Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Amendment 18 to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan, 92761-92769 [2016-30356]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 244 (Tuesday, December 20, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 92761-92769]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-30356]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 648

[Docket No. 150630567-6999-01]
RIN 0648-BF26


Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Amendment 18 to the 
Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: We are proposing regulations to implement Amendment 18 to the 
Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan. Amendment 18 was 
developed by the New England Fishery Management Council to promote 
fleet diversity in the groundfish fishery and enhance sector 
management. This action proposes to limit the number of permits and 
annual groundfish allocation that an entity could hold. This action 
also removes several effort restrictions to increase operational 
flexibility for limited access handgear vessels.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 3, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on this document, identified by 
NOAA-NMFS-2015-0143, by any 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-2015-0143, click the 
``Comment Now!'' icon, complete the required fields, and enter or 
attach your comments.
     Mail: Submit written comments to John K. Bullard, Regional 
Administrator, NMFS, Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, 55 
Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the 
envelope: ``Comments on Northeast Multispecies Amendment 18.''
    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 commenter may be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous 
comments (enter ``N/A'' in the required fields if you wish to remain 
anonymous). Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in 
Microsoft Word, Excel, or Adobe PDF file formats only.
    Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other 
aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this 
proposed rule may be submitted to the Greater Atlantic Regional 
Fisheries Office and by email to OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov or fax to 
(202) 395-7285.
    Copies of Amendment 18, including its environmental impact 
statement, preliminary Regulatory Impact Review, and Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis (EIS/RIR/IRFA), are available from the New England 
Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Newburyport, MA 01950. The 
EIS/RIR/IRFA is also accessible via the Internet at: 
www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa .gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Whitmore, Fishery Policy 
Analyst, 978-281-9182.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    Since the approval of Amendment 16 to the Northeast Multispecies 
Fishery Management Plan (FMP) and the expanded use of catch shares in 
the groundfish fishery, many industry members and stakeholders have 
become increasingly concerned about excessive

[[Page 92762]]

fleet consolidation and lack of diversity with regards to the 
composition of the fishing fleet. Amendment 18 was developed to address 
these concerns, primarily by limiting both the number of permits and 
allocation an individual or entity could hold (referred to as an entity 
from here on).
    Development of Amendment 18 began in 2011, with initial public 
scoping taking place between December 2011 and March 2012. 
Subsequently, the stock status for many groundfish stocks declined and 
the associated annual catch limits were significantly reduced. As a 
result, some groundfish fishermen were concerned that implementing an 
accumulation limit could be problematic if it reduced flexibility and 
prevented them from obtaining additional quota necessary to maintain 
viable fishing operations.
    However, many industry members and stakeholders remained concerned 
that excessive consolidation is a risk to the fishery. Several 
groundfish stocks, particularly Georges Bank haddock, redfish, and 
pollock, continue to grow and remain consistently under harvested. As 
other stocks rebuild and quotas increase, there may be further 
consolidation and decreased diversity if vessels are able to earn above 
market rates of return and have an opportunity to acquire more permits.
    Under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 
(Magnuson-Stevens Act), we are required to publish proposed rules for 
comment after preliminarily determining whether they are consistent 
with applicable law. The Magnuson-Stevens Act permits us 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, we must defer to the 
Council's policy choices. We are seeking comment on the Council's 
proposed measures in Amendment 18 and whether they are consistent with 
the Northeast Multispecies FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act and its 
National Standards, and other applicable law.
    The primary purpose of this action is to limit the level of 
allocation that an entity may control to prevent excessive 
consolidation and retain fleet diversity.
    The Council identified four goals for Amendment 18:
    1. Promote a diverse groundfish fishery, including different gear 
types, vessel sizes, ownership patterns, geographic locations, and 
levels of participation through sectors and permit banks;
    2. Enhance sector management to effectively engage industry to 
achieve management goals and improve data quality;
    3. Promote resilience and stability of fishing businesses by 
encouraging diversification, quota utilization, and capital investment; 
and
    4. Prevent any individual(s), corporation(s), or other entity(ies) 
from acquiring or controlling excessive shares of the fishery access 
privileges.

Proposed Measures

    The goals and objectives of Amendment 18 are addressed through two 
mechanisms. First, this action proposes to establish accumulation 
limits on the number of groundfish permits and the amount of Potential 
Sector Contribution (PSC) that an entity may hold. PSC is the 
proportion of total landings of a particular stock associated with the 
landing history of a limited access permit. PSC also represents the 
share of allocation that an individual permit contributes to a sector. 
Second, this action proposes to remove several restrictions on limited 
access handgear vessels (Handgear A permitted vessels) to promote that 
small-boat fishery.

1. Accumulation Limits

Background
    The New England Fishery Management Council contracted Compass 
Lexecon, an economic consulting firm, to provide independent advice 
regarding the establishment of northeast multispecies permit 
accumulation limits. The Council tasked Compass Lexecon to determine 
whether any entity already holds an excessive share of permits, and if 
not, what an excessive share would be in the groundfish fishery. 
Compass Lexecon defined an excessive share as a share of quota that 
would allow a permit owner or sector to influence the prices of the 
fishery's output or the prices paid for leased quota to its advantage, 
which is called market power. Compass Lexecon's analyses did not find 
that market power is currently being exercised through the withholding 
of quota in any part of the groundfish fishery, or in the sales of fish 
or transfers of permits.
    Compass Lexecon recommended setting an excessive-share cap on the 
PSC conferred to a permit holder at 15.5 percent of the available PSC 
for any groundfish stock. Analyses suggested that this cap would 
prevent the accumulation of excessive shares, and that a lower limit 
was likely not necessary. The final report was completed in December 
2013, and was peer reviewed in June 2014 by three reviewers from the 
Center for Independent Experts and one independent reviewer. A 
variation of Compass Lexecon's recommendation is proposed in this 
action.
Accumulation Limit Guidelines
    Amendment 18 includes several general measures detailing how permit 
accumulation limits would be applied.
     Accumulation limits apply to individuals, permit banks, 
and other entities, including groundfish sectors, at the individual 
permit and PSC level.
     Accumulation limits do not apply to the amount of annual 
groundfish allocated to a sector, technically referred to as a sector's 
annual catch entitlement, or ACE.
     Accumulation limits may be modified in a future framework 
due to a Federal permit buyback or buyout.
     If an entity held permits or PSC on the control date 
(April 7, 2011) that exceeded the accumulation limits, it would be 
exempt from the accumulation limit, but would be restricted to holding 
no more permits or PSC than it held as of the control date. The 
grandfathered holdings may be fished or leased by the entity but are 
not transferrable. Current analyses suggest that no entity exceeds the 
control date accumulation limits.
     There is no calculation of partial ownership when 
considering accumulation limits. Any entity that is a partial owner is 
assumed to have full-ownership when calculating permit and PSC 
accumulation limits.
Limiting the Number of Permits
    This action proposes to limit an entity to holding no more than 5 
percent of all limited access groundfish permits. An entity would be 
prohibited from acquiring a permit that would result in it exceeding 
the 5-percent permit cap. There are approximately 1,373 limited access 
permits currently in the fishery; a 5-percent cap would limit an entity 
to approximately 69 permits. As of May 1, 2014, the most permits held 
by any entity is 55. Therefore, if approved, this alternative is 
unlikely to immediately restrict any entity.
    Using this permit cap alone could still allow for accumulation of 
PSC sufficient to exert market power in limited and unlikely 
circumstances. For example, if only a 5-percent permit cap was adopted, 
an entity could potentially hold 85 PSC of the Georges Bank winter 
flounder stock. To address this potential, the Council proposed an 
additional PSC limit proposed in this action.

[[Page 92763]]

Limiting the Potential Sector Contribution
    This action also proposes to limit the aggregated average of all 
allocated groundfish stocks PSC that may be held by an entity to no 
more than 15.5. With 15 groundfish stocks currently allocated to the 
fishery, the total PSC across all stocks used by an individual or an 
entity must be <=232.5 (an average of 15.5 per stock multiplied by 15 
stocks). This would allow an entity to hold PSC for a single stock in 
excess of 15.5, so long as the total holdings used do not exceed 232.5. 
If additional groundfish stocks are allocation (or unallocated) to 
sectors in the future, then this number would change by 15.5 per stock.
    This PSC limit was developed based on Compass Lexecon's 
recommendation to establish a stock-specific PSC limit of 15.5 (as 
explained above). However, to allow fishermen additional operational 
flexibility in light of current groundfish stock conditions, the 
Council elected to use an aggregate average as defined above. Compared 
to other PSC limit alternatives that the Council considered, this 
option is the least restrictive because there is no stock-specific 
limit. Further, an entity would be permitted to purchase a vessel 
permit during a fishing year that would result in exceeding the 
aggregate 232.5 PSC limit. In this case, the entity would have to 
render at least one permit unusable (or ``shelve'' the permit) so that 
the entity is not operating above the PSC limit the following fishing 
year. A shelved permit would be unusable for an entire fishing year; a 
shelved permit could not be enrolled in a sector, fished, or leased, 
but could be sold. An entity would be prohibited from purchasing any 
additional permit once it exceeds the PSC limit. This is intended to 
allow a permit holder to acquire a new permit and improve their 
operational flexibility, while still restricting them to the overall 
accumulation limit. A shelved permit that is rendered unusable can be 
sold.
    The aggregate limit provides flexibility for accumulating shares in 
single stocks. By itself, an aggregate PSC limit could result in an 
entity accumulating sufficient PSC in a single stock to exert market 
power, though exerting market power over multiple stocks appears highly 
unlikely. Recent analyses indicate that no one entity currently holds 
more than 140.4 PSC. Consequently, if approved, the 232.5 PSC limit is 
unlikely to immediately constrain any entity. Analyses within sections 
7.6 and 9.11 of the Amendment suggest that purchasing vessel permits 
with enough PSC to exceed the PSC limit of 232.5 would require 
substantial capital and logistically would likely be complex and time 
consuming. As a result, the increased flexibility for accumulating PSC 
in individual stocks is curbed by the combination of the PSC limit and 
the permit caps.
Effect of Combined Accumulation Limits
    The combination of PSC limits and the permit cap make it highly 
unlikely that market power could be exerted. Analyses show that the 
maximum allocation that an entity could acquire would be around 20 PSC 
for the majority of stocks, though PSC for certain stocks such as 
Georges Bank winter flounder could be acquired at higher levels than 
others. These analyses suggest that the proposed combination of an 
aggregate PSC limit of 232.5 and a 5-percent permit cap should be 
sufficient to prevent market power from being exerted. These analyses 
are discussed in more detail in sections 7.7.4.5 and 9.11 of the 
Amendment 18 EIS (see ADDRESSES).
Transfer of Permits by an Individual Entity That Has Exceeded the PSC 
Limit
    We have some concern that Amendment 18 does not include any permit 
transfer restrictions on an individual entity that has exceeded the 
permit accumulation limit. As proposed, an individual who has exceeded 
the permit accumulation limit could maintain an interest in the PSC by 
transferring a permit to a spouse, family member, or business partner 
at little to no cost. We see this as a potential loophole to the PSC 
limit restriction. Including a requirement that any permit transfer 
from an entity that has exceeded the permit accumulation limit be an 
``arms-length'' transaction would address this potential loophole. In 
this case, an arms-length transaction would be a permit transfer in the 
ordinary course of business between independent and unrelated entities, 
which would result in the owner who exceeded the limit maintaining no 
interest in the transferred permit and its PSC. We welcome comment on 
this topic.
Future Changes to Accumulation Limits
    Amendment 18 proposes to allow modifications to the accumulation 
limits through a future framework adjustment if a vessel/permit buyback 
or buyout were enacted in the groundfish fishery. However, any other 
changes to the accumulation limits would require an amendment to the 
FMP. Should certain factors change dramatically, such as a substantial 
reduction in the number of northeast multispecies limited access 
permits (due to permit holders relinquishing their permits), then NMFS 
would encourage the Council to revisit the accumulation limits proposed 
in this Amendment.
Ownership Interest
    In order for an accumulation limit to be developed and applied it 
is necessary to first define an ownership interest. A unique definition 
of ownership interest as applied to the groundfish fishery is proposed 
for section 50 CFR 648.2 of the regulations. To better identify 
ownership interest and account for accumulation limits in the 
groundfish fishery, a permit holder would be required to identify all 
persons who hold an ownership interest with a particular permit when 
submitting a groundfish permit application or renewal form.

2. Handgear A Measures

    To reduce effort controls and increase flexibility for small boat 
fishermen, this action proposes to remove or modify several management 
measures affecting limited access permitted vessels fishing with 
handgear (Handgear A vessels).
    First, this action would remove the March 1-20 spawning-block 
closure for all Handgear A vessels. Fishing effort by Handgear A 
vessels is restricted by a very small annual catch limit, and vessels 
are subject to other spawning closures. This measure would make the 
regulations for Handgear A vessels more consistent with vessels fishing 
in sectors, which are already exempted from the 20-day spawning block 
and is not anticipated to have any substantial biological consequences.
    Handgear A vessels would also no longer be required to carry a 
standard fish tote on board. This measure was initially implemented to 
aid in the sorting and weighing of fish by both fishermen and 
enforcement personnel. However, enforcement no longer uses totes for 
at-sea weight and volume estimates, so the requirement for vessels to 
carry a tote is no longer necessary.
    Lastly, this action would allow a sector to request an exemption 
from the requirement for Handgear A vessels to use a Vessel Monitoring 
System (VMS). Handgear A fishermen enrolled in a sector are currently 
required to utilize a VMS. Handgear A fishermen have commented that 
installing and utilizing a VMS system makes enrolling in a sector cost 
prohibitive. Any sector interested in utilizing this exemption would be 
required to submit an exemption request to us for approval. If a sector 
exemption is approved, a Handgear A vessel fishing within a sector 
utilizing the exemption would

[[Page 92764]]

declare its trips through the interactive voice response (IVR) call-in 
system instead of through a VMS. This measure is intended to encourage 
Handgear A vessels to enroll in a sector by reducing operating 
expenses. Sectors receive regulatory exemptions and larger allocations 
that could provide additional flexibility and fishing opportunities to 
Handgear A vessels.

Measures That Could Be Addressed in a Future Framework

    This action proposes to allow two measures analyzed in Amendment 18 
to be implemented through a future framework action. The Council 
explored establishing a separate allocation for the Handgear A fishery. 
Additionally, there was some interest in considering separate 
management measures for an inshore/offshore Gulf of Maine (GOM) 
boundary, including separate allocations for inshore and offshore GOM 
cod. However, because current catch limits for key groundfish stocks, 
including GOM cod, are so low, further sub-dividing allocations for the 
Handgear A, as well as inshore and offshore GOM cod, were controversial 
and would be difficult to develop and implement at this time. As a 
result, the Council elected to potentially consider these measures in a 
future framework.
    In addition, several regulatory clarifications are proposed at 
Sec.  648.90 to better delineate the responsibilities of the groundfish 
plan development team as well as which Council management measures 
could be modified in a future framework.
    Public comments on the NOA for the FMP/amendment are being 
solicited through February 6, 2017 (81 FR 87862; December 6, 2016). 
Public comments on the proposed rule must be received by the end of the 
comment period on the Amendment, as published in the NOA, to be 
considered in the approval/disapproval decision on the Amendment. All 
comments received by the end of the comment period on the Amendment, 
whether specifically directed to the Amendment, or the proposed rule, 
will be considered in the approval/disapproval decision. Comments 
received after that date will not be considered in the approval/
disapproval decision on Amendment 18. To be considered, comments must 
be received by close of business on the last day of the comment period; 
that does not mean postmarked or otherwise transmitted by that date.
    Pursuant to section 303(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Council 
has deemed the proposed regulations to be necessary and appropriate for 
the purpose of implementing Amendment 18.

Classification

    Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the 
NMFS Assistant Administrator has preliminarily determined that this 
proposed rule is consistent with Amendment 18, the FMP, other 
provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, 
subject to further consideration after public comment.
    This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for 
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
    The Council prepared an environmental impact statement (EIS) for 
Amendment 18 that analyzes the impacts on the environment as a result 
of this action. A copy of the Amendment 18 EIS is available upon 
request from the Council and from our Web site (see ADDRESSES). A copy 
is also available from the Federal e-Rulemaking portal at 
www.regulations.gov. Type ``NOAA-NMFS-2015-0143'' in the Enter Keyword 
or ID field and click search.
    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 that this proposed rule, if adopted, 
would have on small entities. A description of the action, why it is 
being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained at 
the beginning of this section, in the preamble, and in the SUMMARY 
section of the preamble. A summary of the IRFA follows. A copy of this 
analysis is available from the Council (see ADDRESSES).
    The purpose of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) analysis is to 
establish a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall 
endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable 
statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale 
of businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to 
regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required to solicit 
and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the rationale 
for their actions to assure such proposals are given serious 
consideration. The RFA does not contain any decision criteria. Instead, 
the purpose of the RFA is to inform the agency, as well as the public, 
of the expected economic impacts of various alternatives contained in 
the FMP or Amendment (including framework management measures and other 
regulatory actions) and to ensure the agency considers alternatives 
that minimize the expected impacts while meeting the goals and 
objectives of the FMP and applicable statutes.
    With certain exceptions, the RFA requires agencies to conduct an 
Initial Regulatory IRFA for each proposed rule. The IRFA is designed to 
assess the impacts various regulatory alternatives would have on small 
entities, including small businesses, and to determine ways to minimize 
those impacts. An IRFA is primarily conducted to determine whether the 
proposed action would have a ``significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.'' In addition to analyses 
conducted for the RIR, the IRFA provides:
    1. A description of the reasons why action by the agency is being 
considered;
    2. A succinct statement of the objectives of, and legal basis for, 
the proposed rule;
    3. A description and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of 
small entities to which the proposed rule will apply;
    4. A description of the projected reporting, record-keeping, and 
other compliance requirements of the proposed rule, including an 
estimate of the classes of small entities which will be subject to the 
requirements of the report or record; and,
    5. Identification, to the extent practicable, of all relevant 
federal rules, which may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the 
proposed rule.

Description of the Reasons Why Action by the Agency Is Being Considered

    The purpose and need of Amendment 18 are set forth in Section 3.2 
of the EIS (see page 30).

Statement of the Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, This Proposed Rule

    The goals and objectives of Amendment 18 are set forth in Section 
3.3 of the EIS (see page 31-32). These were also summarized in the 
Background section of the preamble.

Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which This 
Proposed Rule Would Apply

    Small entities include ``small businesses,'' ``small 
organizations,'' and ``small governmental jurisdictions.'' The Small 
Business Administration (SBA) has established size standards for all 
major industry sectors in the U.S. including commercial finfish 
harvesters (NAICS code 114111), commercial shellfish harvesters (NAICS 
code 114112), other commercial marine harvesters (NAICS code 114119), 
for-hire businesses (NAICS code 487210),

[[Page 92765]]

marinas (NAICS code 713930), seafood dealers/wholesalers (NAICS code 
424460), and seafood processors (NAICS code 311710). A business 
primarily involved in finfish harvesting is classified as a small 
business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in 
its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined 
annual receipts not in excess of $20.5 million for all its affiliated 
operations worldwide. For commercial shellfish harvesters, the other 
qualifiers apply and the receipts threshold is $5.5 million. For other 
commercial marine harvesters, for-hire businesses, and marinas, the 
other qualifiers apply and the receipts threshold is $7.5 million.
    On December 29, 2015, the National Marine Fisheries Service (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 Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (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) current 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 of the U.S. commercial 
fishing industry in all NMFS rules subject to the RFA after July 1, 
2016. Id. at 81194.
    Pursuant to the RFA, and prior to July 1, 2016, an IRFA was 
developed for this regulatory action using SBA's former size standards. 
NMFS has reviewed the analyses prepared for this regulatory action in 
light of the new size standard. Under the SBA's size standards, all of 
the commercial finfish and other marine fishing businesses were 
considered small, while 12 of the 237 shellfish businesses were 
determined not to be small (Tables 1 and 2). The new standard could 
result in a few more commercial shellfish businesses being considered 
small. Analyses in Tables 2 and 3 below reveal that no groundfish-
dependent entities exceeded $5.5 million in gross sales, with the mean 
gross sale per entity being less than $2 million. As a result, it is 
unlikely that any finfish, or more specifically, groundfish-dependent 
vessels, would be considered a large business under the new NMFS size 
standard.
    Amendment 18 regulates commercial fish harvesting entities engaged 
in the Northeast multispecies limited access fishery. A description of 
the specific entities that are likely to be impacted is included below 
for informational purposes, followed by a discussion of those regulated 
entities likely to be impacted by the proposed regulations. For the 
purposes of the RFA analysis, the ownership entities, not the 
individual vessels, are considered the regulated entities.

Ownership Entities in Regulated Commercial Harvesting Businesses

    Individually-permitted vessels may hold permits for several 
fisheries, harvesting species of fish that are regulated by several 
different FMPs, even beyond those impacted by Amendment 18. 
Furthermore, multiple permitted vessels and/or permits may be owned by 
entities affiliated by stock ownership, common management, identity of 
interest, contractual relationships, or economic dependency. For this 
analysis, ownership entities are defined by those entities with common 
ownership personnel as listed on permit application documentation. Only 
permits with identical ownership personnel are categorized as an 
ownership entity. For example, if five permits have the same seven 
personnel listed as co-owners on their application paperwork, those 
seven personnel form one ownership entity, covering those five permits. 
If one or several of the seven owners also own additional vessels, with 
sub-sets of the original seven personnel or with new co-owners, those 
ownership arrangements are deemed to be separate ownership entities for 
the purpose of this analysis.

Regulated Commercial Harvesting Entities

    Ownership entities are identified on June 1 of each year based on 
the list of all permit numbers for the most recent complete calendar 
year that have applied for any type of Northeast Federal fishing 
permit. The current ownership data set is based on calendar year 2014 
permits and contains gross sales associated with those permits for 
calendar years 2012 through 2014. As of June 1, 2015, there were 661 
commercial business entities potentially regulated by this action. 
Entities permitted to operate in the Northeast multispecies limited 
access fishery are described in Tables 1 and 2. As of June 1, 2015, 
there were 1,147 individual limited access permits. The 34 for-hire 
businesses included here are entities affiliated with limited access 
commercial groundfish permits, but derive greater than 50% of their 
gross sales from party/charter operations. All are small businesses 
(average gross revenues from 2012-14 are less than $7.5 million). The 
remaining 75 entities had no revenue and are classified as small.
    These totals may mask some diversity among the entities. Many, if 
not most, of these ownership entities maintain diversified harvest 
portfolios, obtaining gross sales from many fisheries and are not 
dependent on any one. However, not all are equally diversified. Those 
that depend most heavily on sales from harvesting species impacted 
directly by Amendment 18 are most likely to be affected. By defining 
dependence as deriving greater than 50% of gross sales from sales of 
regulated species associated with a specific fishery, those ownership 
groups most likely to be impacted by the proposed regulations can be 
identified. Using this threshold, 61 entities are groundfish-dependent; 
all of which are small under both the SBA and NMFS size standards 
(Table 3).

           Table 1--Entities Regulated by the Proposed Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Number
                        Type                           Number     small
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primarily finfish...................................       315       315
Primarily shellfish.................................       237       225
Primarily for-hire..................................        34        34
No Revenue..........................................        75        75
                                                     -------------------
    Total...........................................       661       649
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                Table 2--Description of Regulated Entities by Gross Sales
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                            Mean gross     Median gross    Mean permits     Max permits
                     Sales category                           Number       Number small        sales           sales        per entity      per entity
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<$50K...................................................             186             186         $10,597          $1,954             1.3              30
$50-100K................................................              71              71          76,466          78,736             1.3               3
$100-500K...............................................             225             225         244,672         219,731             1.3               4
$500K-1mil..............................................              91              91         734,423         720,668             1.7               7
$1-5.5mil...............................................              74              73       1,899,461       1,498,138             2.4              11
$5.5mil+................................................              14               3      11,900,790       7,383,522            12.4              28
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 92766]]


                             Table 3--Impacted Groundfish-Dependent Regulated Commercial Groundfish Entities by Gross Sales
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Average
                                                      Large       fishing      Maximum     Median gross     Mean gross        Median           Mean
                Sales                   Entities    businesses    permits      fishing       sales per       sales per      groundfish      groundfish
                                          (#)          (#)       owned per   permits per      entity          entity         sales per       sales per
                                                                 entity (#)   entity (#)                                      entity          entity
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<$50K...............................            6            0          1.0            1         $10,116         $20,316          $8,831         $16,476
$50-100K............................            7            0          1.1            2          72,052          67,390          56,221          49,341
$100-500K...........................           22            0          1.6            4         226,938         240,833         116,018         172,331
$500K-1mil..........................           13            0          1.2            2         698,226         718,231         398,548         491,838
$1-5.5mil...........................           13            0          2.2            4       1,553,597       1,854,052       1,292,445       1,403,896
                                     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total ownership entities........           61            0  ...........  ...........  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Description of Projected Reporting, Record Keeping, and Other 
Compliance Requirements of This Proposed Rule

    This action contains a change to an information collection 
requirement, which has been approved by the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) under OMB Control Number 0648-0202. This revision would 
require any entity that has exceeded the potential sector contribution 
(PSC) allocation limit to render one or more permits ``unusable'' so 
that the entity would be operating within the allocation limit. If an 
entity exceeds the PSC limit, the entity would be required to complete 
a ``Permit Shelving Form'' and render one or more permits unusable. If 
two entities had to complete a ``Permit Shelving Form'', the burden 
estimate would be 1 hr and cost $1.
    Currently, no entity exceeds the PSC allocation limit; the most PSC 
any entity holds is approximately 140 PSC, and the proposed limit would 
be 232.5. As a result, it is unlikely that any entity would reach this 
threshold, and that the proposed action would not affect fishing 
operations.
    Public comment is sought regarding whether this collection of 
information is necessary for the proper performance of the function of 
the agency, including whether the information shall have practical 
utility; the accuracy of the burden estimate; ways to enhance the 
quality, utility, and clarify of the information to be collected; and 
ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information, including 
through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of 
information technology. Send comments on these or any other aspects of 
the collection of information to NMFS and to OMB (see ADDRESSES).
    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is 
required to respond to, and no person shall be subject to penalty for 
failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the 
requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act, unless that collection of 
information displays a currently valid OMB control number.

Federal Rules Which May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With This 
Proposed Rule

    No relevant Federal rules have been identified that would duplicate 
or overlap with Amendment 18.

Description of Significant Alternatives to the Proposed Action Which 
Accomplish the Stated Objectives of Applicable Statutes and Which 
Minimize Any Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities

    This IRFA summary is intended to analyze how small entities would 
be impacted by the proposed management measures. These measures are 
expected to have minimal, if any, impact on small entities regulated by 
this action. The vast majority (649 out of 661) of potentially 
regulated entities are classified as small businesses by SBA and NMFS 
business size standards.
    In general, the small entities regulated by this action would be 
unaffected. The majority of limited access groundfish permit holders 
possess permits and PSC in far smaller quantities than the proposed 
accumulation limits. However, as proposed, individuals who comprise a 
part of, or the entirety of, these small entities could be restricted 
in the number of permits or the amount of PSC shares they wish to 
accumulate in the future, which could impact revenue. Based on the 
Compass Lexecon report, scalability would not be affected by the 
reduced accumulation potential, although a definitive statement cannot 
be made at this time. Further, the PSC limit alternative would allow 
substantial flexibility so that vessel permit holders could continue to 
accumulate permits in a manner that allows them to maximize fishing 
opportunities within their portfolio.
    There were several other PSC limit alternatives considered in the 
Amendment that were not selected because the Council determined the 
alternatives would have been too restrictive. For example, limiting an 
ownership entity to an accumulation limit equivalent to the PSC held as 
of the control date could have forced divestiture in the fishery and 
would have prevented ownership entities from growing. Similarly, 
establishing a specific accumulation limit for a specific groundfish 
stock would have reduced opportunities for entities to expand and 
restricted operational flexibility. Additional information on these 
alternatives is available in section 4.1 of the Amendment.
    Handgear A permit holders would be largely unaffected by the 
limited access handgear measures. Minimal fishing activity by these 
vessels occurs during the winter and early spring, and the removal of 
the March 1-20 closure would not change this behavior. The removal of 
the standard fish tote requirement would be inconsequential, as this 
rule is not currently enforced and it is a minor operational change. 
The sector exemption for VMS requirement would likely also not affect 
Handgear A permit holders. Joining a sector would remain a challenge 
for these permit holders, given the small PSC associated with Handgear 
A permits. However, if they were to join a sector, this provision would 
reduce the cost burden for those vessels.
    Several management measures and alternatives were considered but 
not selected by the Council. Other alternatives may be considered in a 
future framework, as explained in the preamble above. Additional 
information on these alternatives and justifications for the Council's 
decision are explained in section 4 of the Amendment.

Impacts to Groundfish-Dependent Small Entities

    The impacts of the proposed accumulation limits on groundfish-
dependent small entities would be minimal. No entity would be 
immediately impacted by the proposed accumulation limits, and few would 
be potentially impacted in the long term. For those that are 
potentially impacted,

[[Page 92767]]

it is not possible to state whether scalability would be lessened. The 
proposed PSC and permit caps would limit the ability of any individual 
from monopolizing the fishery.
    It is not clear how many Handgear A permit holders are groundfish-
dependent, but the number is likely very small. There were 28 Handgear 
A permit holders that took at least one groundfish trip during fishing 
year 2013; any of these 28 would be minimally impacted by Amendment 18. 
There may be a few trips taken during the removed March 1-20 closure 
block. However, groundfish trips taken by Handgear A permit holders 
have generally been more profitable during the warmer months in recent 
years. The management measures proposed in this rule would provide 
greater operational flexibility to Handgear A vessels, therefore 
benefiting small businesses.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648

    Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: December 13, 2016.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is proposed 
to be 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.  648.2, add a definition for ``Ownership interest'' in 
alphabetical order to read as follows:
* * * * *
    Ownership interest, in the NE multispecies fishery, includes, but 
is not limited to holding share(s) or stock in any corporation, any 
partnership interest, or membership in a limited liability company, or 
personal ownership, in whole or in part, of a vessel issued a limited 
access NE multispecies permit or confirmation of permit history (CPH), 
including any ownership interest in any entity or its subsidiaries or 
partners, no matter how far removed.
* * * * *
0
3. In Sec.  648.4, add paragraph (a)(1)(i)(N) and revise paragraph 
(c)(2)(i) to read as follows:


Sec.  648.4  Vessel permits.

    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (N) Accumulation Limits. (1) 5-percent Permit/CPH Restriction. Any 
person with an ownership interest in the NE multispecies fishery is not 
eligible to be issued a limited access NE multispecies permit or CPH 
for a vessel after April 7, 2011, if the issuance results in the person 
having an ownership interest in excess of 5 percent of all limited 
access NE multispecies permits and CPH that are issued as of the date 
the permit/CPH application is received by the NMFS.
    (2) PSC Limit. Any person with an ownership interest in the NE 
multispecies fishery is not eligible to be issued a limited access NE 
multispecies permit or CPH for a vessel after April 7, 2011, that 
results in that person's average potential sector contribution (PSC) 
exceeding a share of 15.5 for all the allocated stocks in aggregate, 
except as provided in paragraph (a)(1)(i)(N)(4) of this section.
    (3) Grandfather Provision. Any person initially issued a limited 
access NE multispecies permit or CPH prior to April 7, 2011, is 
eligible to renew such permits(s) and/or CPH, regardless of whether the 
renewal of the permits or CPH results in the person exceeding the 5-
percent ownership restriction or an average PSC share of 15.5 for all 
the allocated stocks in aggregate. Any additional permitted vessels 
that a person acquires after April 7, 2011, are subject to the 
accumulation limits specified within this section.
    (4) Any person can be issued one limited access NE multispecies 
permit or CPH that results in that person's total PSC exceeding the PSC 
limit as described in this section. That person must identify to NMFS 
on or before March 31 of each year, vessel permits or CPH that will be 
rendered unusable the upcoming fishing year so that the person's total 
PSC for the upcoming fishing year is an amount equal to or below the 
PSC limit. Beginning on May 1, the permits or CPH rendered unusable may 
not be fished, leased, or enrolled in a sector by that person for the 
remainder of the fishing year. A permit rendered unusable may be 
transferred.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (2) Vessel permit information requirements. (i) An application for 
a permit issued under this section, in addition to the information 
specified in paragraph (c)(1) of this section, also must contain at 
least the following information, and any other information required by 
the Regional Administrator: Vessel name, owner name or name of the 
owner's authorized representative, mailing address, and telephone 
number; USCG documentation number and a copy of the vessel's current 
USCG documentation or, for a vessel not required to be documented under 
title 46 U.S.C., the vessel's state registration number and a copy of 
the current state registration; a copy of the vessel's current party/
charter boat license (if applicable); home port and principal port of 
landing, length overall, GRT, NT, engine horsepower, year the vessel 
was built, type of construction, type of propulsion, approximate fish 
hold capacity, type of fishing gear used by the vessel, number of crew, 
number of party or charter passengers licensed to be carried (if 
applicable), permit category; if the owner is a corporation, a copy of 
the current Certificate of Incorporation or other corporate papers 
showing the date of incorporation and the names of the current officers 
of the corporation, and the names and addresses of all persons holding 
any ownership interest in a NE multispecies permit or CPH or 
shareholders owning 25 percent or more of the corporation's shares for 
other fishery permits; if the owner is a partnership, a copy of the 
current Partnership Agreement and the names and addresses of all 
partners; permit number of any current or, if expired, previous Federal 
fishery permit issued to the vessel.
* * * * *
0
4. In Sec.  648.14,
0
a. Add paragraphs (k)(2)(v) and (vi);
0
b. Revise paragraph (k)(9)(i); and
0
c. Add paragraph (k)(9)(ii)(N) to read as follows:


Sec.  648.14  Prohibitions.

* * * * *
    (k) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (v) Fish for, possess, land fish, enroll in a sector, or lease a 
permit or confirmation of permit history (CPH) as a lessor or lessee, 
with a permit that has been rendered unusable as specified in Sec.  
648.4(a)(1)(i)(N).
    (vi) Acquire a limited access NE multispecies permit that would 
result in a permit holder exceeding any of the ownership accumulation 
limits specified in Sec.  648.4(a)(1)(i)(N), unless authorized under 
Sec.  648.4(a)(1)(i)(N).
* * * * *
    (9) * * *
    (i) If operating under the provisions of a limited access NE 
multispecies Handgear A permit south of the GOM Regulated Mesh Area, as 
defined at Sec.  648.80(a)(1), fail to declare the vessel operator's 
intent to fish in this area via VMS or fail to obtain or retain on 
board a letter of authorization from the

[[Page 92768]]

Regional Administrator, as required by Sec.  648.82(b)(6)(iii).
* * * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (N) Act as a lessor or lessee of NE multispecies DAS to or from a 
limited access permit that has been rendered unusable as specified in 
Sec.  648.4(a)(1)(i)(N).
* * * * *
0
5. In Sec.  648.82, revise paragraphs (b)(6) and (g) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  648.82   Effort-control program for NE multispecies limited 
access vessels.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (6) Handgear A category. A vessel qualified and electing to fish 
under the Handgear A category, as described in Sec.  648.4(a)(1)(i)(A), 
may retain, per trip, up to 300 lb (135 kg) of cod, one Atlantic 
halibut, and the daily possession limit for other regulated species and 
ocean pout, as specified under Sec.  648.86. If either the GOM or GB 
cod trip limit applicable to a vessel fishing under a NE multispecies 
DAS permit, as specified in Sec.  648.86(b)(1) and (2), respectively, 
is reduced below 300 lb (135 kg) per DAS by NMFS, the cod trip limit 
specified in this paragraph (b)(6) shall be adjusted to be the same as 
the applicable cod trip limit specified for NE multispecies DAS 
permits. For example, if the GOM cod trip limit for NE multispecies DAS 
vessels was reduced to 250 lb (113.4 kg) per DAS, then the cod trip 
limit for a vessel issued a Handgear A category permit that is fishing 
in the GOM Regulated Mesh Area would also be reduced to 250 lb (113.4 
kg). Qualified vessels electing to fish under the Handgear A category 
are subject to the following restrictions:
    (i) The vessel must not use or possess on board gear other than 
handgear while in possession of, fishing for, or landing NE 
multispecies;
    (ii) Tub-trawls must be hand-hauled only, with a maximum of 250 
hooks; and
    (iii) Declaration. For any such vessel that is not required to use 
VMS pursuant to Sec.  648.10(b)(4), to fish for GB cod south of the GOM 
Regulated Mesh Area, as defined at Sec.  648.80(a)(1), a vessel owner 
or operator must obtain, and retain on board, a letter of authorization 
from the Regional Administrator stating an intent to fish south of the 
GOM Regulated Mesh Area and may not fish in any other area for a 
minimum of 7 consecutive days from the effective date of the letter of 
authorization. For any such vessel that is required, or elects, to use 
VMS pursuant to Sec.  648.10(b)(4), to fish for GB cod south of the GOM 
Regulated Mesh Area, as defined at Sec.  648.80(a)(1), a vessel owner 
or operator must declare an intent to fish south of the GOM Regulated 
Mesh Area on each trip through the VMS prior to leaving port, in 
accordance with instructions provided by the Regional Administrator. 
Such vessels may transit the GOM Regulated Mesh Area, as defined at 
Sec.  648.80(a)(1), provided that their gear is stowed and not 
available for immediate use as defined in Sec.  648.2.
* * * * *
    (g) Spawning season restrictions. A vessel issued a valid Small 
Vessel category permit specified in paragraph (b)(5) of this section, 
or a vessel issued an open access Handgear B permit, as specified in 
Sec.  648.88(a), may not fish for, possess, or land regulated species 
or ocean pout from March 1 through March 20 of each year. A common pool 
vessel must declare out and be out of the NE multispecies DAS program, 
and a sector must declare that the vessel will not fish with gear 
capable of catching NE multispecies (i.e., gear that is not defined as 
exempted gear under this part), for a 20-day period between March 1 and 
May 31 of each calendar year, using the notification requirements 
specified in Sec.  648.10. A vessel fishing under a Day gillnet 
category designation is prohibited from fishing with gillnet gear 
capable of catching NE multispecies during its declared 20-day spawning 
block, unless the vessel is fishing in an exempted fishery, as 
described in Sec.  648.80. If a vessel owner has not declared and been 
out of the fishery for a 20-day period between March 1 and May 31 of 
each calendar year on or before May 12 of each year, the vessel is 
prohibited from fishing for, possessing or landing any regulated 
species, ocean pout, or non-exempt species during the period from May 
12 through May 31.
* * * * *
0
6. In Sec.  648.87, revise paragraph (c)(2)(i) introductory text to 
read as follows:


Sec.  648.87   Sector allocation.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) Regulations that may not be exempted for sector participants. 
The Regional Administrator may not exempt participants in a sector from 
the following Federal fishing regulations: Specific times and areas 
within the NE multispecies year-round closure areas; permitting 
restrictions (e.g., vessel upgrades, etc.); gear restrictions designed 
to minimize habitat impacts (e.g., roller gear restrictions, etc.); 
reporting requirements; and AMs specified in Sec.  648.90(a)(5)(i)(D). 
For the purposes of this paragraph (c)(2)(i), the DAS reporting 
requirements specified in Sec.  648.82, the SAP-specific reporting 
requirements specified in Sec.  648.85, VMS requirements for Handgear A 
category permitted vessels as specified in Sec.  648.10, and the 
reporting requirements associated with a dockside monitoring program 
are not considered reporting requirements, and the Regional 
Administrator may exempt sector participants from these requirements as 
part of the approval of yearly operations plans. For the purpose of 
this paragraph (c)(2)(i), the Regional Administrator may not grant 
sector participants exemptions from the NE multispecies year-round 
closures areas defined as Essential Fish Habitat Closure Areas as 
defined in Sec.  648.81(h); the Fippennies Ledge Area as defined in 
paragraph (c)(2)(i)(A) of this section; Closed Area I and Closed Area 
II, as defined in Sec.  648.81(a) and (b), respectively, during the 
period February 16 through April 30; and the Western GOM Closure Area, 
as defined at Sec.  648.81(e), where it overlaps with GOM Cod 
Protection Closures I through III, as defined in Sec.  648.81(f)(4). 
This list may be modified through a framework adjustment, as specified 
in Sec.  648.90.
* * * * *
0
7. In Sec.  648.90, revise paragraphs (a)(2)(i) through (iii) to read 
as follows:


Sec.  648.90  NE multispecies assessment, framework procedures and 
specifications, and flexible area action system.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (2) Biennial review. (i) At a minimum, the NE multispecies PDT 
shall meet on or before September 30 every other year to perform a 
review of the fishery, using the most current scientific information 
available provided primarily from the NEFSC. Data provided by states, 
ASMFC, the USCG, and other sources may also be considered by the PDT. 
The PDT shall review available data pertaining to: Catch and landings, 
discards, DAS allocations, DAS use, sector operations, and other 
measures of fishing effort; survey results; stock status; current 
estimates of fishing mortality and overfishing levels; social and 
economic impacts; enforcement issues; and any other relevant 
information. The PDT may also review the performance of different user 
groups or fleet sectors.
    (ii) Based on this review, the PDT shall recommend ACLs for the 
upcoming fishing year(s), as described in paragraph (a)(4) of this 
section, and develop options for consideration by the

[[Page 92769]]

Council, if necessary, on any changes, adjustments, or additions to DAS 
allocations, closed areas, or other measures necessary to rebuild 
overfished stocks and achieve the FMP goals and objectives, which may 
include a preferred option. The range of options developed by the PDT 
may include any of the management measures in the FMP, including, but 
not limited to: ACLs, which must be based on the projected fishing 
mortality levels required to meet the goals and objectives outlined in 
the FMP for the 12 regulated species and ocean pout if able to be 
determined; identifying and distributing ACLs and other sub-components 
of the ACLs among various segments of the fishery; AMs; DAS changes; 
possession limits; gear restrictions; closed areas; permitting 
restrictions; minimum fish sizes; recreational fishing measures; 
describing and identifying EFH; fishing gear management measures to 
protect EFH; designating habitat areas of particular concern within 
EFH; and changes to the SBRM, including the CV-based performance 
standard, the means by which discard data are collected/obtained, 
fishery stratification, the process for prioritizing observer sea-day 
allocations, reports, and/or industry-funded observers or observer set 
aside programs. The PDT must demonstrate through analyses and 
documentation that the options it develops are expected to meet the FMP 
goals and objectives.
    (iii) In addition, the PDT may develop ranges of options for any of 
the management measures in the FMP and the following conditions that 
may be adjusted through a framework adjustment to achieve FMP goals and 
objectives including, but not limited to: Revisions to DAS measures, 
including DAS allocations (such as the distribution of DAS among the 
four categories of DAS), future uses for Category C DAS, and DAS 
baselines, adjustments for steaming time, etc.; accumulation limits due 
to a permit buyout or buyback; modifications to capacity measures, such 
as changes to the DAS transfer or DAS leasing measures; calculation of 
area-specific ACLs (including sub-ACLs for specific stocks and areas 
(e.g., Gulf of Maine cod)), area management boundaries, and adoption of 
area-specific management measures including the delineation of inshore/
offshore fishing practices, gear restrictions, declaration time 
periods; sector allocation requirements and specifications, including 
the establishment of a new sector, the disapproval of an existing 
sector, the allowable percent of ACL available to a sector through a 
sector allocation, an optional sub-ACL specific to Handgear A permitted 
vessels, and the calculation of PSCs; sector administration provisions, 
including at-sea and dockside monitoring measures; sector reporting 
requirements; state-operated permit bank administrative provisions; 
measures to implement the U.S./Canada Resource Sharing Understanding, 
including any specified TACs (hard or target); changes to 
administrative measures; additional uses for Regular B DAS; reporting 
requirements; declaration requirements pertaining to when and what time 
period a vessel must declare into or out of a fishery management area; 
the GOM Inshore Conservation and Management Stewardship Plan; 
adjustments to the Handgear A or B permits; gear requirements to 
improve selectivity, reduce bycatch, and/or reduce impacts of the 
fishery on EFH; SAP modifications; revisions to the ABC control rule 
and status determination criteria, including, but not limited to, 
changes in the target fishing mortality rates, minimum biomass 
thresholds, numerical estimates of parameter values, and the use of a 
proxy for biomass may be made either through a biennial adjustment or 
framework adjustment; changes to the SBRM, including the CV-based 
performance standard, the means by which discard data are collected/
obtained, fishery stratification, the process for prioritizing observer 
sea-day allocations, reports, and/or industry-funded observers or 
observer set aside programs; and any other measures currently included 
in the FMP.
* * * * *

[FR Doc. 2016-30356 Filed 12-19-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-22-P