Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Amendment 5 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fisheries; Resubmitted Measures

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 648

[Docket No. 951208293-7055-04; I.D. 110796F]

RIN 0648-AF01

Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Amendment 5 to the

Fishery Management Plan for the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and

Butterfish Fisheries; Resubmitted Measures

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: NMFS issues this final rule to implement three provisions of

Amendment 5 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Atlantic Mackerel,

Squid, and Butterfish Fisheries (FMP) that were initially disapproved

but have been revised and resubmitted by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery

Management Council (Council). These measures revise the overfishing

definition for Atlantic mackerel, establish criteria for a moratorium

vessel permit for Illex squid, and establish a 5,000-lb (2.27 mt)

incidental catch permit for Illex squid. The intent of these measures

is to prevent overfishing and to avoid overcapitalization of the

domestic fleet in these fisheries.

DATES: Effective June 26, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Copies of Amendment 5 and its supporting documents, and the

resubmission including the environmental assessment, regulatory impact

review (RIR) and initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA), and

other supporting documents are available upon request from David R.

Keifer, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council,

Room 2115, Federal Building, 300 South New Street, Dover, DE 19904-

6790.

Comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or any other aspect of

the collection-of-information requirements contained in this rule

should be sent to Dr. Andrew A. Rosenberg, Regional Administrator, 1

Blackburn Dr, Gloucester, MA 01930, and the Office of Information and

Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), (Attention:

NOAA Desk Officer), Washington, D.C. 20502.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Myles Raizin, Fishery Policy Analyst,

508-281-9104.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Amendment 5 was developed in response to concerns regarding

overcapitalization expressed by industry representatives at several

meetings of the Council and its Squid, Mackerel, and Butterfish (SMB)

Committee in the early 1990's. Details concerning the development of

Amendment 5 were provided in the preamble to the proposed rule, which

was published in the Federal Register on December 20, 1995 (60 FR

65618), and are not repeated here.

NMFS, on behalf of the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary), reviewed

Amendment 5 in light of the administrative record underlying it and the

public comments received relative to the amendment and the proposed

rule. Based upon this review, the following provisions of the amendment

were found to be inconsistent with the national standards of the

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-

Stevens Act) and, accordingly, were disapproved: (1) The Illex

moratorium permit, (2) the use of long term potential catch to cap

allowable biological catch (ABC) for Atlantic mackerel, and (3) the

exemption from the minimum mesh requirement for the Loligo fishery for

a vessel fishing for sea herring whose catch is comprised of 75 percent

or more of sea herring. Details concerning the disapprovals were

provided in the preamble to the final rule implementing Amendment 5,

which was published on April 2, 1996 (61 FR 14465), and are not

repeated here.

At its June, 1996, meeting, the Council revised several of the

disapproved measures for resubmission. Management measures for an Illex

moratorium permit, an increase in the allowable incidental catch of

Illex, and a cap on Atlantic mackerel ABC were resubmitted. A proposed

rule to implement these measures was published in the Federal Register

on December 23, 1996 (61 FR 67521). The preamble to the proposed rule

described the measures. Comments were accepted through February 3,

1997. NMFS approved those measures on behalf of the Secretary on

February 21, 1997.

Under the final rule, a vessel will qualify for a moratorium permit

if 5,000 lb (2.27 mt) or more of Illex were landed from it and sold on

at least 5 trips between August 13, 1981, and August 13, 1993.

Additionally, a vessel that was under construction for, or was being

rerigged for, use in the directed fishery for Illex on August 13, 1993,

qualifies for a moratorium permit if 5,000 lb (2.27 mt) or more of

Illex were landed from it and sold on at least 5 trips prior to

December 31, 1994. The Illex moratorium will terminate at the end of

the fifth year following implementation unless extended by an amendment

to the FMP.

The rule also implements an open-access incidental catch permit for

Illex squid. The catch allowance associated with this permit is 5,000

lb (2.27 mt) per

[[Page 28639]]

trip. This represents an increase of 2,500 lb (1.13 mt) over the

allowance proposed in the initial submission of Amendment 5. The

incidental allowance could be revised by the Council annually as part

of the annual specification process.

Finally, the rule revises the overfishing definition for Atlantic

mackerel to restrict ABC in U.S. and Canadian waters to that quantity

of mackerel associated with a fishing mortality rate of

F0.1, as recommended by the Northeast Fisheries Science

Center. The overfishing definition is otherwise unchanged, and still

maintains the requirement that ABC be specified to maintain a spawning

stock size of at least 900,000 mt in the year following the year for

which specifications are being developed. Based on the most recent

stock assessment for Atlantic mackerel (1994), this will cap ABC for

Atlantic mackerel at 383,000 mt.

Changes From the Proposed Rule

There are two changes from the proposed rule. Paragraph 648.4(a)(5)

is revised to be consistent with other Northeast regulations for vessel

permits, and the heading at

Sec. 648.8(a)(5)(ii) is changed to read Illex squid moratorium

permit (Applicable from July 1, 1997, until July 1, 2002.) This changes

the effective date of the Illex moratorium permit from the previously

proposed date of June 1, 1997, which appeared in Paragraph 648.4(a)(5)

of the proposed regulations, to July 1, 1997. This change come as a

result of delays in the publication of the final rule.

Comments and Responses

A total of four commenters provided 10 substantively different

comments on the proposed rule to implement the resubmitted measures.

The commenters were comprised of a representative of the East Coast

Fisheries Federation, Inc., representatives of the States of

Connecticut and Maine, and an individual representing Seafreeze, Ltd.

of Rhode Island and Lund's Fisheries, Inc. of Cape May, New Jersey. One

commenter supported the resubmitted measures for the Illex moratorium

permit while three opposed this measure. One commenter supported the

increase in the incidental catch allowance for Illex. One commenter

appended several Congressional comments opposing the Illex moratorium

permit. The substance of these comments are incorporated in other

comments. No comments were received regarding the cap on Atlantic

mackerel ABC.

Comment 1: One commenter asserts that the submission violates the

mandate in the Magnuson-Stevens Act to reduce regulatory discards since

catches of Illex may be mixed with Loligo to as much as a 50:50 ratio

in certain seasons. The commenter assumes that a large number of

vessels in the Loligo/butterfish moratorium fishery will not qualify

for the Illex moratorium fishery, and that discards of Illex in excess

of the bycatch allowance by these Loligo moratorium vessels will be

unacceptable.

Response 1: The commenter bases his comment about the seasonal

mixing of squid stocks on information supplied by an experienced

fishing vessel captain at the August, 1996, Council meeting. The

minutes of that meeting indicate the captain noted that by moving to a

different area or fishing at a different time of day or both, a vessel

operator can practically eliminate large bycatches of Illex and the

need to discard large amounts of that species. The captain was actually

making a point in favor of a bycatch allowance after attainment of 95

percent of the quota, a measure proposed in Amendment 6.

Comment 2: A commenter states that in other moratoria, the Council

has used the landing of 1 lb (.45 kg) of the subject species during a

time period as qualifying criteria for a moratorium permit, e.g., the

summer flounder moratorium permit. Since the adoption of the multiple

pound qualifying criterion for Illex and Loligo squid, the Council has

reverted back to 1 lb (.45 kg) of landing in its scup moratorium permit

qualifying criteria.

Response 2: The objective of the resubmitted measures for the Illex

moratorium permit is to prevent overcapitalization in a fishery that is

fully-utilized. The Council estimated that a 1 lb (.45 kg) of landing

qualifying criterion would prequalify a minimum of 295 vessels using

the August 13, 1981, through August 13, 1993, window. The Council noted

and NMFS concurs, that given that 19 vessels harvested approximately

17,814 mt in 1992, which represents 94 percent of the 1997 quota for

Illex, using a 1 lb (.45 kg) landing criterion would likely lead to

overcapitalization and threaten the conservation of the Illex stock.

Comment 3: A commenter estimates that 400 vessels will obtain the

Loligo/butterfish moratorium permit. To allow 400 boats into those

fisheries while excluding them from Illex will do nothing but place

enormous pressure on two species while providing no ``relief valve'' in

the third; and there will be no opportunity to take advantage of normal

cycles and fluctuations in resource availability and market--the

essence of the mixed-trawl fishery which the Council has pledged to

sustain.

Response 3: NMFS believes that those vessels which qualify for a

Loligo/butterfish moratorium permit represent the historic and directed

participants in the fishery. The same is true for the Illex fishery.

The Council demonstrated that the number of vessels estimated to

qualify for the Illex permit would have the ability to harvest in

excess of the entire 1997 quota under certain circumstances. The

Regulatory Impact Review prepared by the Council shows that allowing a

large number of new vessels to prosecute this fishery could cause

significant losses in income (8 to 10 percent) to existing harvesters

while putting the stock in jeopardy.

Comment 4: The NMFS letter of disapproval of February 9, 1996,

stated that ``the measure has discriminatory effects that render the

allocation of fishing privileges in the Illex fishery unfair and

inequitable.'' One commenter agrees and hopes NMFS will reject this

even-more restrictive and more discriminatory plan.

Response 4: The letter of disapproval voiced a concern about the

impact on vessels that routinely caught less than 5,000 lb (2.27 mt) of

Illex per trip that would be eliminated from the fishery. The

administrative record underlying Amendment 5 did not address these

participants. This is the discriminatory effect that the Regional

Administrator asked the Council to address. The administrative record

supporting the resubmission indicated that if there were such

participants, they were minimal and only participated in the fishery on

an incidental basis. NMFS believes that increasing the incidental catch

allowance to 5,000 lb (2.27 mt) for this species meets this concern.

Comment 5: One commenter complained that until last year, vessels

fishing from northern New England ports were unable to target this

resource because the use of small mesh nets which were necessary to

catch Illex squid in the quantities required to qualify for a permit

under the proposed rule, has been prohibited in the Gulf of Maine.

Response 5: Until April 1995, regulations in the Gulf of Maine did

not prevent a small mesh fishery for Illex from being prosecuted under

a number of different small mesh exemption programs which did in some

cases include restrictions on fishing by area by season. Therefore,

NMFS believes that vessel owners fishing in the Gulf of Maine had the

same opportunity to qualify for an Illex moratorium permit as vessel

owners from other areas.

[[Page 28640]]

Comment 6: One commenter was of the opinion that the qualification

criteria for an Illex moratorium permit unquestionably contravene some

of the most fundamental provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, most

particularly Section 301, National Standards 4 through 6.

Response 6: The qualification criteria are consistent with National

Standards 4 through 6.

National Standard 4 prohibits discrimination between residents of

different states. The qualifying criteria for a moratorium permit are

unrelated to the residency of an applicant. National Standard 5

prohibits the implementation of a management measure that has economic

allocation as its sole purpose. A moratorium using the qualifying

criteria will prevent overcapitalization that could lead to overfishing

of the resource. The 21st Northeast Stock Assessment Workshop (SAW 21)

determined that the stock of Illex is currently fully-utilized and

introduced new overfishing definitions for the squids to reduce the

risk of overfishing these species, which new information determines

lives for only 1 year.

National Standard 6 requires management measures to take into

account and allow for variations among, and contingencies in fisheries,

fishery resources, and catches. SAW 21 recommended a maximum optimum

yield (Max OY) of 24,000 mt for the Illex fishery. The vessels that

will comprise the moratorium fishery will be capable of taking this

amount, although historic catches have been below the recommended Max

OY. This will allow the Council to set annual quotas taking into

account a range of catches and contingencies based upon future stock

assessments.

Comment 7: A commenter provided several reasons for supporting the

Illex moratorium measure. He states that the criterion is appropriate

because it confers eligibility on participants with reasonable

dependence on the fishery in the specified period. He states that it

properly does not confer eligibility on vessel owners who entered the

fishery after that period.

Response 7: NMFS agrees.

Comment 8: In support of the Council proposal, one commenter stated

that a decision by NMFS to disapprove the Illex moratorium permit will

trigger a surge in speculative over-capacity as people fish to gain

history, thus causing a downward spiral in the industry and a shift in

fishing behavior to derby system practices.

Response 8: NMFS agrees.

Comment 9: The resubmission analysis demonstrates that the Illex

fishery is industrial in nature, with no real participation by small-

scale fishermen. The resubmission analysis (pg 14-15) states that 18

out of 53 vessels that reported landing Illex in 1993 represented 99

percent of the total harvest of the fishery for that year. The average

trip landed roughly 90,000 lb (40.83 mt) and the average landings of

the 19 vessel reference fleet was 130,000 lb (58.98 mt). Small-scale

fishermen are simply not involved in the directed fishery because it

occurs offshore and requires substantial investments in freezing

capacity or refrigerated seawater system capacity. The Council

nonetheless increased the bycatch allowance to 5,000 lb (2.27 mt) to

ensure that the traditional dependence in the Illex fishery by small-

scale fishermen was fully accounted for.

Response 9: NMFS agrees.

Comment 10: One commenter observed that if the resubmission is

disapproved and an open access fishery is permitted to continue, any

effort by boats to diversify into the Illex fishery will now result in

direct losses to existing Illex participants. As more vessels come into

the fishery, the behavior patterns of the fishermen will begin to

shift, and we will be faced with a derby-style system. If the Illex

moratorium permit is approved, opportunities to diversify would still

exist. Mackerel prices on the world market are good, and mackerel and

herring both continue to be under-exploited. Vessel operators need to

spend time and effort with the growing mackerel processing industry in

Gloucester and New Bedford in order to develop stable markets for this

fishery if their interest is diversification.

Response 10: NMFS agrees.

Classification

The Regional Administrator, Northeast Region, NMFS, determined that

this final rule is necessary for the conservation and management of the

Atlantic mackerel, squid, and butterfish fishery and that it is

consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable law.

This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of

E.O. 12866.

In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the

Council prepared an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) for

the resubmitted portion of Amendment 5. The IRFA concluded that this

rule would have a significant impact on a substantial number of small

entities. No comments were received on the IRFA. The final regulatory

flexibility analysis (FRFA) consists of the IRFA, the comments and

responses in this final rule, most of which address in some way the

public's concerns about possible effects of this rule on small

entities, and the discussion below.

The analysis of the impact of the moratorium on the existing

participants in the directed Illex fishery is based on information

available for 1993, the last year of the moratorium qualification

period. The analysis shows that while there were 3,061 vessels issued

the open-access vessel permit required to harvest Illex squid, only 53

vessels landed Illex squid that year. All of the owners of these

permitted vessels are considered small business entities. Of those 53

vessels, only 26 vessels landed 5,000 lb (2.27 mt) or more of Illex on

at least one trip in that year. The average number of trips for these

vessels was 12.8 trips. Eighteen of those vessels accounted for 99% of

the total landings. The total landings for all vessels landing any

Illex in 1993 was 18,017 mt. However, 21 vessels accounted for 17,058

mt of the total landings. These landings represent nearly the entire

total allowable catch (i.e., quota) for the Illex fishery. Most of the

vessels that were issued the open-access vessel permit caught no Illex

at all. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the economic

reliance of these vessels on this species is non-existent. It is likely

that the owners of these vessels hold Federal permits for other

fisheries in which they are substantial participants and obtained the

open-access permit to preserve the option of retaining Illex if it was

encountered as a bycatch in these other fisheries. In light of the

foregoing, the directed fishery consists of a relatively small number

of vessels that land substantial quantities of Illex per vessel. This

analysis uses the 26 vessels that landed 5,000 lb (2.27 mt) or more on

at least one trip in 1993 as the best estimate of the existing

participants in the directed Illex fishery. Based on the average number

of Illex trips these vessels made in 1993 (i.e., 12.8), they easily

qualify for a Illex moratorium permit. These 26 vessels are referred to

as the ``reference fleet''. The other 27 vessels that also landed Illex

squid in 1993 are referred to as the ``fringe fleet''.

Amendment 5, as originally submitted by the Council, states that

decreased landings of Illex from fisheries in other nations are likely

to mean increased value for this species in future years. The value of

Illex has been generally increasing for several years due to decreasing

catches in other parts of the world. As a result, the U.S. Illex

fishery would certainly attract additional

[[Page 28641]]

participants if entry is not limited. The landings data for the fishery

demonstrate that the reference fleet is capable of taking the entire

total quota for this species. Data for subsequent years shows that more

vessels are entering the fleet and each vessel is taking less of the

``pie''. Since the directed Illex fishery typically involves large

vessels that land high volumes of Illex (the total catch for a

reference fleet vessel in 1993 was 1,522,695 lb), each additional

vessel participating in the directed fishery would generate a large

amount of Illex landings, creating the potential for a rapid increase

in overcapitalization and resultant pressure to overfish the resource.

Since there are a total of 52 vessels noted in Table 1 of resubmitted

Amendment 5 that would qualify for a moratorium permit, the capacity to

harvest the entire quota is extant in the fleet that would qualify for

a moratorium permit. It is not anticipated that there will be a sudden

shift of the additional vessels to the directed fishery, since this

sector of the fleet has not, to date, exhibited a great economic

reliance on Illex. The 27 vessel in the fringe fleet in 1993 made only

an average of 3.9 trips and landed an average of 1,155 lb of Illex per

trip. This pattern persisted in 1994. It is reasonable to conclude that

these vessels have Federal fisheries permits for other fisheries on

which they are more economically dependant. Also, some of owners of

these vessels may be deterred from entering the directed Illex fishery

due to the cost of acquiring refrigeration equipment necessary to

maintain the product quality demanded by on-shore processors. Because

of these reasons, the Council concluded that there is real

justification for a vessel permit moratorium program to control further

expansion of the directed fishery to avoid overcapitalization and

jeopardy to the stock. NMFS agrees.

NMFS landings data is used in the resubmitted version of Amendment

5 as the basis to estimate the number of vessels additional to the

reference fleet that would qualify for a moratorium permit under

various moratorium permit eligibility criteria including the one chosen

by the Council and implemented by this final rule. Five eligibility

criteria in addition to the criteria implemented by this rule (landings

of 5,000 lbs (2.27 mt) or more of Illex on at least 5 trips from August

13, 1981 - August 13, 1993) were evaluated. Each criterion was

evaluated for two qualification periods: August 13, 1981 - August 13,

1993; and August 13, 1981 - August 13, 1994. The five additional

eligibility criteria are: (1) landings of 2,500 lbs (1.13 mt) or more

of Illex on at least 5 trips; (2) landings of 20,000 lbs or more of

Illex during any 30-day period; (3) landings of 5,000 lbs (2.27 mt) or

more of Illex on at least 1 trip; (4) landings of 2,500 lbs (1.13 mt)

or more of Illex on at least 1 trip; and (5) landings of 1 lb (.45 kg)

or more of Illex on at least 1 trip.

The number of vessels in addition to the 26 vessel reference fleet

that would qualify for a moratorium permit under the qualifying

criteria considered varies from a low of 26 under the eligibility

criteria implemented in this rule (resulting in a qualifying fleet of

52 vessels) to a high of 309 under an eligibility criteria of 1 lb (.45

kg) or more of Illex landed on at least one trip between August 13,

1981 and August 13, 1994 (resulting in a qualifying fleet of 335

vessels).

In order to assess the impact of this rule on small business

entities, an examination must be made of the impact upon the revenues

of the reference fleet under a range of assumptions about the

participation of the additional vessels. The reference fleet comprises

the small business entities that are the substantial participants in

the Illex fishery and most economically reliant upon it.

Because the qualification criteria adopted by the Council and

implemented by this final rule would add the smallest number of

additional vessels of all the alternatives considered, it is reasonable

to conclude that the qualification criteria implemented by this rule

would have the smallest economic impact upon the reference fleet of all

the alternatives considered. This will minimize the significant

economic impact on these small business entities while taking into

account the factors that the Council has to consider under section

303(b)(6) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act when limiting access to a

fishery. The underlying analysis in the resubmitted Amendment 5 shows

that if none of the additional qualifying vessels make any landings,

the revenue of the reference fleet would increase 5.3% if the 1997

quota of 19,000 mt is harvested. The increase is due to the fact that

in 1993 total catch was only 18,017 mt. This analysis also examines a

range of catch levels for the additional qualifying vessels and shows

that reference fleet revenues could decrease by as much as 10.4%.

The Illex moratorium regime that was proposed by the Council in its

initial submission of Amendment 5 was modified for the resubmission by

increasing the incidental catch allowance for non-moratorium vessels

from 2,500 lbs (1.13 mt) per trip to 5,000 lbs (2.27 mt) per trip and

by limiting the moratorium to a period of five years unless extended by

another FMP amendment (a ``sunset provision''). The criteria for

qualifying for a moratorium permit were not changed.

The original moratorium regime was disapproved because it

arbitrarily restricted vessels which have historically landed Illex in

amounts greater than 2,500 lbs (1.13 mt) but less than 5,000 lbs (2.27

mt) per trip to an incidental catch allowance of 2,500 lbs (1.13 mt)

per trip. These vessels, which may have routinely caught more than the

2,500 lbs (1.13 mt) incidental catch allowance proposed, would not

qualify for a moratorium permit and would have had to reduce their

landings to comply with the 2,500 lbs (1.13 mt) incidental catch

allowance. While these vessels still will not qualify for a moratorium

permit, the increased incidental catch allowance will allow them to

harvest as incidental catch at least, and for most vessels, more than

their past historical levels.

The modified measure implemented by this rule was approved by NMFS

because the modifications (increase in incidental catch allowance to

5,000 lbs (2.27 mt) per trip and 5-year sunset provision) addressed the

concerns that led to the initial disapproval. The incidental catch

allowance of 5,000 lbs (2.27 mt) will allow sustained small vessel

participation at or above previous historic levels. Therefore, this

alternative compared to the original submission minimizes impacts on

small entities that do not qualify for a moratorium permit and thus,

cannot participate in the Illex directed fishery. Increasing the

incidental catch allowance to 5,000 lbs (2.27 mt) per trip has no

negative conservation effect because incidental catches are counted

against the total quota. While this increase in the incidental catch

allowance likely would mean that less of the quota will be available to

those vessels qualifying for a moratorium permit, the effect on the

qualifying fleet likely will be small, since only between 27 and 35

non-qualifying vessels caught Illex in the 1992 through 1994 fishery

and it is unlikely any significant number of additional vessels will

elect to join the harvest because it is not economically feasible to

conduct a directed Illex fishery offshore at the low volume permitted

by the 5,000 lbs (2.27 mt) per trip limit given the price per pound for

landed Illex and the costs incurred during a fishing trip. In all

likelihood, raising the incidental catch amount to 5,000 lbs (2.27 mt)

per trip will be a factor only if the Illex move

[[Page 28642]]

inshore, a phenomenon which is uncertain from year to year.

Raising the incidental catch allowance higher than 5,000 lbs (2.27

mt) per trip was not analyzed since the 5,000 lbs limit eliminated the

arbitrary restriction discussed above. However, as the limit is raised

higher and higher more and more vessels could be lured into the

incidental catch fishery with consequent negative economic impacts on

participants in the directed fishery as the share available to them was

reduced. This would unjustly benefit new participants in the incidental

catch fishery at the expense of directed fishery participants with a

historic economic reliance on this species.

The sunset provision submitted as part of the Council's

resubmission will require the Council to examine capacity in the

fishery over the five-year moratorium period. Should the Council

determine that extension of the moratorium is necessary, an amendment,

including the analyses required by the Magnuson-Stevens and Regulatory

Flexibility Acts, will be required.

Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is

required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty

for failure to comply with, a collection-of-information subject to the

requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), unless that

collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control

number.

This rule contains a collection-of-information requirement subject

to the PRA. This requirement has been approved by the OMB under control

number 0648-0202. Public reporting burden for the collection of

information is estimated to average 30 minutes for an initial vessel

permit application and 15 minutes for a vessel permit renewal request.

The estimated response times include the time needed for reviewing

instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and

maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the

collection of information. Public comment is sought regarding: Whether

this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance

of the functions of the agency, including whether the information has

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 regarding burden

estimates or any other aspect of this data collection, including

suggestions for reducing the burden, to NMFS and OMB (see ADDRESSES).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648

Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: May 21, 1997.

Rolland A. Schmitten,

Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries

Services.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648, Subpart

B, is amended as follows:

PART 648--FISHERIES OF 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. 648.4, paragraphs (a)(5)(ii) through (a)(5)(iv) are

redesignated as (a)(5)(iii) through (a)(5)(v), a new paragraph

(a)(5)(ii) is added, introductory text for paragraphs (a)(5) and

(a)(5)(i)(A), and newly redesignated paragraphs (a)(5)(iii) and

(a)(5)(iv) are revised to read as follows:

Sec. 648.4 Vessel permits.

(a) * * *

(5) Mackerel, squid, and butterfish vessels - Any vessel of the

United States, including party and charter vessels, must have been

issued and carry on board a valid vessel permit to fish for, possess,

or land Atlantic mackerel, squid, or butterfish in or from the EEZ.

(i) Loligo squid and butterfish moratorium permit. (A) Eligibility.

A vessel is eligible for a moratorium permit to fish for and retain

Loligo squid or butterfish in excess of the incidental catch allowance

specified in paragraph (a)(5)(iii) of this section, if it meets any of

the following criteria:

* * * * *

(ii) Illex squid moratorium permit (Applicable from July 1, 1997,

until July 1, 2002.)

(A) Eligibility. A vessel is eligible for a moratorium permit to

fish for and retain Illex squid in excess of the incidental catch

allowance specified in paragraph (a)(5)(iii) of this section, if it

meets any of the following criteria:

(1) The vessel landed and sold 5,000 lb (2.27 mt) or more of Illex

squid on at least 5 separate trips between August 13, 1981, and August

13, 1993; or

(2) The vessel is replacing such a vessel and meets the

requirements of paragraph (a)(3)(i)(C) of this section; or

(3) The vessel was under construction for, or was being rerigged

for, use in the directed fishery for Illex squid on August 13, 1993,

and the vessel landed and sold 5,000 lb (2.27 mt) or more of Illex

squid on at least 5 separate trips prior to December 31, 1994.

(B) Application/renewal restrictions. No one may apply for an

initial Illex squid moratorium permit for a vessel after:

(1) June 26, 1998; or

(2) The owner retires the vessel from the fishery.

(C) Replacement vessels. See paragraph (a)(3)(i)(C) of this

section.

(D) Appeal of denial of permit. See paragraph (a)(3)(i)(D) of this

section.

(iii) Squid/butterfish incidental catch permit. Any vessel of the

United States may obtain a permit to fish for or retain up to 2,500 lb

(1.13 mt) of Loligo squid or butterfish, or up to 5,000 lb (2.27 mt) of

Illex squid, as an incidental catch in another directed fishery. The

incidental catch allowance may be revised by the Regional Administrator

based upon a recommendation by the Council following the procedure set

forth in Sec. 648.21.

(iv) Atlantic mackerel permit. Any vessel of the United States may

obtain a permit to fish for or retain Atlantic mackerel in or from the

EEZ.

* * * * *

3. 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 mackerel

or 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.

* * * * *

4. In Sec. 648.14, paragraphs (p)(2) through (p)(8) are

redesignated as (p)(3) through (p)(9), a new paragraph (p)(2) is added,

and paragraphs (a)(75) and newly redesignated paragraph (p)(6) are

revised to read:

Sec. 648.14 Prohibitions.

(a) * * *

(75) Transfer Loligo, Illex, or butterfish within the EEZ, unless

the vessels participating in the transfer have been issued a valid

Loligo and butterfish or Illex moratorium permit and are transferring

the species for which the vessels are permitted or have a valid squid/

butterfish incidental catch permit and a letter of authorization from

the Regional Administrator.

* * * * *

(p) * * *

(2) Possess more than the incidental catch allowance of Illex squid

unless

[[Page 28643]]

issued an Illex squid moratorium permit.

* * * * *

(6) Transfer squid or butterfish at sea to another vessel unless

that other vessel has been issued a valid Loligo and butterfish or

Illex moratorium permit and are transferring the species for which the

vessel is permitted or a valid squid/butterfish incidental catch permit

and a letter of authorization by the Regional Administrator.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 97-13817 Filed 5-23-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-22-F