[Federal Register: December 15, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 240)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 74285-74288]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr15de05-26]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 648
[Docket No. 051130316-5316-01; I.D. 110905C]
RIN 0648-AT21
Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Herring
Fishery; 2006 Specifications
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed specifications; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS proposes specifications for the 2006 Atlantic herring
fishery, which are the same as the specifications implemented in 2005.
The regulations for the Atlantic herring fishery require NMFS to
publish specifications for the upcoming year and to provide an
opportunity for public comment. The intent of the specifications is to
conserve and manage the Atlantic herring resource and provide for a
sustainable fishery.
DATES: Comments must be received no later than 5 p.m., eastern standard
time, on January 17, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Copies of supporting documents, including the Environmental
Assessment, Regulatory Impact Review, Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (EA/RIR/IRFA), and Essential Fish Habitat Assessment are
available from Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, New England Fishery
Management Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950. The
EA/RIR/IRFA is also accessible via the Internet at http://www.nero.gov.
Written comments on the proposed rule may be sent by any of the
following methods:
Mail to Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, NMFS,
Northeast Regional Office, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930.
Mark the outside of the envelope ``Comments-2006 Herring
Specifications'';
Fax to Patricia A. Kurkul 978-281-9135;
E-mail to the following address: Herr2006Specs@noaa.gov.
Include in the subject line of the e-mail comment the following
document identifier: ``Comments-2006 Herring Specifications;'' or
Electronically through the Federal e-Rulemaking portal:
http://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric Jay Dolin, Fishery Policy
Analyst, 978-281-9259, e-mail at eric.dolin@noaa.gov, fax at 978-281-
9135.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Regulations implementing the Atlantic Herring Fishery Management
Plan (FMP) require the New England Fishery Management Council's
(Council) Atlantic Herring Plan Development Team (PDT) to meet at least
annually, no later than July each year, with the Atlantic States Marine
Fisheries Commission's (Commission) Atlantic Herring Plan Review Team
(PRT) to develop and recommend the following specifications for
consideration by the Council's Atlantic Herring Oversight Committee:
Allowable biological catch (ABC), optimum yield (OY), domestic annual
harvest (DAH), domestic annual processing (DAP), total foreign
processing (JVPt), joint venture
[[Page 74286]]
processing (JVP), internal waters processing (IWP), U.S. at-sea
processing (USAP), border transfer (BT), total allowable level of
foreign fishing (TALFF), and reserve (if any). The PDT and PRT also
recommend the total allowable catch (TAC) for each management area and
subarea identified in the FMP. As the basis for its recommendations,
the PDT reviews available data pertaining to: Commercial and
recreational catch; current estimates of fishing mortality; stock
status; recent estimates of recruitment; virtual population analysis
results and other estimates of stock size; sea sampling and trawl
survey data or, if sea sampling data are unavailable, length frequency
information from trawl surveys; impact of other fisheries on herring
mortality; and any other relevant information. Recommended
specifications are presented to the oversight committee and the Council
in order to make a recommendation to NMFS. NMFS reviews the Council
recommendation, and may modify it if necessary to insure that it is
consistent with the criteria in the FMP and other applicable laws.
In 2004, the Council proposed specifications that would have set OY
at 180,000 mt. It also voted to maintain the 2005 specifications for
2006, unless stock and fishery conditions changed substantially. Upon
review of the specifications package submitted by the Council for 2005,
NMFS decided that the justification for setting the OY at 180,000 mt
was not persuasive, given the recent history of landings in the fishery
and concerns about allocating TALFF. As a result, NMFS proposed setting
the OY at 150,000 mt, and readjusting the TACs in Areas 2 and 3 to
reflect that change. NMFS also did not find the Council's argument for
setting USAP at zero to be persuasive, noting that such an allocation
would favor one segment of the U.S. processing sector over another,
without any justifiable reasons based on conservation objectives. USAP
could also provide an additional outlet for harvesters and, therefore,
increase the benefits to the U.S. industry. As a result, NMFS proposed
setting USAP at 20,000 mt for 2005. The modified alternative proposed
by NMFS was added to and fully analyzed in the 2005 specification
package's EA/RIR/IRFA. That package analyzed and evaluated the
environmental, social, and economic impacts of maintaining the same
specifications for 2 years. The 2005 specifications assumed that the
PDT would update and evaluate stock and fishery information during
2005, and the Council and NMFS might determine, based on the review by
the Herring PDT, that no adjustments to the specifications were
necessary for the 2006 fishing year. The PDT completed a comprehensive
review of all herring related stock and fishery data as part of the
development of the DSEIS for Amendment 1 to the FMP. It concluded that
stock and fishery conditions have remained relatively constant. It
found no reason to modify the specifications, as implemented by NMFS
for 2005, for 2006. At its September 2005 meeting, the Council agreed
and voted to recommend that the 2005 specifications, as implemented by
NMFS, be maintained for 2006. Given that there has been no significant
change in the herring fishery over the past year, and that the 2005
specifications package fully evaluated the impacts of maintaining the
specifications for 2 years, NMFS concurs with the Council's
recommendation.
Proposed 2006 Specifications
NMFS proposes the specifications and Area TACs contained in the
following table.
Proposed Specifications and Area TACs for the 2006 Atlantic Herring
Fishery
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Allocation
Specification (mt)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ABC 220,000
OY 150,000
DAH 150,000
DAP 146,000
JVPt 0
JVP 0
IWP 0
USAP 20,000 (Areas 2 and
3 only)
BT 4,000
TALFF 0
Reserve 0
TAC - AREA 1A 60,000 (January 1
May 31, landings
cannot exceed
6,000)
TAC - Area 1B 10,000
TAC - Area 2 30,000 (No Reserve)
TAC - Area 3 50,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed measures are discussed here briefly. For a complete
discussion of the development of and rationale for the specifications,
please refer to the proposed rule for the 2005 specifications,
published January 31, 2005 (70 FR 4808).
An ABC of 220,000 mt is proposed, consistent with the MSY proxy
recommended in Amendment 1 to the FMP, which is currently being
developed. The 220,000 mt proxy recommended in Amendment 1 is intended
to be a temporary and precautionary placeholder for MSY until the next
stock assessment for the Atlantic herring stock complex is completed.
Because of the importance of ABC as a means of determining the other
values in the specifications, it is discussed in the specifications,
even though it is not a value that is set by the specification process.
The FMP specifies that OY will be less than or equal to ABC minus
the expected Canadian catch (C) from the stock complex. The estimate of
C that is deducted from ABC will be no more than 20,000 mt for the New
Brunswick weir fishery and no more than 10,000 mt for the Georges Bank
fishery. With ABC set at 220,000 mt, OY could be less than or equal to
190,000 mt if the maximum catch is assumed for the Canadian herring
fishery. The FMP also states that the establishment of OY will include
consideration of relevant economic, social, and ecological factors and
that, for this reason, OY may be less than ABC C. In addition, the
Herring PDT recommended that OY be specified at a level lower than ABC
for biological and ecological reasons.
As in 2005, OY is proposed to be specified at 150,000 mt, a level
that can be fully harvested by the domestic fleet, thereby precluding
the specification of a TALFF. This will enable the U.S. Atlantic
herring industry to expand and will yield positive social and economic
benefits to U.S. harvesters and processors.
NMFS proposes setting DAH at 150,000 mt. The highest level of
landings in recent years was in 2001, when they reached 121,332 mt. The
proposed DAH of 150,000 mt would allow a 23-percent increase in
landings as compared to 2001, and reflect fishery performance in recent
years, while at the same time giving the fishery an opportunity to
expand. The proposed Area TACs would remain the same as they were in
2005. These area allocations are intended to permit the fishery to
increase landings above the highest levels achieved in recent years.
The highest recent landings in Area 2 were 27,198 mt in 2000; thus, the
allocation would allow the fishery to slightly exceed that level. The
highest recent landings in Area 3 were 35,079 mt in 2001; thus, the
allocation would allow the fishery to exceed that level by a
considerable amount because this is the area most likely to see
expanded harvests.
The regulations, at Sec. 648.200(e), allow for inseason
adjustments of the herring specifications. Thus, if the herring fishery
during the 2006 fishing year expands more than anticipated, the OY,
[[Page 74287]]
the DAH, the DAP, and the area TACs could be increased to enable the
fishery to perform to its fullest potential. Such increases would be
constrained by the analysis that the Council included in the
specification recommendations. That means that DAH and OY could be
increased to a maximum of 180,000 mt, the DAP could be increased to a
maximum of 176,000 mt, and the Area 2 TAC and the Area 3 TAC could be
increased to 50,000 mt and 60,000 mt, respectively, which are the
highest levels that the Council originally recommended and analyzed for
each of these measures.
Since DAH is proposed to be set at 150,000 mt (of which 4,000 mt
would be allocated for BT), DAP is proposed to be specified at 146,000
mt. It is certainly possible, given the capacity of the current
harvesting fleet, the potential for market expansion to occur, and the
expressed intent (made clear through public testimony) of the U.S.
industry to increase its participation in the Atlantic herring fishery,
that processors will utilize the recommended DAP. Because the Council's
recommended DAP is sufficient to process the entire DAH (minus the BT),
the Council and NMFS propose setting JVP at zero. Future JVP operations
would likely compete with U.S. processors for product, which could have
a substantial negative impact on domestic facilities in a market-driven
fishery. This is consistent with the following relationship, which is
specified in the FMP: DAH = DAP + JVPt + BT.
NMFS proposes setting USAP at 20,000 mt in Areas 2 and 3 only. USAP
could provide an additional outlet for harvesters and, therefore,
increase the benefits to the U.S. industry.
Classification
This action is authorized by 50 CFR part 648 and has been
determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
The Council prepared an IRFA, as required by section 603 of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act, which describes the economic impacts this
proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A copy of the
IRFA can be obtained from the Council or NMFS (see ADDRESSES) or via
the Internet at http://www.nero.noaa.gov. A summary of the analysis
follows:
Statement of Objective and Need
A description of the reasons why this action is being considered,
and the objectives of and legal basis for this action, is contained in
the preamble to this proposed rule and is not repeated here.
Description and Estimate of Number of Small Entities to Which the Rule
Will Apply
During the 2003 fishing year, 154 vessels landed herring, 38 of
which averaged more than 2,000 lb (907 kg) of herring per trip. There
are no large entities, as defined in section 601 of the RFA,
participating in this fishery. Therefore, there are no disproportionate
economic impacts between large and small entities.
Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements
This action does not contain any new collection-of-information,
reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements. It does not
duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules.
Minimizing Significant Economic Impacts on Small Entities
Impacts were assessed by the Council and NMFS by comparing the
proposed measures to the Atlantic herring landings made in 2003. The
proposed specifications are not expected to produce a negative economic
impact to vessels prosecuting the fishery because it allows for
landings levels that are significantly higher than the average landings
achieved by the fishery in recent years. The proposed 2006
specifications should allow for incremental growth in the industry,
while taking into consideration biological uncertainty.
The specification of OY and DAH is proposed to be 150,000 mt for
2006. At this level, there could be an increase of up to 50,000 mt in
herring landings, or $7,150,000 in revenues, based on an average price
of $143/mt. This could allow individual vessels to increase their
profitability under the proposed 2006 specifications, depending on
whether or not new vessels enter the fishery (the herring fishery will
remain an open-access fishery for the 2006 fishing year). The magnitude
of economic impacts related to the 146,000-mt specification of DAP will
depend on the shoreside processing sector's ability to expand markets
and increase capacity to handle larger amounts of herring during 2006.
The potential loss associated with eliminating the JVPt allocation
(20,000 mt for 2003 and 2004) could approximate $2.9 million (based on
an average price of $143/mt) if all of the 20,000-mt allocation would
have been utilized (10,000 mt for JVP and 10,000 mt for IWP). However,
very little of the 10,000-mt JVP allocation was utilized in 2002 and
2003 and, as of August 2004, no JVP activity for herring had occurred
during the 2004 fishing year. The Council received no indication that
demand for the JVP allocation will increase in 2006. As a result, no
substantial economic impacts are expected from reducing the JVP
allocation to 0 mt in 2006, as vessels that sold fish in the past to
JVP vessels could sell to U.S. processors.
The Area 1A and 1B TACs of 60,000 mt and 10,000 mt, respectively,
have been unchanged since the 2000 fishery. In 2002 and 2003, the Area
1A TAC for the directed herring fishery was fully utilized and is
expected to be fully utilized for the 2006 fishery. Therefore, no
change is expected in profitability of vessels from the 2006 Area 1A
specification. Since only 4,917 mt of herring were harvested in Area 1B
in 2003, the proposed 2006 specification of 10,000 mt should allow for
increased economic benefits to individual vessels prosecuting the
fishery in this management area. The potential economic gains
associated with allocating 20,000 mt for USAP could approximate $2.9
million (based on an average price of $143/mt) if all of the 20,000-mt
allocation were utilized in 2006.
The Council analyzed four alternatives for OY and the distribution
of TACs. One alternative would have retained the specifications
implemented during the 2003 and 2004 fishing years, which would have
maintained the OY at 180,000 mt. This OY is still roughly 80 percent
greater than the average historical landings for this fishery, and
therefore that level of OY would not pose a constraint on the fishery.
The three other alternatives considered by the Council would set the OY
at 150,000 mt. This is still roughly 50 percent greater than the
average historical landings for this fishery, and, therefore, that
level of OY would not pose a constraint on the fishery. Each of the
alternatives that would set the OY at 150,000 mt would establish
varying levels for the area TACs.
One alternative would have established the following TACs: Area 1A,
60,000 mt; Area 1B, 10,000 mt; Area 2, 20,000 mt; and Area 3, 60,000
mt. The only area TAC that would be lower than 2003/2004 under this
option is the Area 2 TAC. The most recent year in which the landings
from this area were greater than 20,000 mt (the proposed TAC) was 2000
(27,198 mt). The average landings from 2001 2003 were 14,300 mt, with
2003 landings at 16,079 mt. Under current market conditions, the new
TAC may become constraining if the fishery in 2006 is similar to that
in 2000. If this
[[Page 74288]]
is the case, then the Area 2 TAC fishing season could end before the
end of the year, creating a potential economic constraint on the
fishery, especially if vessels are forced to travel farther (increased
steaming time) to harvest in Area 3.
Another alternative considered would have established the following
TACs: Area 1A, 45,000 mt; Area 1B, 10,000 mt; Area 2, 35,000 mt; and
Area 3, 60,000 mt. With a 15,000-mt decrease in the combined Area 1
TACs, the economic impact of this option could be relatively large on
vessels in the fishery that depend on herring in Area 1A, especially if
those vessels are not able to move to other areas to obtain fish. Even
if vessels could fish in other areas, their operating costs would be
increased because of increased steaming time. An Area 2 TAC of 35,000
mt proposed under this alternative should not be constraining, given
recent landings history.
The final alternative considered would have established the
following TACs: Area 1A, 55,000 mt; Area 1B, 5,000 mt; Area 2, 30,000
mt; and Area 3, 60,000 mt. With a 10,000-mt decrease in the combined
Area 1 TACs, the impact of this alternative would be very similar to
the impact of the prior alternative, although not as severe. An Area 2
TAC of 30,000 mt proposed under this alternative should not be
constraining, given recent landings history.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
Dated: December 9, 2005.
James W. Balsiger,
Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National
Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 05-24079 Filed 12-14-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S