mm), during Trimesters I (Jan-
Apr) and III (Sept-Dec), or 1-7/8 inches (48 mm), during Trimester II
(May-Aug), diamond mesh, inside stretch measure. ``Top of the regulated
portion of the net'' means the 50 percent of the entire regulated
portion of the net that would not be in contact with the ocean bottom
if, during a tow, the regulated portion of the net were laid flat on
the ocean floor. However, owners or operators of otter trawl vessels
fishing for and/or possessing Loligo may use net strengtheners
(covers), splitting straps, and/or bull ropes or wire around the entire
circumference of the codend, provided they do not have a mesh opening
of less than 4-1/2 inches (11.43
[[Page 45605]]
cm) diamond mesh, inside stretch measure. For the purposes of this
requirement, head ropes are not to be considered part of the top of the
regulated portion of a trawl net.
* * * * *
7. In Sec. 648.25, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 648.25 Possession restrictions.
(a) Atlantic mackerel. During a closure of the directed Atlantic
mackerel fishery that occurs prior to June 1, vessels may not fish for,
possess, or land more than 20,000 lb (9.08 mt) of Atlantic mackerel per
trip at any time, and may only land Atlantic mackerel once on any
calendar day, which is defined as the 24 hr period beginning at 0001
hours and ending at 2400 hours. During a closure of the directed
fishery for mackerel that occurs on or after June 1, vessels may not
fish for, possess, or land more than 50,000 lb (22.7 mt) of Atlantic
mackerel per trip at any time, and may only land Atlantic mackerel once
on any calendar day.
* * * * *
8. Section 648.26 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 648.26 Observer requirements for the Loligo fishery.
(a) A vessel issued a Loligo and butterfish moratorium permit, as
specified at Sec. 648.4(a)(5)(i), must, for the purposes of observer
deployment, have a representative provide notice to NMFS of the vessel
name, contact name for coordination of observer deployment, telephone
number for contact; and the date, time, and port of departure, at least
72 hrs prior to beginning any fishing trip, unless it complies with the
possession restrictions in paragraph (c) of this section.
(b) If the vessel representative notifies NMFS of an upcoming trip,
and then that trip is cancelled, the representative is required to
provide notice to NMFS of the vessel name, contact name for
coordination of observer deployment, and telephone number for contact,
and the intended date, time, and port of departure for the cancelled
trip within 72 hrs of the initial notification.
(c) A vessel issued a Loligo and butterfish moratorium permit, as
specified at Sec. 648.4(a)(5)(i), that does not have a representative
provide the trip notification required in paragraph (a) of this section
is prohibited from fishing for, possessing, harvesting, or landing
2,500 lb (1.13 mt) or more of Loligo per trip at any time, and may only
land Loligo once on any calendar day, which is defined as the 24 hr
period beginning at 0001 hours and ending at 2400 hours.
(d) If a vessel issued a Loligo and butterfish moratorium permit,
as specified at Sec. 648.4(a)(5)(i), possesses, harvests, or lands
2,500 lb (1.13 mt) or more of Loligo per trip or per calendar day and
is selected by NMFS to carry an observer, but the trip selected for
observer coverage is cancelled, then that vessel is required to carry
an observer, provided an observer is available, on its next trip.
[FR Doc. E9-21322 Filed 9-2-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S