[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 125 (Thursday, June 28, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 38566-38568]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-15890]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 648
[Docket No. 120307159-2155-01]
RIN 0648-BB99
Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Mackerel,
Squid, and Butterfish Fisheries; Framework Adjustment 6
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule, request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS proposes a change in the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management
Council's risk policy regarding stocks without an overfishing limit.
The current risk policy does not allow increases of the acceptable
biological catch for stocks that do not have an overfishing limit
derived from the stock assessment. The modification will allow
increases of the acceptable biological catch for stocks that have
stable or increasing trends in abundance, and for which there is robust
scientific information to suggest that an increased acceptable
biological catch will not lead to overfishing.
DATES: Public comments must be received no later than 5 p.m., eastern
standard time, on July 30, 2012.
ADDRESSES: Copies of supporting documents used by the Mid-Atlantic
Fishery Management Council (Council), including the Supplemental
Environmental Assessment (EA) and Regulatory Impact Review (RIR)/
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) for Framework Adjustment
6, are available from: Dr. Christopher M. Moore, Executive Director,
Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Suite 201, 800 N. State
Street, Dover, DE 19901. The EA/RIR/IRFA is accessible via the Internet
at http://www.nero.noaa.gov.
You may submit comments, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2012-0110, by any
one of the following methods:
Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public
comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal www.regulations.gov. To
submit comments via the e-Rulemaking Portal, first click the ``submit a
comment'' icon, then enter NOAA-NMFS-2012-0110 in the keyword search.
Locate the document you wish to comment on from the resulting list and
click on the
[[Page 38567]]
``Submit a Comment'' icon on the right of that line.
Mail to NMFS, Northeast Regional Office, 55 Great Republic
Dr, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope ``Comments
on MSB Framework Adjustment 6.''
Fax: (978) 281-9135, Attn: Aja Szumylo.
Instructions: Comments must be submitted by one of the above
methods to ensure that they are received, documented, and considered by
NMFS. Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or
individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be
considered. All comments received are a part of the public record and
will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov
without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name,
address, etc.) submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly
accessible. Do not submit confidential business information, or
otherwise sensitive or protected information. NMFS will accept
anonymous comments (enter ``N/A'' in the required fields if you wish to
remain anonymous). Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted
in Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats
only.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Aja Szumylo, Fishery Policy Analyst,
978-281-9195, fax 978-281-9135.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The regulations that implement the Council's risk policy at 50 CFR
648.21 went into effect on October 31, 2011, as part of the Council's
Omnibus Amendment to implement annual catch limits and accountability
measures (76 FR 60606). Among other measures, the Omnibus Amendment
established acceptable biological catch (ABC) control rules
(implementing regulations at 50 CFR 648.20) and a risk policy (Sec.
648.21) to guide the Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee
(SSC) in their ABC setting process.
The ABC control rules assign stocks to a certain level (Levels 1-4)
based on the amount of uncertainty about the stock, and provide
formulas for the establishment of an ABC for stocks at each level.
Level 1 refers to stocks that have mostly complete stock status
information, while Level 4 refers to data poor stocks. The ABC control
rule regulations note that the SSC can deviate from the control rule
methods if they describe why the deviation is warranted, describe the
methods used to derive the alternative ABC, and explain how the
deviation is consistent with National Standard 2. The risk policy works
in conjunction with the ABC control rules, and is used to indicate the
Council's preferred tolerance for risk of overfishing to the SSC. In
general, the Council's risk policy states that ABC should be set so
that the risk of overfishing stays below 40 percent, based on a
probability distribution for the overfishing limit (OFL).
The existing risk policy is more stringent for stocks that lack an
OFL and states that, ``If an OFL cannot be determined from the stock
assessment, or if a proxy is not provided by the SSC during the ABC
recommendation process, ABC levels may not be increased until such time
that an OFL has been identified.'' This provision was designed to
prevent catch levels from being increased when there are no criteria
available to determine if overfishing will occur in the upcoming
fishing year. Following one of the first applications of the risk
policy for the 2012 fishing year (2012 butterfish specifications; 77 FR
16472; March 21, 2012), the Council found that there are limited
circumstances in which the SSC may be scientifically justified in
recommending that the ABC be increased for stocks without fishing
mortality reference points without resulting in an unacceptably high
risk of overfishing. Thus, the Council initiated Framework Adjustment 6
to change the risk policy to allow the SSC to use all available
scientific data when recommending ABCs in data poor situations, rather
than constraining the SSC in its recommendation when an OFL is not
available.
Framework Adjustment 6 proposes to modify the risk policy regarding
stocks without an OFL or OFL proxy to allow increase in ABC for stocks
that have stable or increasing trends in abundance, and for which the
SSC can point to robust scientific information to suggest that an
increased ABC will not lead to overfishing. The adjustment to this
policy would not change the Council's approach to stocks without an OFL
that have declining biomass, or for which the SSC cannot point to
scientific evidence to suggest that the recommended ABC will not result
in overfishing.
Though the proposed action only modifies the MSB FMP, it will apply
to all of the Council's managed species, including Atlantic mackerel,
butterfish, Atlantic bluefish, spiny dogfish, summer flounder, scup,
black sea bass, Atlantic surfclam, ocean quahog, and tilefish. The
provisions in the Omnibus Amendment, including the risk policy, do not
apply to longfin squid or Illex squid; these species are exempt from
these requirements because they have a life cycle of less than 1 year.
The regulations for the ABC control rules and risk policy reside in the
MSB FMP, but are a product of the Omnibus Amendment, which affected all
of the plans for the above listed species. It is only necessary to
complete this action as a Framework Adjustment to the MSB FMP because
the ABC control rules and risk policy are incorporated by reference
into the regulations for all other Council species.
Classification
Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the MSA, the NMFS Assistant
Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with
the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish FMP; Atlantic Bluefish
FMP; Spiny Dogfish FMP; Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass FMP;
Surfclam and Ocean Quahog FMP; and Tilefish FMP; other provisions of
the MSA; 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 Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce
certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
As outlined in the preamble to this proposed rule, Framework
Adjustment 6 proposes to modify the Council's risk policy regarding
stocks without an OFL or OFL proxy to allow increase in ABC for stocks
that have stable or increasing trends in abundance, and for which the
Council's SSC can point to robust scientific information to suggest
that an increased ABC will not lead to overfishing. The Council
conducted a comprehensive evaluation of the potential socioeconomic
impacts of Framework Adjustment 6 in conjunction with a Supplemental
Environmental Assessment analysis.
The formal procedures for addressing both scientific and management
uncertainty in the catch limit establishment system implemented through
the Omnibus Amendment were administrative, as they were entirely a
description of process and have no substantive impact on regulated
entities. Framework Adjustment 6 adjusts a feature of the existing
catch limit establishment system. While Framework Adjustment 6 adjusts
the Council's guidance to the SSC regarding ABC recommendations for
stocks without an OFL or OFL proxy, the action contains
[[Page 38568]]
no actual application of the methods to set ABC, application of the
risk policy, or establishment of specific annual catch limits or
accountability measures for any of the Council's fishery management
plans (FMPs). As a result, there are no immediate economic impacts to
evaluate. Should the SSC rely on this provision to recommend ABCs in
future specifications, the resulting catch levels derived from its
recommendation will have measurable impacts, and the specific impacts
associated those catch levels will be evaluated through the Council's
specification processes for each FMP and addressed in the resulting
NMFS rules.
The Council-conducted analyses identified 2,875 unique fishing
entities in the Northeast Region, all of which were determined to be
small entities. However, given the purely administrative nature of the
proposed measures, there are neither expected direct economic or
disproportionate impacts to either small or large regulated entities
given the aforementioned adjustment to the administrative process
proposed in Framework Adjustment 6. As a result, an initial regulatory
flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared. RFA
analysis will be conducted, as appropriate, for subsequent actions that
establish catch limits for Council-managed species.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648
Fisheries, Fishing, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
Dated: June 25, 2012.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is
proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 648--FISHERIES OF THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES
1. The authority citation for part 648 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
2. In Sec. 648.21, paragraph (d) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 648.21 Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council risk policy.
* * * * *
(d) Stock without an OFL or OFL proxy. (1) If an OFL cannot be
determined from the stock assessment, or if a proxy is not provided by
the SSC during the ABC recommendation process, ABC levels may not be
increased until such time that an OFL has been identified.
(2) The SSC may deviate from paragraph (d)(1) of this section,
provided that the following two criteria are met: Biomass-based
reference points indicate that the stock is greater than
BMSY and stock biomass is stable or increasing, or if
biomass based reference points are not available, best available
science indicates that stock biomass is stable or increasing; and the
SSC provides a determination that, based on best available science, the
recommended increase to the ABC is not expected to result in
overfishing. Any such deviation must include a description of why the
increase is warranted, description of the methods used to derive the
alternative ABC, and a certification that the ABC is not likely to
result in overfishing on the stock.
[FR Doc. 2012-15890 Filed 6-27-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P