[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 211 (Tuesday, November 1, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 75731-75740]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-26320]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 648
[Docket No. 151215999-6960-02]
RIN 0648-BF64
Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Herring
Fishery; Specification of Management Measures for Atlantic Herring for
the 2016-2018 Fishing Years
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS is implementing final specifications and management
measures for the 2016-2018 Atlantic herring fishery. This action sets
harvest specifications and river herring/shad catch caps for the
herring fishery for the 2016-2018 fishing years, as recommended to NMFS
by the New England Fishery Management Council. The river herring/shad
catch caps are area and gear-specific. River herring and shad catch
from a specific area with a specific gear counts against a cap for
trips landing more than a minimum amount of herring. The specifications
and management measures in this action meet conservation objectives
while providing sustainable levels of access to the fishery.
DATES: Effective December 1, 2016.
ADDRESSES: Copies of supporting documents used by the New England
Fishery Management Council, including the Environmental Assessment (EA)
and Regulatory Impact Review (RIR)/Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (IRFA), are available from: Thomas A. Nies, Executive
Director, New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Mill
2, Newburyport, MA 01950, telephone (978) 465-0492. The EA/RIR/IRFA is
also accessible via the Internet at http://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shannah Jaburek, Fishery Management
[[Page 75732]]
Specialist, (978) 282-8456, fax (978) 281-9135.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
NMFS published a proposed rule for the 2016-2018 specifications on
June 21, 2016 (81 FR 40253). The comment period on the proposed rule
ended on July 21, 2016. NMFS received 32 comments, which are summarized
in the ``Comments and Responses'' section of this final rule.
Regulations implementing the Atlantic Herring Fishery Management
Plan (FMP) appear at 50 CFR part 648, subpart K. Regulations at Sec.
648.200 require NMFS to make final determinations on the herring
specifications recommended by the New England Fishery Management
Council in the Federal Register, including: The overfishing limit
(OFL); acceptable biological catch (ABC); annual catch limit (ACL);
optimum yield (OY); domestic annual harvest (DAH); domestic annual
processing (DAP); U.S. at-sea processing (USAP); border transfer (BT);
management area sub-ACLs; and the amount to be set aside for the
research set aside (RSA) (up to 3 percent of any management area sub-
ACL) for 3 years. These regulations also allow for river herring/shad
catch caps to be developed and implemented as part of the
specifications. The 2016-2018 herring specifications are consistent
with these provisions, and provide the necessary elements to comply
with the ACL and accountability measure (AM) requirements of the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA).
Complete details on the development of the herring specifications and
river herring/shad catch caps were included in the proposed rule; NMFS
has not repeated that information here.
Herring Specifications
Table 1--Atlantic Herring Specifications
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2016-2018 Atlantic Herring Specifications--2016-2018 (mt)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overfishing Limit....................... 138,000-2016.
117,000-2017.
111,000-2018.
Acceptable Biological Catch............. 111,000.
Management Uncertainty.................. 6,200.
Optimum Yield/ACL....................... 104,800.*
Domestic Annual Harvest................. 104,800.
Border Transfer......................... 4,000.
Domestic Annual Processing.............. 100,800.
U.S. At-Sea Processing.................. 0.
Area 1A Sub-ACL......................... 30,300.*
Area 1B Sub-ACL......................... 4,500.
Area 2 Sub-ACL.......................... 29,100.
Area 3 Sub-ACL.......................... 40,900.
Fixed Gear Set-Aside.................... 295.
Research Set-Aside...................... 3 percent of each sub-ACL.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\*\ If New Brunswick weir fishery catch through October 1 is less than
4,000 mt, then 1,000 mt will be subtracted from the management
uncertainty buffer and added to the ACL and Area 1A Sub-ACL.
An operational update to the herring stock assessment, completed in
May 2015, indicated that herring was not overfished and overfishing was
not occurring. However, the assessment contained a retrospective
pattern suggesting that spawning stock biomass (SSB) is likely
overestimated and fishing mortality (F) is likely underestimated.
Following an adjustment for the retrospective pattern, the assessment
estimated the herring stock at approximately double its target biomass
(SSBMSY) and F at approximately half the fishing mortality
threshold (FMSY).
The herring ABC of 111,000 mt (a 3-mt decrease from status quo) for
2016-2018 is based on the current control rule (constant catch with 50-
percent probability that F > FMSY in last year) and is
consistent with the Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee's
(SSC) advice. The OFL is 138,000 mt in 2016, 117,000 mt in 2017, and
111,000 mt in 2018. While the ABC control rule does not explicitly
adjust for herring's role in the ecosystem, herring's high biomass
(approximately 74 percent of unfished biomass) and low fishing
mortality (ratio of catch to consumption by predators is 1:4) likely
achieves ecosystem goals, including accounting for herring's role as
forage. The herring ABC is typically reduced from the OFL to account
for scientific uncertainty. Using the current constant catch control
rule means that the ABC will equal the OFL in 2018. When the SSC
considered the ABC of 111,000 mt, it concluded that the probability of
the stock becoming overfished during 2016-2018 is near zero. Further,
this final rule is consistent with the status quo specifications that
set ABC equal to OFL in 2015 and overfishing did not occur.
Under the FMP, the herring ACL is reduced from ABC to account for
management uncertainty, and the primary source of management
uncertainty is catch in the New Brunswick weir fishery. Catch in the
weir fishery is variable, but has declined in recent years. This final
rule implements a management uncertainty buffer of 6,200 mt, which is
equivalent to the value of the buffer in 2015. To help ensure catch in
the New Brunswick weir fishery does not exceed the management
uncertainty buffer, NMFS specifies a buffer greater than the most
recent 3-year and 5-year average catch in the New Brunswick weir
fishery. The resulting stockwide ACL will be 104,800 mt.
Given the variability of the New Brunswick weir catch and the
likelihood that weir catch may be less than 6,200 mt, NMFS also
specifies a New Brunswick weir fishery payback provision. Specifically,
NMFS will subtract 1,000 mt from the management uncertainty buffer and
add it to the ACL if the weir fishery harvests less than 4,000 mt by
October 1. The 1,000 mt added to the ACL would also increase the sub-
ACL for Herring Management Area 1A. NMFS selects the October 1 date to
trigger the payback provision for two reasons. First, there is
typically only minimal catch in the New Brunswick weir fishery after
October 1 (less than four percent of total reported landings from 1978
to 2014) so the likelihood of weir catch exceeding the management
uncertainty buffer after October 1 is low. Second, adding 1,000 mt to
the Area 1A sub-ACL in October is expected to allow herring vessels to
access the additional harvest before catch in the herring fishery is
limited in Area 1A. NMFS implements a 2,000-lb (907-kg) herring
possession limit in Area 1A when it projects that 92 percent the sub-
ACL has been harvested. If New Brunswick weir catch is less than 4,000
mt by October 1, the management uncertainty buffer will be reduced to
5,200 mt, the ACL will be increased to 105,800 mt, and the Herring
Management Area 1A sub-ACL will be increased to 31,300 mt. The New
Brunswick weir fishery payback provision was last in effect during
fishing years 2010-2012, so this final rule puts the payback provision
back in place for 2016-2018. NMFS is currently awaiting final data to
decide whether or not to subtract 1,000 mt from the management
uncertainty buffer and increase the ACL and the Area 1A sub-ACL.
BT is a processing allocation available to Canadian dealers. The
MSA provides for the issuance of permits to Canadian vessels
transporting U.S.-harvested herring to Canada for sardine processing.
The amount specified for BT has equaled 4,000 mt since 2000. As there
continues to be interest in transporting herring to Canada for sardine
processing, NMFS maintains BT at 4,000 mt.
[[Page 75733]]
The Atlantic Herring FMP specifies that DAH will be set less than
or equal to OY and be composed of DAP and BT. DAP is the amount of U.S.
harvest that is processed domestically, as well as herring that is sold
fresh (i.e., bait). DAP is calculated by subtracting BT from DAH. DAH
should reflect the actual and potential harvesting capacity of the U.S.
herring fleet. Since 2001, total landings in the U.S. fishery have
decreased, but herring catch has remained somewhat consistent from
2003-2014, averaging 91,925 mt. When previously considering the DAH
specification, the Council evaluated the harvesting capacity of the
directed herring fleet and determined that the herring fleet is capable
of fully utilizing the available yield from the fishery. This
determination is still true. NMFS therefore sets DAH at 104,800 mt and
DAP at 100,800 mt for the 2016-2018 fishing years in this final rule.
A portion of DAP may be specified for the at-sea processing of
herring in Federal waters. When determining this USAP specification,
the Council considered the availability of shore-side processing,
status of the resource, and opportunities for vessels to participate in
the herring fishery. During the 2007-2009 fishing years, the Council
maintained a USAP specification of 20,000 mt (Herring Management Areas
\2/3\ only) based on information received about a new at-sea processing
vessel that intended to utilize a substantial amount of the USAP
specification. At that time, landings from Areas 2 and 3-where USAP was
authorized-were considerably lower than recent sub-ACLs for Areas 2 and
3. Moreover, the specification of 20,000 mt for USAP did not restrict
either the operation or the expansion of the shoreside processing
facilities during the 2007-2009 fishing years. However, this operation
never materialized, and none of the USAP specification was used during
the 2007-2009 fishing years. Consequently, NMFS set USAP at zero for
the 2010-2015 fishing years. Lacking any additional information that
would support changing this specification, NMFS maintains the USAP at
zero for fishing years 2016-2018.
The herring ABC specification recommended by the SSC for 2016-2018
is not substantially different from the 2013-2015 ABC specification
because, in part, key attributes of the herring stock (SSB,
recruitment, F, and survey indices) have not significantly changed
since the 2013-2015 herring specifications. Therefore, NMFS determined
that there is no new information on which to modify the allocation of
the total ACL between the herring management areas. This final rule
maintains status quo percentage allocations for the herring sub-ACLs
for the 2016-2018 specifications. The resulting sub-ACLs are slightly
lower than 2013-2015 specifications (see Table 1).
NMFS maintains the 2016-2018 RSA specification at 3 percent of each
herring management area sub-ACL. The herring RSA is removed from each
sub-ACL prior to allocating the sub-ACL to the fishery. If an RSA
proposal is approved, but a final award is not made by NMFS, or if NMFS
determines that the RSA cannot be utilized by a project, NMFS shall
reallocate the unallocated or unused amount of the RSA to the
respective sub-ACL. On February 29, 2016, NMFS fully awarded the
herring RSA for fishing years 2016-2018.
Herring regulations at Sec. 648.201(e) specify that up to 500 mt
of the Herring Management Area 1A sub-ACL shall be allocated for the
fixed gear fisheries (weirs and stop seines) in Area 1A that occur west
of 67[deg]16.8' W. long. This set-aside shall be available for harvest
by the fixed gear fisheries within Area 1A until November 1 of each
year; any unused portion of the allocation will be restored to the Area
1A sub-ACL after November 1. During the 2013-2015 fishing years, the
fixed gear set-aside was specified at 295 mt. Because the proposed Area
1A sub-ACL for the 2016-2018 fishing years is not substantially
different from the Area 1A sub-ACL in 2015, NMFS maintains the fixed
gear set-aside at 295 mt.
River Herring/Shad Catch Caps
Framework 3 to the Atlantic Herring FMP established gear and area-
specific river herring/shad catch caps for the herring fishery in 2014.
These included catch caps for midwater trawl vessels fishing in the
Gulf of Maine, off Cape Cod, and in Southern New England, as well as
for small-mesh bottom trawl vessels fishing in Southern New England.
The caps are intended to minimize river herring and shad bycatch and
bycatch mortality to the extent practicable while allowing the herring
fishery an opportunity to fully harvest the herring ACL. The incentive
to minimize the catch of river herring and shad is to avoid the
implementation of a herring possession limit. Herring regulations at
Sec. 648.201(a)(4)(ii) state that once 95 percent of a catch cap is
harvested, the herring possession limit for vessels using that gear
type and fishing in that area is reduced to 2,000 lb (907 kg) for the
remainder of the fishing year. Once a 2,000-lb (907-kg) possession
limit is in effect for a particular gear and area, the herring
fishery's ability to harvest the herring sub-ACL associated with that
area is limited. The herring fleet's avoidance of river herring and
shad combined with the catch caps are expected to minimize river
herring and shad bycatch and bycatch mortality. Additionally, the
herring fishery is expected to be able to harvest the herring ACL,
provided the fishery continues to avoid river herring and shad.
As noted in Framework 3, available data are not robust enough to
specify biologically-based catch caps that reflect river herring and
shad abundance or to evaluate the potential impacts of catch caps on
the river herring and shad stocks. Specific biological impacts on river
herring and shad are influenced by fishing activity, environmental
factors, climate change, restoration efforts, and other factors. In the
absence of sufficient data to specify biologically-based catch caps,
the caps have been set using recent river herring and shad catch data
with the intent of keeping catch below its highest levels to limit
fishing mortality on river herring and shad. Limiting fishing mortality
is expected to result in positive impacts on the stocks.
To date the values of the caps have been specified using the median
catch of river herring and shad catch over the previous 5 years (2008-
2012). The 2016-2018 river herring/shad catch caps, as specified below
in Table 2, are calculated using a revised methodology and updated data
over a longer time period. The revised methodology uses a weighted mean
catch of river herring and shad (versus median catch). This methodology
better accounts for the inter-annual variability in the level of
sampling by both observers and portside samplers by weighting years
with higher sampling levels more heavily than years with lower sampling
levels. Additionally, the revised methodology includes previously
omitted catch data, including some shad landings and trips from catch
cap areas where trips did not meet the 6,600-lb (3-mt) herring landing
threshold, and updated extrapolation methodology (using sampled trips
to estimate catch on unsampled trips). Lastly, by using a longer time
series (the most recent 7 years versus 5 years), the value of the caps
can be based on more data, especially the most recent catch
information, to better ensure the catch caps reflect the herring
fishery's interactions with river herring and shad and overall fishing
effort.
NMFS determined that using a longer time series, including more
recent and previously omitted data, as well as using a weighted mean to
generate the values for river herring/shad catch caps is consistent
with using the best available science. Setting cap amounts
[[Page 75734]]
using recent catch data better reflects current fishing behavior and
catch levels. Similarly, relying more heavily on years with higher
levels of sampling should provide cap values that more precisely
reflect recent catch. Additionally, catch data may indirectly reflect
stock abundance. For example, increases in stock abundance may
potentially result in increased incidental catch whereas decreases in
abundance may result in decreased incidental catch. Therefore, setting
catch cap amounts based on catch data are expected to result in catch
caps that are more consistent with current fishing activity, and
possibly stock conditions, while balancing the incentive to avoid river
herring and shad against the opportunity for the herring fishery to
harvest the ACL.
NMFS is adjusting the river herring/shad catch caps to reflect the
use of best available scientific data and a revised, superior
methodology. This adjustment increases the catch caps for three of the
four river herring/shad catch caps in the herring fishery. Based on
fishing practices to date, however, NMFS expects river herring and shad
catch to remain below the catch cap amounts. For example, the herring
industry currently has harvested only 57 percent of the total river
herring and shad catch allowed under the 2015 river herring/shad catch
caps. Because river herring and shad catch is currently well below
allowable catch limits, NMFS does not expect that any catch cap
increases implemented in this action will result in a substantial
increase in river herring and shad catch. Rather, NMFS anticipates that
the 2,000-lb (907-kg) herring possession limit that will result if a
cap is harvested will continue to provide a strong incentive for the
herring industry to avoid catching river herring and shad and that the
herring industry will continue to harvest less than the river herring
and shad catch allowed under the adjusted catch caps.
Table 2--River Herring/Shad Catch Caps
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area Gear Amount (mt)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2016-2018 River Herring/Shad Catch Caps
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gulf Of Maine..................... Midwater Trawl...... 76.7
Cape Cod.......................... Midwater Trawl...... 32.4
Southern New England/Mid-Atlantic. Midwater Trawl...... 129.6
Southern New England/Mid-Atlantic. Bottom Trawl........ 122.3
-------------------------------------
Total......................... All Gears........... 361.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments and Responses
NMFS received 32 comment letters on the proposed rule: 9 from
interested members of the public; 3 from herring industry participants;
2 from other fishing industry participants (Massachusetts Lobstermen's
Association (MLA) and the Cape Cod Commercial Fishermen's Alliance); 4
from local watershed groups (Jones River, Ipswich River, Mystic River,
and the Herring Ponds Watershed Associations); and 12 from non-
governmental organizations (NGOs), including 6 prominent environmental
advocacy groups (Conservation Law Foundation, Earth Justice, the
Herring Alliance, Save the Bay-Narragansett, the Mohegan Tribe, and
Alewife Harvesters of Maine). Two of the environmental advocacy group
comments were form letters that contained signatures and personalized
comments, including: A letter from PEW Charitable Trusts with 10,593
signatures and 931 personalized comments; and a letter from Earth
Justice with 2,298 signatures and 234 personalized comments.
Comment 1: Three herring fishery participants and the MLA commented
in support of the proposed 2016-2018 herring specifications and river
herring/shad caps.
Response: NMFS approved the 2016-2018 herring specifications and
river herring/shad catch caps because they promote achieving optimal
yield, fishery conservation, are based upon best available science, and
are consistent with the goals and objectives of the Atlantic Herring
FMP.
Comment 2: The Cape Cod Commercial Fishermen's Alliance, Jones
River Watershed Association, Herring Alliance, Mohegan Tribe, and Earth
Justice opposed setting the ABC equal to the OFL in 2018. Their
comments claimed that the 2018 ABC does not adequately account for
scientific uncertainty. Earth Justice commented that NMFS could revise
the specifications to account for scientific uncertainty in a number of
ways. They suggested NMFS could implement ABCs in 2017 and 2018 with
the same scientific uncertainty buffer that was set for 2016 (27,000
mt) or implement the 2017 scientific uncertainty buffer (6,000 mt) in
2018. They further commented that NMFS could request advice from the
SSC for an appropriate buffer in 2018. Additionally, the Herring
Alliance, Mohegan Tribe, and Earth Justice commented that NMFS should
use its authority to implement a revised ABC that appropriately buffers
for scientific uncertainty in 2018.
Response: NMFS disagrees. The recent herring stock assessment
update completed in May 2015 contained a retrospective pattern
suggesting that the spawning stock biomass (SSB) is likely
overestimated and fishing mortality (F) is likely underestimated. The
assessment was adjusted to account for the retrospective pattern. Even
with the adjustment to account for the scientific uncertainty
associated with the retrospective pattern, the assessment estimated the
herring stock at approximately double its target biomass
(SSBMSY) and F is approximately half the fishing mortality
threshold (FMSY). The stock assessment update generated
catch projections for 2016-2018 based on the constant catch control
rule. When the SSC evaluated the resulting ABC, it supported the
resulting ABC and did not recommend specifying a scientific uncertainty
buffer between OFL and ABC in 2018. Because the recent stock assessment
update adjusted for scientific uncertainty and the SSC did not
recommend that an additional scientific uncertainty buffer be specified
for 2018, NMFS implements an ABC that equals OFL in 2018.
Comment 3: The Cape Cod Commercial Fishermen's Alliance, Jones
River Watershed Association, Herring Alliance, Mohegan Tribe, and Earth
Justice opposed setting the ABC equal to the OFL in 2018. Their
comments noted that this introduces unnecessary risk of overfishing.
Response: NMFS disagrees. Herring are currently not overfished and
overfishing is not occurring. While
[[Page 75735]]
setting the ABC equal to the OFL in 2018 has a 50-percent probability
of overfishing in 2018, the overall probability of overfishing herring
during 2016-2018 is near zero. In addition, the realized catch in the
fishery is generally well below ABC, further reducing the likelihood of
overfishing. Lastly, setting the ABC equal to OFL in 2018 would
continue to provide the herring fishery with some economic stability,
an important consideration in the Council's harvest risk policy.
Comment 4: The Herring Alliance, Mohegan Tribe, and Earth Justice
oppose using the current constant catch control rule because it does
not adjust the ABC to explicitly account for herring's role as forage
in the ecosystem and recommend that NMFS consider further reductions in
ABC.
Response: NMFS disagrees. When generating ABC catch projections for
2016-2018, the 2015 stock assessment update adjusted for predator
consumption of herring by maintaining a relatively high natural
mortality rate. Additionally, the recent stock assessment update
indicated that herring has a high biomass (approximately 74 percent of
unfished biomass) and low fishing mortality (ratio of catch to
consumption by predators is 1:4). The constant catch ABC control rule
is expected to maintain the high herring biomass, bolstered by two very
large year classes, and low fishing mortality. Thus, the ABC control
rule should meet forage demands and maintain a biomass level consistent
with forage-based control rules in the short-term while the Council
continues its consideration of herring's role as forage in Amendment 8
to the Atlantic Herring FMP. For these reasons, NMFS concludes that the
current constant control rule, as well as the associated ABC,
sufficiently account for herring's role as forage in the ecosystem
during 2016-2018.
Comment 5: Earth Justice commented that the ABC was not selected as
part of a reasonable range of alternatives as required by the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) because none of the alternatives
accounted for scientific uncertainty in 2018. They also stated that the
EA acknowledged this lack of uncertainty buffer is not consistent with
the best available science.
Response: NFMS disagrees. As described above, the ABC sufficiently
accounts for scientific uncertainty. The Council developed three ABC
alternatives and fully analyzed them in the EA supporting this action.
NEPA requires a Federal agency to consider a range of alternatives, and
that the alternatives are reasonable alternatives (i.e., those that
meet the stated purpose and need, and objectives, for the action). The
SSC recommended that the ABC for 2016-2018 remain relatively similar or
modestly reduced compared to status quo. Consistent with SSC advice,
the range of ABC alternatives considered in the EA were similar but
reduced from status quo. For the status quo alternative, the EA
cautioned that setting ABC equal to OFL for all three years appears to
be inconsistent with best available science. The EA also explained that
the ABC implemented in this action is more precautionary and expected
to have more positive impacts than the status quo ABC because the
scientific uncertainty buffer between the OFL and ABC during 2016 and
2017 results in a lower risk of overfishing. For these reasons, NMFS
has determined that the range of ABC alternatives considered in this
action was sufficient and consistent with the requirements of NEPA.
Comment 6: One member of the public commented that the herring ACL
should be decreased to 90,000 mt.
Response: NMFS disagrees. The commenter provided no basis for
setting the ACL at 90,000 mt. The most recent stock assessment update
indicated herring was not overfished and overfishing was not occurring.
Setting specifications always requires a balance between conservation
and harvesting opportunity. The most current data show that an ABC of
111,000 mt would have a low positive economic impact on fishery-related
businesses and communities while equaling less than half a sustainable
fishery morality rate.
Comment 7: The Alewife Harvesters of Maine commented in favor of
the proposed decrease of the Gulf of Maine river herring/shad catch
cap. It also commented in support of using the revised methodology with
the longer time series and weighted mean, however, it ``would propose a
more gentle increase in catch cap that accounts for the biological
uncertainty, raising the cap to the full weighted mean estimate over
the course of several years.''
Response: NMFS agrees with the Alewife Harvesters of Maine that
using a longer time series and weighted mean is appropriate to
calculate river herring/shad catch caps. But NMFS disagrees with the
suggestion that the value of the cap, rather than the methodology,
should be the primary consideration when setting catch caps. The catch
cap methodology uses the best available science to reflect recent
fishing behavior and recent catch levels. Without a reasonable basis
for developing different methodologies for each area or gear type, the
methodology used to calculate one catch cap should apply to all catch
caps.
Comment 8: Five interested members of the public, six state and
local advocacy groups, all four river watershed associations,
Conservation Law Foundation, Earth Justice, Herring Alliance, and
letters from PEW Charitable Trust and Earth Justice on behalf of
numerous U.S. citizens expressed concern that raising the river
herring/shad catch caps will set back ongoing efforts by the states and
local advocacy groups to restore river herring and shad to sustainable
levels. Additionally, the Mohegan Tribe, Mystic River Watershed, Earth
Justice, and Conservation Law Foundation suggests that the herring
fishery may be a contributing factor to declines in Southern New
England river herring and shad stock, based on a study by Hasselman et
al. in 2015.
Response: NMFS recognizes and supports the effort, time, and
resources that states and local advocacy groups have devoted to river
herring and shad restoration efforts. However, NMFS disagrees with the
commenters that raising the river herring/shad catch caps will set back
those efforts. Although the comments suggest otherwise, NMFS cannot
directly link catch levels of river herring and shad in the herring
fishery to impacts on river herring and shad recovery efforts by the
states in specific rivers and streams. NMFS considered the Hasselman et
al. study, despite it being published almost two months after the
Council took final action at its meeting on September 29, 2015. NMFS
acknowledges that certain river herring stocks may be
disproportionately affected by the herring fishery, but points out the
study also cautions that currently river herring and shad catch in the
ocean cannot be confidently assigned to a specific population of
origin. Instead, the catch caps are designed to minimize bycatch and
bycatch mortality so that the catch of river herring and shad is kept
below recent levels and limit fishing mortality to provide an
opportunity for positive impacts on stocks. The incentive for the
herring fishery to avoid river herring and shad catch comes from the
potential that river herring and shad catch will limit the fishery's
ability to harvest the ACL. While this action increases the value of
caps off Cape Cod and in Southern New England, the incentive to avoid
river herring and shad catch remains while the caps are in place and
are set based on fishing activity. NMFS has determined that the river
herring/shad catch caps implemented in this action will support ongoing
[[Page 75736]]
conservation efforts by the states and local advocacy groups and will
help achieve conservation and management objectives outlined in the
River Herring Conservation Plan coordinated by the Atlantic States
Marine Fisheries Commission and NMFS.
Comment 9: Three NGOs, one interested member of the public, the
Mystic River Watershed Association, Conservation Law Foundation, Earth
Justice, Herring Alliance, and letters from PEW Charitable Trust and
Earth Justice submitted on behalf of numerous U.S. citizens commented
that the caps do not provide an incentive to avoid river herring and
shad. One interested member of the public, Conservation Law Foundation,
Earth Justice, Herring Alliance, and letters from PEW Charitable Trust
and Earth Justice on behalf of numerous U.S. citizens commented that
the herring industry has stayed well within the current river herring/
shad catch caps since 2015 and does not need more river herring and
shad catch to operate. Additionally, the Conservation Law Foundation,
Earth Justice, Herring Alliance, The Mohegan Tribe, and Save the Bay-
Narragansett further suggest that NMFS use its authority to implement
river herring/shad catch caps that reduce catch and stay consistent
with the incentive to avoid and minimize river herring and shad catch.
Response: NMFS disagrees with the commenters that the catch caps do
not provide an incentive for the herring fishery to avoid river herring
and shad catch. River herring/shad catch caps were first implemented in
the herring fishery in 2014. As described previously, caps have been
based on recent catch with the intent of keeping catch below its
highest levels. Once 95 percent of a catch cap is harvested, the
herring possession limit for vessels using that gear type and fishing
in that area is reduced to 2,000 lb (907 kg) for the remainder of the
fishing year. Implementation of this possession limit in a catch cap
area decreases the herring fishery's ability to harvest the herring
sub-ACL associated with that areas as well as the herring ACL.
The incentive to minimize the catch of river herring and shad is to
avoid the implementation of a herring possession limit. For example,
catch tracked against the Southern New England/Mid-Atlantic bottom
trawl cap is currently 21 mt compared to 51 mt at this same time last
year. This suggests that the existence of the catch caps is an
effective incentive to avoid river herring and shad catch and more
restrictive caps are not required to provide an incentive to continue
to avoid river herring and shad catch.
The University of Massachusetts and Massachusetts Division of
Marine Fisheries operate a river herring avoidance program for vessels
participating in the herring fishery. This program is funded, in part,
by the herring RSA for 2016-2018. The participation level of midwater
trawl and bottom trawl vessels in the avoidance program has increased
in recent years and currently includes the majority of midwater trawl
and bottom trawl vessels. The river herring avoidance program provides
vessels with near real-time information on where herring vessels are
encountering river herring and encourages vessels to avoid and/or leave
those areas. Select vessels that comply with the requirements of the
avoidance program are able to harvest the herring RSA. Both the river
herring avoidance program and the opportunity to harvest the herring
RSA provide additional incentive for herring vessels to avoid river
herring and shad.
For these reasons, NMFS concludes the catch caps implemented in
this action are consistent with the incentives to avoid and minimize
catch to the extent practicable.
Comment 10: Conservation Law Foundation, Earth Justice, Save the
Bay-Narragansett, and the Earth Justice form letter stated that using a
longer time series and a weighted mean to calculate the catch caps,
compared to prior years, increases bias toward outlier years. Earth
Justice, Conservation Law Foundation, Herring Alliance, Save the Bay-
Narragansett, and the Earth Justice letter on behalf of 2,298 citizens
commented that the industry had an incentive to catch more river
herring and shad in 2013 and 2014 because it knew that more river
herring and shad catch would mean higher catch caps in the future.
Earth Justice and Save the Bay-Narragansett also commented that using
the revised methodology is arbitrary and capricious in that it rewards
the fleet for increasing river herring and shad catch 2013 and 2014.
Response: Catch caps were implemented in Framework 3 to minimize
river herring and shad bycatch and bycatch mortality to the extent
practicable, while allowing the herring fishery an opportunity to fully
harvest the herring ACL. Additionally, catch caps were intended to be
adjusted when new information became available. The catch caps
implemented in this action were calculated using updated data and a
revised methodology.
Catch caps for the 2016-2018 fishing years were calculated by using
previously omitted catch data and a longer time series (most recent 7
years rather than 5 years). This ensures that the value of the catch
caps are based on more data, especially the most recent catch
information, to better ensure the catch caps reflect the herring
fishery's interactions with river herring and shad and overall fishing
effort. Because catch data may indirectly reflect stock abundance,
setting catch caps based on recent catch data are expected to result in
catch caps that are more consistent with current fishing activity, and
possibly stock conditions. Commenters provided no information to
substantiate claims that the herring industry intentionally caught more
river herring and shad in 2013 and 2014 in order to artificially
inflate catch caps. Therefore, NMFS concludes extending the time series
used to calculate caps to include the two most recent years (2013 and
2014) best reflects the recent catch of river herring and shad, makes
the best use of new information, and is consistent with Framework 3.
Using a weighted mean, rather than the median or unweighted mean,
to calculate catch caps best accounts for the inter-annual variability
in the level of sampling (both observer and portside) of river herring
and shad catch. Caps calculated using the median catch of river herring
and shad would base the value of the cap on the total number of catch
estimates, giving equal weight to all years regardless of sampling
level. Using the unweighted mean, caps would be based on the average
catch each year regardless of sampling level. In contrast, using a
weighted mean to calculate catch caps adjusts for the sampling level
each year and incorporates those averages into the overall average,
thereby giving more weight to years with more sampling versus years
with less sampling. Therefore, using a weighted mean helps account for
the fluctuations in levels of sampling relative to observed catch of
river herring and shad to help mitigate the effects of any outlier
years.
The revised methodology was developed by the Herring Plan
Development Team (PDT). The PDT is the Council's technical group
responsible for developing and preparing analyses to support the
Council's management actions. The PDT is responsible for generating
analyses to calculate quotas, caps, or any other technical aspects of
the FMP. For the 2016-2018 catch caps, the PDT reviewed updated river
herring and shad catch data and generated a range of catch cap
alternatives for the
[[Page 75737]]
Council's consideration. The PDT concluded that using a weighted mean
and longer time series would be the most technically sound approach for
specifying the values of the caps because it is consistent with using
the best available science. The Council ultimately decided to adopt the
river herring/shad catch caps based on the revised methodology
recommended by the PDT.
Using the revised methodology to calculate river herring/shad catch
caps is consistent with using the best available science and it
balances the incentive to avoid river herring and shad against the
opportunity for the herring fishery to harvest the ACL. For these
reasons, NMFS disagrees that the basis for setting river herring/shad
catch caps implemented through this action, including the revised
methodology, is arbitrary and capricious.
Comment 11: Conservation Law Foundation, Earth Justice, and Save
the Bay-Narragansett expressed concern that basing the river herring/
shad catch caps on historical landings and not on biological status is
problematic and not scientifically sound. The Ipswich River Watershed
also commented that there is no science to support raising the caps.
Response: NMFS disagrees. As described previously, available data
are not robust enough to specify biologically-based catch caps that
reflect river herring and shad abundance. Harvest limits are often
based on recent catch when estimates of relative abundance are not
available. For example, the herring ABC recommended by the SSC and
implemented for 2010-2012 was based on recent catch because of
scientific uncertainty associated with the 2009 herring stock
assessment. In the absence of sufficient data to specify biologically-
based catch caps, the catch caps are set based on recent catch data
with the intent of keeping catch below its highest levels to limit
fishing mortality on river herring and shad. Limiting catch to recent
levels is expected to result in positive impacts on the stocks.
Comment 12: Letters generated by PEW Charitable Trusts and Earth
Justice on behalf of numerous U.S. citizens commented that river
herring and shad should be added as stocks in the Atlantic Herring FMP
and managed based on science.
Response: The intent of this action is to set herring
specifications and river herring/shad catch caps for the 2016-2018
fishing years. Adding river herring and shad as stocks in the fishery
and developing management measures for both the river herring and shad
stocks under the Atlantic Herring FMP are beyond the scope of this
action and would require a regulatory amendment.
Comment 13: Earth Justice commented that the revised methodology
used to set the river herring/shad catch caps for the 2016-2018 fishing
years is not consistent with the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management
Council's (MAFMC) approach for setting the same cap in the Atlantic
Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish FMP. They also commented that
implementing the proposed river herring/shad catch caps would interfere
with the catch measures first implemented by the MAFMC and are thus
inconsistent with the MSA's requirement that new regulations be
consistent with existing FMPs, amendments, MSA, and applicable law as
stated in U.S.C. 1854(b)(1).
Response: The MSA requires regulations to be consistent with the
FMP. The MSA provision cited by the commenters does not require
measures to be the same between FMPs. NMFS has determined that the
river herring/shad catch caps for the herring and mackerel fisheries,
including the associated methodologies for setting caps, are consistent
with the Atlantic Herring FMP and the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and
Butterfish FMP, respectively.
When the MAFMC developed the river herring and shad catch cap for
the mackerel fishery, the catch cap was based on median river herring
and shad catch in the mackerel fishery during 2005-2012. This
methodology was identical to the river herring and shad catch cap
methodology developed by the Council for the 2014-2015 herring fishery.
However, the Council considers both observer and portside sampling data
to set catch caps while the MAFMC only considers observer data. The
MAFMC continues to use the median river herring and shad catch estimate
from 2005-2012 to set the catch cap for the mackerel fishery. However,
if the mackerel fishery harvests 10,000 mt of mackerel in a given year,
the river herring and shad catch cap is scaled up to the match the
median river herring and shad catch estimate based on the mackerel ACL.
NMFS agrees that river herring/shad catch caps for the herring and
mackerel fisheries should not cause management inconsistencies between
the two fisheries. Midwater trawl and bottom trawl vessels often
participate in both the herring and mackerel fisheries. When fishing
trips meet the minimum harvest threshold for catch caps in the herring
fishery (6,600 lb (3 mt) of herring) and the minimum harvest threshold
for the catch cap in the mackerel fishery (20,000 lb (9,072 kg) of
mackerel), then river herring and shad catch on those trips is counted
against both caps and vessels would be subject to the most restrictive
catch cap. Rather than management inconsistencies, river herring/shad
catch caps in both the herring and mackerel fisheries provide an
additional incentive to avoid river herring and shad catch, thereby
potentially limiting fishing mortality on these species.
Comment 14: Three NGOs, one interested member of the public, the
Mystic River Watershed Association, Conservation Law Foundation, Earth
Justice, Herring Alliance, and letters from PEW Charitable Trust and
Earth Justice submitted on behalf of numerous U.S. citizens commented
that raising the river herring/shad catch caps does not minimize
bycatch and is inconsistent with the MSA and the goals and objectives
of the Atlantic Herring FMP. Earth Justice further commented that
raising the catch caps is inconsistent with National Standard 9, which
requires that conservation and management measures minimize bycatch to
the extent practicable. Lastly, Earth Justice commented that the small-
mesh bottom trawl fleet in Southern New England discards an estimated
73 percent of its river herring and shad catch at sea, but NMFS does
not explain how it plans to minimize this bycatch, consistent with the
MSA.
Response: NMFS disagrees. The MSA, specifically National Standard
9, does not require the elimination of bycatch or bycatch mortality,
nor does it require minimizing bycatch at the exclusion of other
considerations. Rather, National Standard 9 requires minimizing bycatch
and bycatch mortality to the extent practicable, which includes a
consideration of the net benefits to the nation. This consideration
includes evaluating the negative impacts on affected stocks and other
species in the ecosystem, incomes accruing to participants in the
directed fishery in both the short and long-term, changes in fishing
practices and behavior, and environmental consequences.
As discussed previously, the incentive to minimize the catch of
river herring and shad is to avoid the implementation of a herring
possession limit. Once a 2,000-lb (907-kg) possession limit is in
effect for a particular gear and area, the herring fishery's ability to
harvest the herring sub-ACL associated with that area or the herring
ACL is limited. This potential economic loss must be weighed against
the role of river herring and shad in the herring fishery. River
herring and shad are not target species in the herring fishery. Rather,
they are harvested because they co-occur with herring and
[[Page 75738]]
the incidental catch and bycatch of these species is low. Thus, the
river herring/shad catch caps are not designed to eliminate all
incidental catch. The caps are also not designed to remain static or
continually decrease over time. These design features would not provide
the flexibility for a full consideration of the net benefits to the
nation because they may preclude an opportunity for herring industry to
harvest its allowable catch.
When evaluating the river herring/shad catch caps recommended by
the Council, NMFS considered the ecological and economic considerations
associated with the catch caps, as well fishing practices and behavior.
The catch caps are intended to minimize river herring and shad bycatch
and bycatch mortality to the extent practicable, while allowing the
herring fishery an opportunity to fully harvest the herring ACL. The
total catch of river herring and shad (both retained and discarded) is
tracked against the catch caps. Because total catch of river herring
and shad catch is counted against the catch caps, these caps not only
help minimize the retained catch of river herring and shad, but they
also help minimize any river herring and shad catch that is discarded
at sea. As described in the responses to previous comments, NMFS
concludes that catch caps are calculated using new and updated
information and are based on the best available science. NMFS also
concludes that if vessels continue to avoid river herring and shad,
they would have an opportunity to harvest the herring ACL.
Additionally, NMFS concludes that catch caps may limit fishing
mortality on river herring and shad, thereby supporting ongoing
Federal, state, and local conservation efforts. For these reasons, NMFS
determines the river herring/shad catch caps implemented in this action
reduce bycatch and bycatch mortality to the extent practicable and are
consistent with the MSA, National Standard 9, and the Atlantic Herring
FMP.
Comment 15: The Mystic River Watershed Association, Conservation
Law Foundation, Herring Alliance, and Earth Justice all commented that
there is a lack of onboard monitoring and that it is highly likely that
more river herring and shad are/will be discarded at sea than reported.
Response: In 2016, NMFS increased observer coverage allocated to
New England midwater trawl vessels to approximately 440 days,
consistent with the standardized bycatch reporting methodology (SBRM).
This is an increase of 401 days (175 percent) over the 160 days
observed on the New England midwater trawl fleet in 2015. Three of the
four river herring/shad catch caps implemented in this action are for
vessels using midwater trawl gear. Additionally, observer coverage
allocated to New England small-mesh bottom trawl vessels in 2016 (798
days) is expected to be similar to days observed in 2015 (933 days).
The increase in observer coverage should help NMFS more precisely track
catch against river herring/shad catch caps. Portside sampling by the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the State of Maine is expected to
continue into the future, collecting data on river herring and shad
that are landed by midwater trawl and small-mesh bottom trawl vessels
participating in the herring fishery. NMFS is currently considering if
it would be appropriate to use portside sampling data along with
observer data to track the catch of river herring and shad. Lastly, the
Council is considering increasing monitoring in the herring fishery in
the Industry-Funded Monitoring Omnibus Amendment. The Council is
expected to take final action on this amendment in early 2017.
Comment 16: Conservation Law Foundation, Herring Alliance, and
Alewife Harvesters of Maine commented that all the biological
uncertainty surrounding river herring and shad estimates demands a
precautionary approach to management that requires either no increase
in the catch caps or a more gradual increase.
Response: The river herring/shad catch caps were developed by the
Council to minimize river herring and shad bycatch to the extent
practicable while allowing the herring fishery an opportunity to fully
harvest the herring ACL. While NMFS acknowledges the uncertainty in the
abundance estimates in the stock assessment for river herring and shad,
that uncertainty was not intended to directly factor into the
calculation of the river herring/shad catch caps. In fact, because of
the absence of sufficient data to specify biologically-based catch
caps, the catch caps are set based on recent catch data. The
methodology used to calculate the catch caps, which accounts for
variability of catch from year to year, incorporates precaution by
keeping the catch caps below the highest catch levels and by
establishing an incentive for the herring industry to avoid river
herring and shad catch.
Comment 17: Save the Bay-Narragansett commented that catch caps are
being increased based on socio-economic concerns and that only the
Council, and its supporting scientists, and the herring industry
support increases to the catch caps.
Response: NMFS must consider all factors, biological and socio-
economic factors, when determining whether to accept or reject the
Council's recommendations. NMFS has determined that the Council's
recommended river herring/shad catch caps are consistent with the
Atlantic Herring FMP, the MSA, and other applicable laws, and that
comments opposing the increased catch caps provide no compelling
information to reject the Council's recommendations.
Classification
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, has determined
that this rule is consistent with the national standards and other
provisions of the MSA and other applicable laws.
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
NMFS, pursuant to section 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA), has completed a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) in
support of this action. The FRFA incorporates the IRFA, a summary of
the significant issues raised by the public comments in response to the
IRFA, NMFS responses to those comments, and a summary of the analyses
completed in the 2016-2018 herring specifications EA. A summary of the
IRFA was published in the proposed rule for this action and is not
repeated here. A description of why this action was considered, the
objectives of, and the legal basis for this action is contained in the
preamble to the proposed rule (81 FR 40253), and is not repeated here.
All of the documents that constitute the FRFA are available from NMFS
and a copy of the IRFA, the RIR, and the EA are available upon request
(see ADDRESSES) or via the Internet at
www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov.
A Summary of the Significant Issues Raised by the Public in Response to
the IRFA, a Summary of the Agency's Assessment of Such Issues, and a
Statement of Any Changes Made in the Final Rule as a Result of Such
Comments
NMFS received 32 comment letters on the proposed rule. Those
comments, and NMFS' responses, are contained in the Comments and
Responses section of this final rule and are not repeated here. None of
the comments addressed the IRFA and NMFS did not make any changes in
the final rule based on public comment.
[[Page 75739]]
Description and Estimate of Number of Small Entities to Which This Rule
Would Apply
This final rule would affect all permitted herring vessels;
therefore, the regulated entity is the business that owns at least one
herring permit. From 2014 permit data, there were 1,206 firms that held
at least one herring permit; of those, 1,188 were classified as small
businesses. There were 103 firms, 96 classified as small businesses,
which held at least one limited access permit. There were 38 firms,
including 34 small businesses, which held a limited access permit and
were active in the herring fishery. All four of the active large
entities, held at least one limited access herring permit. The small
firms with limited access permits had 60 percent higher gross receipts
and 85 percent higher revenue from herring than the small firms without
a limited access herring permit. Based on 2014 permit data, the number
of potential fishing vessels in each permit category in the herring
fishery are as follows: 39 for Category A (limited access, all herring
management areas); 4 for Category B (limited access, Herring Management
Areas \2/3\); 46 for Category C (limited access, all herring management
areas); 1,841 for Category D (open access, all herring management
areas); and 4 for Category E (open access, Herring Management Areas \2/
3\).
On December 29, 2015, NMFS issued a final rule establishing a small
business size standard of $11 million in annual gross receipts for all
businesses primarily engaged in the commercial fishing industry (NAICS
11411) for RFA compliance purposes only (80 FR 81194, December 29,
2015). The $11 million standard became effective on July 1, 2016, and
is to be used in place of the U.S. Small Business Administration's
(SBA) previous standards of $20.5 million, $5.5 million, and $7.5
million for the finfish (NAICS 114111), shellfish (NAICS 114112), and
other marine fishing (NAICS 114119) sectors, respectively, of the U.S.
commercial fishing industry.
An IRFA was developed for this regulatory action prior to July 1,
2016, using SBA's previous size standards. Under the SBA's size
standards, 4 of 38 active herring fishing entities with limited access
permits were determined to be large. NMFS has qualitatively reviewed
the analyses prepared for this action using the new size standard. The
new standard could result in fewer commercial finfish businesses being
considered small (due to the decrease in size standards).
Taking this change into consideration, NMFS has identified no
additional significant alternatives that accomplish statutory
objectives and minimize any significant economic impacts of the
proposed rule on small entities. The ACLs are fishery wide and any
closures would apply to the entire fishery, and should be felt
proportionally by both large and small entities. Further, the new size
standard does not affect the decision to prepare a FRFA as opposed to a
certification for this regulatory action.
Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements
This final rule does not introduce any new reporting,
recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements.
Description of the Steps the Agency Has Taken To Minimize the
Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities Consistent With the
Stated Objectives of Applicable Statutes
Specification of commercial harvest and river herring/shad catch
caps are constrained by the conservation objectives set forth in the
FMP and implemented at 50 CFR part 648, subpart K under the authority
of the MSA. Furthermore, specifications must be based on the best
available scientific information, consistent with National Standard 2
of the MSA. With the specification options considered, the measures in
this final rule are the only measures that both satisfy these
overarching regulatory and statutory requirements while minimizing, to
the extent possible, impacts on small entities. This rule implements
the herring specifications outlined in Table 1 and the river herring/
shad catch caps outlined in Table 2. Other options considered by the
Council, including those that could have less of an impact on small
entities, failed to meet one or more of these stated objectives and,
therefore, cannot be implemented. Under Alternatives 1 and 2 for
harvest specifications, small entities may have experienced slight
increases in both gross revenues and herring revenues over the
preferred alternative due to higher ACLs. However, Alternative 1 would
fail to create a sustainable fishery because the ABC exceeds the ABC
recommended by the SSC for 2016-2018 and has an increased risk of
overfishing as compared to the preferred alternative. The ABC
associated with Alternative 2 is equal to the ABC associated with the
preferred alternative; however, the management uncertainty buffer is
less under Alternative 2, resulting in a higher ACL than the preferred
alternative. Rather than select an alternative with a higher ACL, the
Council selected Alternative 3 to be more precautionary. Alternatives 1
and 2 for the river herring/shad catch caps failed to use the best
available science as compared to the Alternative 3, which uses a longer
time series, including more recent and previously omitted data, as well
as a weighted mean, to best account for the inter-annual variability in
the level of river herring and shad sampling, to generate the values
for river herring/shad catch caps. The impacts of the specifications,
as implemented by this final rule, are not expected to
disproportionately affect large or small entities.
Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
Act of 1996 states that, for each rule or group of related rules for
which an agency is required to prepare a FRFA, the agency shall publish
one or more guides to assist small entities in complying with the rule,
and shall designate such publications as ``small entity compliance
guides.'' The agency shall explain the actions a small entity is
required to take to comply with a rule or group of rules. As part of
this rulemaking process, a letter to permit holders that also serves as
small entity compliance guide was prepared. Copies of this final rule
are available from the Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office
(GARFO), and the compliance guide, i.e., permit holder letter, will be
sent to all holders of permits for the Atlantic herring fishery. The
guide and this final rule will be posted or publicly available on the
GARFO Web site.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648
Fisheries, Fishing, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
Dated: October 26, 2016.
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 amended
as follows:
PART 648--FISHERIES OF THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES
0
1. The authority citation for part 648 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
0
2. In Sec. 648.201, add paragraph (h) to read as follows:
Sec. 648.201 AMs and harvest controls.
* * * * *
(h) If NMFS determines that the New Brunswick weir fishery landed
less than
[[Page 75740]]
4,000 mt through October 1, NMFS will allocate an additional 1,000 mt
to the stockwide ACL and Area 1A sub-ACL. NMFS will notify the Council
of this adjustment and publish the adjustment in the Federal Register.
[FR Doc. 2016-26320 Filed 10-31-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P