Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Herring Fishery; Specification of Management Measures for Atlantic Herring for the 2016-2018 Fishing Years, 40253-40258 [2016-14568]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 21, 2016 / Proposed Rules
1. Initial comments are due by August
1, 2016.
2. Replies are due by August 29, 2016.
3. This decision is effective on its date
of service.
Decided: June 14, 2016.
By the Board, Chairman Elliott, Vice
Chairman Miller, and Commissioner
Begeman.
Raina S. Contee,
Clearance Clerk.
[FR Doc. 2016–14625 Filed 6–20–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 648
[Docket No.: 151215999–6488–01]
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
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule, request for
comments.
AGENCY:
NMFS proposes regulations to
implement the 2016–2018 fishery
specifications and management
measures for the Atlantic herring
fishery. The specifications would set
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 catch caps for
river herring and shad for trips landing
more than 6,600 lb (3 mt) of herring.
The specifications and management
measures are set in order to meet
conservation objectives while providing
sustainable levels of access to the
fishery.
DATES: Public comments must be
received by July 21, 2016.
ADDRESSES: Copies of supporting
documents used by the New England
Fishery Management Council (Council),
including the Environmental
Assessment (EA) and Regulatory Impact
Review (RIR)/Initial Regulatory
rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:42 Jun 20, 2016
Jkt 238001
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 https://
www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/.
You may submit comments, identified
by NOAA–NMFS–2016–0050, by any
one of the following methods:
• Electronic Submission: Submit all
electronic public comments via the
Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to
www.regulations.gov/
#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-20160050, click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon,
complete the required fields, and enter
or attach your comments;
• Mail: Submit written comments to
NMFS, Greater Atlantic Regional Office,
55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester,
MA 01930. Mark the outside of the
envelope ‘‘Comments on 2016–2018
Herring Specifications;’’
• Fax: (978) 281–9135, Attn: Shannah
Jaburek.
Instructions: Comments sent by any
other method, to any other address or
individual, or received after the end of
the comment period, may not be
considered by NMFS. All comments
received are a part of the public record
and will generally be posted for public
viewing on www.regulations.gov
without change. All personal identifying
information (e.g., name, address, etc.),
confidential business information, or
otherwise sensitive information
submitted voluntarily by the sender will
be publicly accessible. NMFS will
accept anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/
A’’ in the required fields if you wish to
remain anonymous).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Shannah Jaburek, Fishery Management
Specialist, (978) 282–8456, fax (978)
281–9135.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Regulations implementing the
Atlantic Herring Fishery Management
Plan (FMP) for herring appear at 50 CFR
part 648, subpart K. The regulations at
§ 648.200 require the Council to
recommend herring specifications for
NMFS’ review and proposal 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
40253
at-sea processing (USAP); border
transfer (BT); the sub-ACL for each
management area, including seasonal
periods as allowed by § 648.201(d) and
modifications to sub-ACLs as allowed
by § 648.201(f); and the amount to be set
aside for the research set aside (RSA) (3
percent of the sub-ACL from any
management area) for up to 3 years.
These regulations also provide the
Council with the discretion to
recommend river herring and shad catch
caps as part of the specifications.
Under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act
(Magnuson-Stevens Act), NMFS is
required to publish proposed rules for
comment after preliminarily
determining whether they are consistent
with applicable law. The MagnusonStevens Act permits NMFS to approve,
partially approve, or disapprove
measures proposed by the Council
based only on whether the measures are
consistent with the fishery management
plan, plan amendment, the MagnusonStevens Act and its National Standards,
and other applicable law. Otherwise,
NMFS must defer to the Council’s
policy choices. Under the Atlantic
herring regulations guiding the
specifications process, NMFS must
review the Council’s recommended
specifications and publish notice of the
proposed specifications, clearly noting
any differences from the Council’s
recommendations. NMFS is proposing
and seeking comment on the Council’s
recommended herring specifications
and river herring and shad catch caps
and whether they are consistent with
the Herring FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens
Act and its National Standards, and
other applicable law.
The proposed 2016–2018 herring
specifications are based on the
provisions currently in the Herring
FMP, 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). At its September 29, 2015,
meeting, the Council recommended the
2016–2018 specifications for the herring
fishery, including river herring/shad
catch caps. NMFS proposes to
implement the herring specifications as
recommended by the Council and
detailed in Table 1 below. For 2016–
2018 fishing years, the Council may
annually review these specifications
and recommend adjustments if
necessary.
E:\FR\FM\21JNP1.SGM
21JNP1
40254
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 21, 2016 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1—PROPOSED ATLANTIC HERRING SPECIFICATIONS
Status Quo and Proposed Atlantic Herring Specifications (mt)
2013–2015
Overfishing Limit ......................................................................................
Acceptable Biological Catch ....................................................................
Management Uncertainty ........................................................................
Optimum Yield/ACL .................................................................................
Domestic Annual Harvest ........................................................................
Border Transfer .......................................................................................
Domestic Annual Processing ..................................................................
U.S. At-Sea Processing ..........................................................................
Area 1A Sub-ACL (28.9%) ......................................................................
Area 1B Sub-ACL (4.3%) ........................................................................
Area 2 Sub-ACL (27.8%) ........................................................................
Area 3 Sub-ACL (39%) ...........................................................................
Fixed Gear Set-Aside ..............................................................................
Research Set-Aside ................................................................................
2016–2018
169,000–2013 ................................
136,000–2014 ................................
114,000–2015 ................................
114,000 ..........................................
6,200 ..............................................
107,800 ..........................................
107,800 ..........................................
4,000 ..............................................
103,800 ..........................................
0 .....................................................
31,200 ............................................
4,600 ..............................................
30,000 ............................................
42,000 ............................................
295 .................................................
3 percent of each sub-ACL ...........
138,000–2016
117,000–2017
111,000–2018.
111,000.
6,200.
104,800.*
104,800.
4,000.
100,800.
0.
30,300.*
4,500.
29,100.
40,900.
295.
3 percent of each sub-ACL.
rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
* 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 is approximately half
the fishing mortality threshold (FMSY).
At its June 2015 meeting, the Council
recommended a herring ABC of 111,000
mt (a 3-mt decrease from status quo) for
2016–2018 based on the current control
rule (constant catch with 50-percent
probability that F > FMSY in last year).
The resulting overfishing limit was
calculated to be 138,000 mt in 2016,
117,000 mt in 2017, and 111,000 mt in
2018. This ABC recommendation is
consistent with the Scientific and
Statistical Committee’s (SSC) advice.
After considering herring’s role as
forage, the Council found that, 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.
Several other factors contributed to
the SSC’s and Council’s
recommendation to continue using the
current constant catch ABC control rule
for 2016–2018. First, the Council
recently initiated Amendment 8 to the
Herring FMP to consider herring ABC
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:42 Jun 20, 2016
Jkt 238001
control rules that may explicitly adjust
for herring’s role as forage in the
ecosystem. Second, key attributes of the
stock (SSB, recruitment, F, and survey
indices) have not significantly changed
since the constant catch control rule for
herring was used in the 2013–2015
herring specifications. Third, the
realized catch in the fishery is generally
well below ABC, reducing the
likelihood of overfishing. Fourth, the
probability of the stock becoming
overfished in 2016–2018 is close to zero.
Lastly, the constant catch control rule
provides the herring industry with
economic stability, which was one of
the considerations in the Council’s
harvest risk policy.
The herring ABC is reduced from the
OFL to account for scientific
uncertainty. The Council’s
recommendation to continue using the
current constant catch control rule
means that the ABC would equal the
OFL in 2018. This is consistent with the
status quo specifications when ABC was
set equal to OFL in 2015, which were
successful in preventing overfishing.
Some stakeholders (environmental
advocacy groups, groundfish industry,
and recreational fishing community) are
concerned with the potential
implications of the assessment’s
retrospective pattern on herring
biomass, including its availability as
forage, and the lack of a scientific
uncertainty buffer in 2018. Subject to
review and consideration of public
comment, NMFS preliminarily supports
the Council’s ABC recommendation.
The recent herring operational
assessment indicates that the herring
biomass is robust, despite an adjustment
in the assessment for the retrospective
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
pattern. The realized catch in the fishery
is expected to be much less than the
ABC, reducing the likelihood of
overfishing. Additionally, NMFS
anticipates that Amendment 8 will be
adopted prior to the development of the
2019–2021 herring fishery
specifications, and will consider
herring’s role in the ecosystem.
Under the Herring 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 (NB) weir fishery. Catch in
the weir fishery is variable, but has
declined in recent years. After
considering a range of management
uncertainty buffers, the Council
recommended a buffer of 6,200 mt,
which is equivalent to the value of the
buffer in 2015. The recommended buffer
is greater than the most recent 3-year
and 5-year average catch in the NB weir
fishery. This would be a more
conservative buffer than the buffer used
in the most recent specifications that
was based on the most recent 3-year
average from the NB weir fishery. The
resulting stockwide ACL would be
104,800 mt. Given the variability of the
NB weir catch and the likelihood that
weir catch may be less than 6,200 mt,
the Council also recommended a
payback provision related to the
management uncertainty buffer.
Specifically, the Council recommended
subtracting 1,000 mt from the buffer and
adding it to the ACL if the weir fishery
harvests less than 4,000 mt by October
1. The Council recommended October 1
because the fishery primarily occurs
during the late summer and fall months
(June-October), and catch from the
E:\FR\FM\21JNP1.SGM
21JNP1
rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 21, 2016 / Proposed Rules
fishery occurring after October averaged
less than four percent of total reported
landings. If NB catch is less than 4,000
mt by October 1, the buffer would be
reduced to 5,200 mt, the ACL would be
increased to 105,800 mt, and the
Herring Management Area 1A sub-ACL
would be increased to 31,300 mt. The
NB weir fishery payback provision was
last in effect during fishing years 2010–
2012. Council recommendations for all
other herring specifications, including
the sub-ACL’s percentages allocated to
the herring management areas, were
status quo.
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 Council recommended
a 4,000 mt specification for BT. The
amount specified for BT has equaled
4,000 mt since 2000. As there continues
to be Canadian interest in transporting
herring for sardine processing, the
Council recommended and NMFS is
proposing that the specification for BT
would remain unchanged at 4,000 mt.
The Herring FMP specifies that DAH
will be set less than or equal to OY and
be comprised of DAP and BT.
Consistent with the proposed
specifications for OY and ACL, the
Council recommended that DAH be
104,800 mt for 2016–2018. 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.
Therefore, NMFS is proposing that DAH
for the 2016–2018 fishing years be set at
104,800 mt, equal to the OY and ACL.
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. Using this formula, the
Council recommended and NMFS is
proposing that DAP be set at 100,800 mt
for 2016–2018.
A portion of DAP may be specified for
the at-sea processing of herring in
Federal waters. When determining the
USAP specification, the Council
considers 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:42 Jun 20, 2016
Jkt 238001
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 allocated subACLs for each of the past several years.
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, the Council
recommended and NMFS set USAP at
zero for the 2010–2015 fishing years.
The Council did not receive any
information that would suggest
changing this specification for fishing
years 2016–2018, thus the Council
recommended and NMFS is proposing
that the specification of USAP would
remain unchanged at zero.
The herring ABC specification
recommended by the SSC for 2016–2018
is not substantially different from the
2013–2015 ABC specification; therefore,
the Council, based on a
recommendation from the Herring
Committee, has determined that there is
no need to consider modifying the
distribution of the total ACL between
the herring management areas.
Additionally, information for the recent
herring operational assessment report
does not suggest there is a biological
need to consider modifying the
distribution of stockwide ACL. This
approach would maintain status quo for
the herring sub-ACLs for the 2016–2018
specifications.
During 2013–2015, the herring
research set-aside (RSA) for each
management area was three percent of
the area’s sub-ACL. The research setaside was established in Amendment 1
(0–3 percent for any management area).
The herring RSA set-aside is removed
from each sub-ACL prior to allocating
the remaining sub-ACL to the fishery. If
a proposal is approved, but a final
award is not made by NMFS, or if
NMFS determines that the allocated
RSA cannot be utilized by a project,
NMFS shall reallocate the unallocated
or unused amount of the RSA to the
respective sub-ACL, in accordance with
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)
requirements, provided that the
additional catch can be available for
harvest before the end of the fishing
year for which that RSA is specified.
Any unallocated or unused RSA would
be re-allocated to the sub-ACL and made
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
40255
available to the fleet before the end of
the fishing year in accordance with the
APA, provided that the RSA can be
available for harvest before the end of
the fishing year for which the RSA is
specified. The Council did not receive
any information that would suggest
changing this specification for fishing
years 2016–2018, thus the Council
recommended and NMFS is proposing
that the specification of RSA would
remain unchanged at 3 percent of each
sub-ACL. On February 29, 2016, NMFS
fully awarded the herring RSA
allocations for fishing years 2016–2018.
Herring regulations at § 648.201(e)
specify that up to 500 mt of the Area 1A
sub-ACL shall be allocated for the fixed
gear fisheries in Area 1A (weirs and stop
seines) that occur west 67°16.8′ W.
Long. This set-aside shall be available
for harvest by the fixed gear fisheries
within the specified area 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 2013–2015, the fixed gear
fisheries set-aside was specified at 295
mt. Because the proposed Area 1A subACL for 2016–2018 is not substantially
different from the Area 1A sub-ACL in
2015, the Council recommended that
the fixed gear fisheries set-aside remain
the same. Therefore, the Council
recommended, and NMFS is proposing,
that the fixed gear fisheries set-aside
remain unchanged at 295 mt for 2016–
2018.
Framework 3 to the 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. Herring
regulations at § 648.201(a)(4)(ii) state
that once 95 percent of a catch cap is
reached, 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.
To date, the value of the caps has been
specified using the median catch of
river herring and shad catch over the
previous 5 years (2008–2012). The
intent of the caps is to provide a strong
an incentive for the herring fleet to
continue to reduce river herring and
shad catch, while allowing the fleet to
fully harvest the herring ACL.
The Council’s recommendations for
2016–2018 river herring/shad catch
caps, as specified below in Table 2, are
based on updated data and a revised
methodology. The Council’s intent in
specifying the value of the catch caps
using the weighted mean catch of river
E:\FR\FM\21JNP1.SGM
21JNP1
40256
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 21, 2016 / Proposed Rules
herring and shad (versus median catch)
and using a longer time series (the most
recent 7 years versus 5 years) is to best
account for the inter-annual variability
in the level of sampling by both
observers and portside samplers as well
as river herring and shad catch.
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
methodologies. The Council’s
recommended catch caps appear to
better reflect the herring fishery’s recent
catch of river herring and shad.
Additionally, they balance the
opportunity to achieve OY with
providing an incentive to avoid river
herring and shad catch. For these
reasons, the Council recommended and
NMFS is proposing the river herring/
shad catch caps as shown in Table 2 for
fishing years 2016–2018. Although
increasing catch caps has the potential
to increase river herring and shad catch,
the fishery still has strong incentive to
avoid reaching the caps. Specifically,
the economic loss from limiting herring
harvest in an area before the sub-ACLs
for an area have been fully reached.
Environmental advocates and
participants in the tuna and recreational
fisheries strongly advised the Council
against increasing river herring/shad
catch caps for the herring fishery.
Instead they recommended that status
quo cap amounts should continue
through 2018. Subject to review and
consideration of public comment on the
suitability of these methods for setting
caps that provide a strong incentive to
avoid river herring and shad catch while
allowing the fleet to achieve OY, NMFS
preliminarily supports the Council’s
river herring/shad catch cap
recommendations based on the use of
the weighted mean and additional data.
TABLE 2—PROPOSED RIVER HERRING/SHAD CATCH CAPS
Status quo and proposed River Herring/Shad catch caps (mt)
Catch cap area
2013–2015
Gulf Of Maine (GOM) ..............................................................................
Cape Cod (CC) .......................................................................................
Southern New England/Mid-Atlantic (SNE/MA) ......................................
Midwater Trawl–85.5 .....................
Midwater Trawl–13.3 .....................
Midwater Trawl–123.7 ...................
Bottom Trawl–88.9 ........................
0 .....................................................
Midwater Trawl–76.7.
Midwater Trawl–32.4.
Midwater Trawl–129.6.
Bottom Trawl–122.3.
0.
Midwater Trawl–222.5 ...................
Bottom Trawl–88.9 ........................
Midwater Trawl–238.7.
Bottom Trawl–122.3.
Georges Bank (GB) .................................................................................
Total .................................................................................................
Classification
Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the
MSA, the NMFS Assistant
Administrator has preliminarily
determined that this proposed rule is
consistent with the Herring FMP, other
provisions of the MSA, and other
applicable law, subject to further
consideration after public comment.
This proposed rule has been
determined to be not significant for
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
An initial regulatory flexibility
analysis (IRFA) was prepared, as
required by section 603 of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The
IRFA describes the economic impact
this proposed rule, if adopted, would
have on small entities. A summary of
the analysis follows.
rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Description of the Reasons Why Action
by the Agency Is Being Considered and
Statement of the Objectives of, and
Legal Basis for, the Proposed Rule
This action proposes management
measures and 2016–2018 specifications
for the herring fishery. A complete
description of the reasons why this
action is being considered, and the
objectives of and legal basis for this
action, are contained in the preamble to
this proposed rule and are not repeated
here.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:42 Jun 20, 2016
Jkt 238001
Description and Estimate of Number of
Small Entities to Which This Proposed
Rule Would Apply
The proposed specifications would
affect all permitted herring vessels;
therefore, the regulated entity is the
business that owns at least one 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).
The RFA recognizes three kinds of small
entities: Small businesses; small
organizations; and small governmental
jurisdictions. A small entity is classified
as a finfish firm if more than half of the
firm’s gross receipts are derived from
finfish with receipts of up to $20.5
million of gross revenues annually.
Individually-permitted vessels may hold
permits for several fisheries, harvesting
species of fish that are regulated by
several different fishery management
plans, even beyond those affected by the
proposed action. Furthermore, multiple
permitted vessels and/or permits may be
owned by entities with various personal
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2016–2018
and business affiliations. For the
purposes of this analysis, ‘‘ownership
entities’’ are defined as those entities
with common ownership as listed on
the permit application. Only permits
with identical ownership are
categorized as an ‘‘ownership entity.’’
For example, if five permits have the
same seven persons listed as co-owners
on their permit applications, those
seven persons would form one
‘‘ownership entity,’’ that holds those
five permits. If two of those seven
owners also co-own additional vessels,
that ownership arrangement would be
considered a separate ‘‘ownership
entity’’ for the purpose of this analysis.
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 business, that held
at least one limited access permit. There
were 38 firms, including 34 small
businesses, that held a limited access
permit and were active in the herring
fishery (Table 3). Active large entities all
held at least one limited access herring
permit. Table 4 describes gross receipts
from both all fishing and only the
herring fishery for firms that were active
in the herring fishery. The small firms
with limited access permits had 60
percent higher gross receipts and 85
percent higher revenue from herring
E:\FR\FM\21JNP1.SGM
21JNP1
40257
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 21, 2016 / Proposed Rules
than the small firms without a limited
access herring permit.
TABLE 3—SMALL AND LARGE FIRMS IN THE ATLANTIC HERRING FISHERY
All permits
All
Limited access only
Active
All
Active
Small ................................................................................................................
Large ................................................................................................................
1,188
18
63
4
96
7
34
4
Total ..........................................................................................................
1,206
67
103
38
TABLE 4—AVERAGE REVENUES FOR ACTIVE SMALL AND LARGE ENTITIES IN THE ATLANTIC HERRING FISHERY
All permits
All revenue
Small ................................................................................................................
Large ................................................................................................................
Description of Projected Reporting,
Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements
This action contains no new
collection-of-information, reporting, or
recordkeeping requirements.
Federal Rules Which May Duplicate,
Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed
Rule
This action does not duplicate,
overlap, or conflict with any other
Federal rules.
Description of Significant Alternatives
to the Proposed Action Which
Accomplish the Stated Objectives of
Applicable Statues and Which Minimize
Any Significant Economic Impact on
Small Entities
The primary differences among
Alternative 1 (No Action), Alternative 2
(non-preferred alternative), and
Alternative 3 (preferred alternative) for
the 2016–2018 herring specifications are
the specifications for ABC and ACL.
Alternative 1 considers an ABC (114,000
mt) that is 3,000 mt (2.6 percent) higher
than the ABC considered under
$986,399
15,913,950
Alternatives 2 and 3 (111,000 mt).
Additionally, Alternatives 1 and 2
consider a higher ACL than Alternative
3. The ACL considered under
Alternative 3 (104,800 mt) is 3,000 mt
(2.78 percent) and 3,200 mt (2.96
percent) less, respectively, than the
ACLs considered under Alternative 1
(107,800 mt) and Alternative 2 (108,000
mt). The EA for 2016–2018 herring
specifications concluded that all the
alternatives would have a low positive
economic impact because there would
be mortality controls in the fishery and
the overall status of herring is not
expected to be jeopardized. The EA also
concluded that the differences among
alternatives were negligible because all
alternatives the Council considered for
OFL/ABC specifications showed the
herring SSB and fishing mortality that
would result from fully utilizing the
ABC fall within the same range based on
the 80-percent confidence intervals.
Under Alternatives 1 and 2, small
entities are expected to experience
slight increases in both gross revenues
and herring revenues over the preferred
alternative due to higher ACLs
Limited access only
Herring
revenue
$339,155
1,426,152
All revenue
$1,588,059
15,913,948
Herring
revenue
$624,820
1,426,152
considered under Alternative 1 and
Alternative 2. Under Alternatives 1 and
2, fishing vessels may take slightly more
fishing trips and incur slightly higher
variable operating costs over the
preferred alternative. However,
Alternative 3 would maintain a constant
ABC over the specifications period,
which would provide consistency for
fishing industry operations, stability for
the industry, and a steady supply to the
market in addition to the stability
provided by a three-year specifications
process. Fixed and quasi-fixed costs are
expected to remain the same. Because
the ACLs are fishery wide and closures
would apply to the entire fishery, the
effects of these closures should be felt
proportionally by the herring industry.
For specifying the 2016–2018 river
herring/shad catch caps, the Council
chose the preferred alternative
(Alternative 3, Option 2) of using the
weighted mean and 7-year extended
time series shown below in table 5,
because it uses the best technical
approach to determining river herring/
shad catch estimates in support of the
goals and objective of Framework 3.
TABLE 5—RIVER HERRING/SHAD CATCH CAP ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1—
no action
(2008–2012)
(mt)
rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Catch caps
Alternative 2–5 years of data
(2008–2012) *
Alternative 3–7 years of data
(2008–2014) *
Option 1
median (mt)
Option 1
median (mt)
Option 2 avg
mean (mt)
Option 2 ** avg
mean (mt)
Midwater Trawl Gulf of Maine ..............................................
Midwater Trawl Cape Cod ...................................................
Midwater Trawl Southern New England ..............................
Bottom Trawl Southern New England .................................
85.5
13.3
123.7
88.9
98.1
8.9
83.9
19.6
98.3
27.6
115.4
28.2
11.3
29.5
83.9
24.0
76.7
32.4
129.6
122.3
Total ..............................................................................
311.4
210.5
269.5
148.7
361.0
* Data errors and extrapolation methodologies were corrected and revised.
** Preferred Alternative.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:42 Jun 20, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\21JNP1.SGM
21JNP1
40258
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 21, 2016 / Proposed Rules
rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
The primary goal is to provide strong
incentive for the industry to continue to
avoid river herring/shad and reduce
river herring/shad catch to the extent
possible. Based on the performance of
the fishery in the first year under the
river herring/shad catch caps, most of
the observed river herring/shad catch
has been in the Southern New England
by vessels using bottom trawl gear.
Alternative 3, Option 2 (preferred)
would be the least constraining on the
directed herring fishery compared to
Alternatives 1 and 2, particularly in the
Southern New England bottom trawl
catch cap area.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:42 Jun 20, 2016
Jkt 238001
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648
Fisheries, Fishing, Recordkeeping and
reporting requirements.
Dated: June 15, 2016.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, NMFS proposes to amend 50
CFR part 648 as follows:
PART 648—FISHERIES OF THE
NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES
1. The authority citation for part 648
continues to read as follows:
■
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
2. In § 648.201, paragraph (h) is added
to read as follows:
■
§ 648.201
AMs and harvest controls.
*
*
*
*
*
(h) If NMFS determines that the New
Brunswick weir fishery landed less than
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. 2016–14568 Filed 6–20–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
E:\FR\FM\21JNP1.SGM
21JNP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 119 (Tuesday, June 21, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 40253-40258]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-14568]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 648
[Docket No.: 151215999-6488-01]
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: Proposed rule, request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS proposes regulations to implement the 2016-2018 fishery
specifications and management measures for the Atlantic herring
fishery. The specifications would set 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 catch caps for river herring and shad for trips landing
more than 6,600 lb (3 mt) of herring. The specifications and management
measures are set in order to meet conservation objectives while
providing sustainable levels of access to the fishery.
DATES: Public comments must be received by July 21, 2016.
ADDRESSES: Copies of supporting documents used by the New England
Fishery Management Council (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 https://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/.
You may submit comments, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2016-0050, by any
one of the following methods:
Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public
comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to
www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2016-0050, click the
``Comment Now!'' icon, complete the required fields, and enter or
attach your comments;
Mail: Submit written comments to NMFS, Greater Atlantic
Regional Office, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark
the outside of the envelope ``Comments on 2016-2018 Herring
Specifications;''
Fax: (978) 281-9135, Attn: Shannah Jaburek.
Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other
address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period,
may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the
public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on
www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying
information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business
information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily
by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous
comments (enter ``N/A'' in the required fields if you wish to remain
anonymous).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shannah Jaburek, Fishery Management
Specialist, (978) 282-8456, fax (978) 281-9135.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Regulations implementing the Atlantic Herring Fishery Management
Plan (FMP) for herring appear at 50 CFR part 648, subpart K. The
regulations at Sec. 648.200 require the Council to recommend herring
specifications for NMFS' review and proposal 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); the sub-ACL for each management area,
including seasonal periods as allowed by Sec. 648.201(d) and
modifications to sub-ACLs as allowed by Sec. 648.201(f); and the
amount to be set aside for the research set aside (RSA) (3 percent of
the sub-ACL from any management area) for up to 3 years. These
regulations also provide the Council with the discretion to recommend
river herring and shad catch caps as part of the specifications.
Under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
(Magnuson-Stevens Act), NMFS is required to publish proposed rules for
comment after preliminarily determining whether they are consistent
with applicable law. The Magnuson-Stevens Act permits NMFS to approve,
partially approve, or disapprove measures proposed by the Council based
only on whether the measures are consistent with the fishery management
plan, plan amendment, the Magnuson-Stevens Act and its National
Standards, and other applicable law. Otherwise, NMFS must defer to the
Council's policy choices. Under the Atlantic herring regulations
guiding the specifications process, NMFS must review the Council's
recommended specifications and publish notice of the proposed
specifications, clearly noting any differences from the Council's
recommendations. NMFS is proposing and seeking comment on the Council's
recommended herring specifications and river herring and shad catch
caps and whether they are consistent with the Herring FMP, the
Magnuson-Stevens Act and its National Standards, and other applicable
law.
The proposed 2016-2018 herring specifications are based on the
provisions currently in the Herring FMP, 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). At its September 29, 2015, meeting, the Council
recommended the 2016-2018 specifications for the herring fishery,
including river herring/shad catch caps. NMFS proposes to implement the
herring specifications as recommended by the Council and detailed in
Table 1 below. For 2016-2018 fishing years, the Council may annually
review these specifications and recommend adjustments if necessary.
[[Page 40254]]
Table 1--Proposed Atlantic Herring Specifications
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status Quo and Proposed Atlantic Herring Specifications (mt)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
2013-2015 2016-2018
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overfishing Limit............... 169,000-2013...... 138,000-2016
136,000-2014...... 117,000-2017
114,000-2015...... 111,000-2018.
Acceptable Biological Catch..... 114,000........... 111,000.
Management Uncertainty.......... 6,200............. 6,200.
Optimum Yield/ACL............... 107,800........... 104,800.*
Domestic Annual Harvest......... 107,800........... 104,800.
Border Transfer................. 4,000............. 4,000.
Domestic Annual Processing...... 103,800........... 100,800.
U.S. At-Sea Processing.......... 0................. 0.
Area 1A Sub-ACL (28.9%)......... 31,200............ 30,300.*
Area 1B Sub-ACL (4.3%).......... 4,600............. 4,500.
Area 2 Sub-ACL (27.8%).......... 30,000............ 29,100.
Area 3 Sub-ACL (39%)............ 42,000............ 40,900.
Fixed Gear Set-Aside............ 295............... 295.
Research Set-Aside.............. 3 percent of each 3 percent of each
sub-ACL. 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 is approximately half the fishing mortality
threshold (FMSY).
At its June 2015 meeting, the Council recommended a herring ABC of
111,000 mt (a 3-mt decrease from status quo) for 2016-2018 based on the
current control rule (constant catch with 50-percent probability that F
> FMSY in last year). The resulting overfishing limit was
calculated to be 138,000 mt in 2016, 117,000 mt in 2017, and 111,000 mt
in 2018. This ABC recommendation is consistent with the Scientific and
Statistical Committee's (SSC) advice. After considering herring's role
as forage, the Council found that, 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.
Several other factors contributed to the SSC's and Council's
recommendation to continue using the current constant catch ABC control
rule for 2016-2018. First, the Council recently initiated Amendment 8
to the Herring FMP to consider herring ABC control rules that may
explicitly adjust for herring's role as forage in the ecosystem.
Second, key attributes of the stock (SSB, recruitment, F, and survey
indices) have not significantly changed since the constant catch
control rule for herring was used in the 2013-2015 herring
specifications. Third, the realized catch in the fishery is generally
well below ABC, reducing the likelihood of overfishing. Fourth, the
probability of the stock becoming overfished in 2016-2018 is close to
zero. Lastly, the constant catch control rule provides the herring
industry with economic stability, which was one of the considerations
in the Council's harvest risk policy.
The herring ABC is reduced from the OFL to account for scientific
uncertainty. The Council's recommendation to continue using the current
constant catch control rule means that the ABC would equal the OFL in
2018. This is consistent with the status quo specifications when ABC
was set equal to OFL in 2015, which were successful in preventing
overfishing. Some stakeholders (environmental advocacy groups,
groundfish industry, and recreational fishing community) are concerned
with the potential implications of the assessment's retrospective
pattern on herring biomass, including its availability as forage, and
the lack of a scientific uncertainty buffer in 2018. Subject to review
and consideration of public comment, NMFS preliminarily supports the
Council's ABC recommendation. The recent herring operational assessment
indicates that the herring biomass is robust, despite an adjustment in
the assessment for the retrospective pattern. The realized catch in the
fishery is expected to be much less than the ABC, reducing the
likelihood of overfishing. Additionally, NMFS anticipates that
Amendment 8 will be adopted prior to the development of the 2019-2021
herring fishery specifications, and will consider herring's role in the
ecosystem.
Under the Herring 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 (NB) weir fishery.
Catch in the weir fishery is variable, but has declined in recent
years. After considering a range of management uncertainty buffers, the
Council recommended a buffer of 6,200 mt, which is equivalent to the
value of the buffer in 2015. The recommended buffer is greater than the
most recent 3-year and 5-year average catch in the NB weir fishery.
This would be a more conservative buffer than the buffer used in the
most recent specifications that was based on the most recent 3-year
average from the NB weir fishery. The resulting stockwide ACL would be
104,800 mt. Given the variability of the NB weir catch and the
likelihood that weir catch may be less than 6,200 mt, the Council also
recommended a payback provision related to the management uncertainty
buffer. Specifically, the Council recommended subtracting 1,000 mt from
the buffer and adding it to the ACL if the weir fishery harvests less
than 4,000 mt by October 1. The Council recommended October 1 because
the fishery primarily occurs during the late summer and fall months
(June-October), and catch from the
[[Page 40255]]
fishery occurring after October averaged less than four percent of
total reported landings. If NB catch is less than 4,000 mt by October
1, the buffer would be reduced to 5,200 mt, the ACL would be increased
to 105,800 mt, and the Herring Management Area 1A sub-ACL would be
increased to 31,300 mt. The NB weir fishery payback provision was last
in effect during fishing years 2010-2012. Council recommendations for
all other herring specifications, including the sub-ACL's percentages
allocated to the herring management areas, were status quo.
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 Council recommended a 4,000 mt specification for BT. The amount
specified for BT has equaled 4,000 mt since 2000. As there continues to
be Canadian interest in transporting herring for sardine processing,
the Council recommended and NMFS is proposing that the specification
for BT would remain unchanged at 4,000 mt.
The Herring FMP specifies that DAH will be set less than or equal
to OY and be comprised of DAP and BT. Consistent with the proposed
specifications for OY and ACL, the Council recommended that DAH be
104,800 mt for 2016-2018. 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. Therefore, NMFS is
proposing that DAH for the 2016-2018 fishing years be set at 104,800
mt, equal to the OY and ACL.
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. Using this formula, the Council recommended
and NMFS is proposing that DAP be set at 100,800 mt for 2016-2018.
A portion of DAP may be specified for the at-sea processing of
herring in Federal waters. When determining the USAP specification, the
Council considers 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 allocated sub-ACLs for each of the past several
years. 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, the Council
recommended and NMFS set USAP at zero for the 2010-2015 fishing years.
The Council did not receive any information that would suggest changing
this specification for fishing years 2016-2018, thus the Council
recommended and NMFS is proposing that the specification of USAP would
remain unchanged at zero.
The herring ABC specification recommended by the SSC for 2016-2018
is not substantially different from the 2013-2015 ABC specification;
therefore, the Council, based on a recommendation from the Herring
Committee, has determined that there is no need to consider modifying
the distribution of the total ACL between the herring management areas.
Additionally, information for the recent herring operational assessment
report does not suggest there is a biological need to consider
modifying the distribution of stockwide ACL. This approach would
maintain status quo for the herring sub-ACLs for the 2016-2018
specifications.
During 2013-2015, the herring research set-aside (RSA) for each
management area was three percent of the area's sub-ACL. The research
set-aside was established in Amendment 1 (0-3 percent for any
management area). The herring RSA set-aside is removed from each sub-
ACL prior to allocating the remaining sub-ACL to the fishery. If a
proposal is approved, but a final award is not made by NMFS, or if NMFS
determines that the allocated RSA cannot be utilized by a project, NMFS
shall reallocate the unallocated or unused amount of the RSA to the
respective sub-ACL, in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act
(APA) requirements, provided that the additional catch can be available
for harvest before the end of the fishing year for which that RSA is
specified. Any unallocated or unused RSA would be re-allocated to the
sub-ACL and made available to the fleet before the end of the fishing
year in accordance with the APA, provided that the RSA can be available
for harvest before the end of the fishing year for which the RSA is
specified. The Council did not receive any information that would
suggest changing this specification for fishing years 2016-2018, thus
the Council recommended and NMFS is proposing that the specification of
RSA would remain unchanged at 3 percent of each sub-ACL. On February
29, 2016, NMFS fully awarded the herring RSA allocations for fishing
years 2016-2018.
Herring regulations at Sec. 648.201(e) specify that up to 500 mt
of the Area 1A sub-ACL shall be allocated for the fixed gear fisheries
in Area 1A (weirs and stop seines) that occur west 67[deg]16.8' W.
Long. This set-aside shall be available for harvest by the fixed gear
fisheries within the specified area 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 2013-2015, the fixed gear fisheries set-
aside was specified at 295 mt. Because the proposed Area 1A sub-ACL for
2016-2018 is not substantially different from the Area 1A sub-ACL in
2015, the Council recommended that the fixed gear fisheries set-aside
remain the same. Therefore, the Council recommended, and NMFS is
proposing, that the fixed gear fisheries set-aside remain unchanged at
295 mt for 2016-2018.
Framework 3 to the 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. Herring
regulations at Sec. 648.201(a)(4)(ii) state that once 95 percent of a
catch cap is reached, 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. To date, the value of the caps
has been specified using the median catch of river herring and shad
catch over the previous 5 years (2008-2012). The intent of the caps is
to provide a strong an incentive for the herring fleet to continue to
reduce river herring and shad catch, while allowing the fleet to fully
harvest the herring ACL.
The Council's recommendations for 2016-2018 river herring/shad
catch caps, as specified below in Table 2, are based on updated data
and a revised methodology. The Council's intent in specifying the value
of the catch caps using the weighted mean catch of river
[[Page 40256]]
herring and shad (versus median catch) and using a longer time series
(the most recent 7 years versus 5 years) is to best account for the
inter-annual variability in the level of sampling by both observers and
portside samplers as well as river herring and shad catch.
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 methodologies. The Council's recommended catch
caps appear to better reflect the herring fishery's recent catch of
river herring and shad. Additionally, they balance the opportunity to
achieve OY with providing an incentive to avoid river herring and shad
catch. For these reasons, the Council recommended and NMFS is proposing
the river herring/shad catch caps as shown in Table 2 for fishing years
2016-2018. Although increasing catch caps has the potential to increase
river herring and shad catch, the fishery still has strong incentive to
avoid reaching the caps. Specifically, the economic loss from limiting
herring harvest in an area before the sub-ACLs for an area have been
fully reached. Environmental advocates and participants in the tuna and
recreational fisheries strongly advised the Council against increasing
river herring/shad catch caps for the herring fishery. Instead they
recommended that status quo cap amounts should continue through 2018.
Subject to review and consideration of public comment on the
suitability of these methods for setting caps that provide a strong
incentive to avoid river herring and shad catch while allowing the
fleet to achieve OY, NMFS preliminarily supports the Council's river
herring/shad catch cap recommendations based on the use of the weighted
mean and additional data.
Table 2--Proposed River Herring/Shad Catch Caps
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status quo and proposed River Herring/Shad catch caps (mt)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Catch cap area 2013-2015 2016-2018
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gulf Of Maine (GOM)............. Midwater Trawl- Midwater Trawl-
85.5. 76.7.
Cape Cod (CC)................... Midwater Trawl- Midwater Trawl-
13.3. 32.4.
Southern New England/Mid- Midwater Trawl- Midwater Trawl-
Atlantic (SNE/MA). 123.7. 129.6.
Bottom Trawl-88.9. Bottom Trawl-
122.3.
Georges Bank (GB)............... 0................. 0.
---------------------------------------
Total....................... Midwater Trawl- Midwater Trawl-
222.5. 238.7.
Bottom Trawl-88.9. Bottom Trawl-
122.3.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Classification
Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the MSA, the NMFS Assistant
Administrator has preliminarily determined that this proposed rule is
consistent with the Herring FMP, other provisions of the MSA, and other
applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
An initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) was prepared, as
required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The
IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted,
would have on small entities. A summary of the analysis follows.
Description of the Reasons Why Action by the Agency Is Being Considered
and Statement of the Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, the Proposed
Rule
This action proposes management measures and 2016-2018
specifications for the herring fishery. A complete description of the
reasons why this action is being considered, and the objectives of and
legal basis for this action, are contained in the preamble to this
proposed rule and are not repeated here.
Description and Estimate of Number of Small Entities to Which This
Proposed Rule Would Apply
The proposed specifications would affect all permitted herring
vessels; therefore, the regulated entity is the business that owns at
least one 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). The RFA recognizes three kinds of small entities: Small businesses;
small organizations; and small governmental jurisdictions. A small
entity is classified as a finfish firm if more than half of the firm's
gross receipts are derived from finfish with receipts of up to $20.5
million of gross revenues annually. Individually-permitted vessels may
hold permits for several fisheries, harvesting species of fish that are
regulated by several different fishery management plans, even beyond
those affected by the proposed action. Furthermore, multiple permitted
vessels and/or permits may be owned by entities with various personal
and business affiliations. For the purposes of this analysis,
``ownership entities'' are defined as those entities with common
ownership as listed on the permit application. Only permits with
identical ownership are categorized as an ``ownership entity.'' For
example, if five permits have the same seven persons listed as co-
owners on their permit applications, those seven persons would form one
``ownership entity,'' that holds those five permits. If two of those
seven owners also co-own additional vessels, that ownership arrangement
would be considered a separate ``ownership entity'' for the purpose of
this analysis.
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 business, that
held at least one limited access permit. There were 38 firms, including
34 small businesses, that held a limited access permit and were active
in the herring fishery (Table 3). Active large entities all held at
least one limited access herring permit. Table 4 describes gross
receipts from both all fishing and only the herring fishery for firms
that were active in the herring fishery. The small firms with limited
access permits had 60 percent higher gross receipts and 85 percent
higher revenue from herring
[[Page 40257]]
than the small firms without a limited access herring permit.
Table 3--Small and Large Firms in the Atlantic Herring Fishery
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All permits Limited access only
---------------------------------------------------------------
All Active All Active
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small........................................... 1,188 63 96 34
Large........................................... 18 4 7 4
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................................... 1,206 67 103 38
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4--Average Revenues for Active Small and Large Entities in the Atlantic Herring Fishery
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All permits Limited access only
---------------------------------------------------------------
Herring Herring
All revenue revenue All revenue revenue
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small........................................... $986,399 $339,155 $1,588,059 $624,820
Large........................................... 15,913,950 1,426,152 15,913,948 1,426,152
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements
This action contains no new collection-of-information, reporting,
or recordkeeping requirements.
Federal Rules Which May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rule
This action does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other
Federal rules.
Description of Significant Alternatives to the Proposed Action Which
Accomplish the Stated Objectives of Applicable Statues and Which
Minimize Any Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities
The primary differences among Alternative 1 (No Action),
Alternative 2 (non-preferred alternative), and Alternative 3 (preferred
alternative) for the 2016-2018 herring specifications are the
specifications for ABC and ACL. Alternative 1 considers an ABC (114,000
mt) that is 3,000 mt (2.6 percent) higher than the ABC considered under
Alternatives 2 and 3 (111,000 mt). Additionally, Alternatives 1 and 2
consider a higher ACL than Alternative 3. The ACL considered under
Alternative 3 (104,800 mt) is 3,000 mt (2.78 percent) and 3,200 mt
(2.96 percent) less, respectively, than the ACLs considered under
Alternative 1 (107,800 mt) and Alternative 2 (108,000 mt). The EA for
2016-2018 herring specifications concluded that all the alternatives
would have a low positive economic impact because there would be
mortality controls in the fishery and the overall status of herring is
not expected to be jeopardized. The EA also concluded that the
differences among alternatives were negligible because all alternatives
the Council considered for OFL/ABC specifications showed the herring
SSB and fishing mortality that would result from fully utilizing the
ABC fall within the same range based on the 80-percent confidence
intervals. Under Alternatives 1 and 2, small entities are expected to
experience slight increases in both gross revenues and herring revenues
over the preferred alternative due to higher ACLs considered under
Alternative 1 and Alternative 2. Under Alternatives 1 and 2, fishing
vessels may take slightly more fishing trips and incur slightly higher
variable operating costs over the preferred alternative. However,
Alternative 3 would maintain a constant ABC over the specifications
period, which would provide consistency for fishing industry
operations, stability for the industry, and a steady supply to the
market in addition to the stability provided by a three-year
specifications process. Fixed and quasi-fixed costs are expected to
remain the same. Because the ACLs are fishery wide and closures would
apply to the entire fishery, the effects of these closures should be
felt proportionally by the herring industry.
For specifying the 2016-2018 river herring/shad catch caps, the
Council chose the preferred alternative (Alternative 3, Option 2) of
using the weighted mean and 7-year extended time series shown below in
table 5, because it uses the best technical approach to determining
river herring/shad catch estimates in support of the goals and
objective of Framework 3.
Table 5--River Herring/Shad Catch Cap Alternatives
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternative 2-5 years of data Alternative 3-7 years of data
Alternative 1-- (2008-2012) * (2008-2014) *
Catch caps no action ---------------------------------------------------------------
(2008-2012) Option 1 Option 2 avg Option 1 Option 2 **
(mt) median (mt) mean (mt) median (mt) avg mean (mt)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Midwater Trawl Gulf of Maine.... 85.5 98.1 98.3 11.3 76.7
Midwater Trawl Cape Cod......... 13.3 8.9 27.6 29.5 32.4
Midwater Trawl Southern New 123.7 83.9 115.4 83.9 129.6
England........................
Bottom Trawl Southern New 88.9 19.6 28.2 24.0 122.3
England........................
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................... 311.4 210.5 269.5 148.7 361.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Data errors and extrapolation methodologies were corrected and revised.
** Preferred Alternative.
[[Page 40258]]
The primary goal is to provide strong incentive for the industry to
continue to avoid river herring/shad and reduce river herring/shad
catch to the extent possible. Based on the performance of the fishery
in the first year under the river herring/shad catch caps, most of the
observed river herring/shad catch has been in the Southern New England
by vessels using bottom trawl gear. Alternative 3, Option 2 (preferred)
would be the least constraining on the directed herring fishery
compared to Alternatives 1 and 2, particularly in the Southern New
England bottom trawl catch cap area.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648
Fisheries, Fishing, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
Dated: June 15, 2016.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS proposes to amend 50
CFR part 648 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, paragraph (h) is added to read as follows:
Sec. 648.201 AMs and harvest controls.
* * * * *
(h) If NMFS determines that the New Brunswick weir fishery landed
less than 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. 2016-14568 Filed 6-20-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
