[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 196 (Wednesday, October 9, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 54094-54101]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-21712]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 648
[Docket No. 191001-0048]
RIN 0648-BI80
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Amendment 8
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule, request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rule proposes regulations to implement Amendment 8 to the
Atlantic Herring Fishery Management Plan. The New England Fishery
Management Council developed Amendment 8 to specify a long-term
acceptable biological catch control rule for Atlantic herring and
address localized depletion and user group conflict. This amendment
would establish an acceptable biological catch control rule that
accounts for herring's role in the ecosystem and prohibit midwater
trawling in inshore Federal waters from the U.S./Canada border to the
Rhode Island/Connecticut border. Amendment 8 is intended to support
sustainable management of the herring resource and help ensure that
herring is available to minimize possible detrimental biological
impacts on predators of herring and associated socioeconomic impacts on
other user groups.
DATES: Public comments must be received by November 25, 2019.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2019-0078,
by either of the following methods:
Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public
comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal.
1. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2019-0078;
2. Click the ``Comment Now!'' icon and complete the required
fields; and
3. Enter or attach your comments.
Mail: Submit written comments to Michael Pentony, Regional
Administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service, 55 Great Republic
Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope,
``Comments on the Proposed Rule for Herring Amendment 8.''
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 us. 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. We will accept anonymous
comments (enter ``N/A'' in the required fields if you wish to remain
anonymous).
Copies of Amendment 8, including the Environmental Impact
Statement, the Regulatory Impact Review, and the Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (EIS/RIR/IRFA) prepared in support of this action
are available from Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England
Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA
01950. The supporting documents are also accessible via the internet
at: http://www.nefmc.org.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carrie Nordeen, Fishery Policy
Analyst, phone: (978) 282-9272 or email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The goal of the Atlantic Herring Fishery Management Plan (FMP) is
to manage the herring fishery at long-term sustainable levels and
objectives of the FMP include providing for full utilization of the
optimum yield (OY) and, to the extent practicable, controlled
opportunities for participants in other New England and Mid-Atlantic
fisheries. The Herring FMP describes OY as the amount of fish that will
provide the greatest overall benefit to the Nation, particularly with
respect to food production and recreational opportunities, taking into
account the protection of marine ecosystems, including maintenance of a
biomass that supports the ocean ecosystem, predator consumption of
herring, and biologically sustainable human harvest. This includes
recognition of the importance of herring as one of many forage species
of fish, marine mammals, and birds in the Greater Atlantic Region.
Consistent with these aims, the goals for Amendment 8 are to: (1)
Account for the role of herring within the ecosystem, including its
role as forage; (2) stabilize the fishery at a level designed to
achieve OY; and (3) address localized depletion in inshore waters.
[[Page 54095]]
On February 26, 2015 (80 FR 10458), the New England Fishery
Management Council (Council) published a notice of intent (NOI) to
prepare an EIS for Amendment 8 to consider long-term harvest strategies
for herring, including an acceptable biological catch (ABC) control
rule that addressed the biological and ecological requirements of the
herring resource. The importance of herring as a forage species was
underscored by the Council's specified intent to consider a wide range
of ABC control rule alternatives, including those that explicitly
account for herring's role in the ecosystem. The Council held scoping
meetings during March and April of 2015 to solicit comments on ABC
control rule alternatives.
An ABC control rule is a formulaic approach for setting a harvest
limit. For herring and other stocks with a defined overfishing limit
(OFL), the ABC is reduced from the OFL by scientific uncertainty, such
as uncertainty around stock size estimates, variability around
estimates of recruitment, and consideration of ecosystem issues, so
that the OFL will not be exceeded. The ABC control rule is developed by
the Council to reflect its risk tolerance for not exceeding the OFL and
provides guidance to the Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee
for recommending annual ABCs based on the best available scientific
information about stock status. The specific parameters of an ABC
control rule are: (1) Upper biomass parameter; (2) maximum fishing
mortality (F); and (3) lower biomass parameter. The values assigned to
each of these parameters dictate the overall ``shape'' or function of
the ABC control rule and determine whether F increases or decreases in
response to the current estimate of stock biomass.
The Council developed alternatives for a herring ABC control rule
using a Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE). MSE is a decision-making
tool that uses computer modeling to compare the performance of
alternatives (i.e., management strategies) under various scenarios to
achieve multiple, competing objectives. Because we do not have a
complete understanding of the ocean ecosystem and all the sources of
uncertainty, MSEs are useful to evaluate how alternatives perform under
different environmental conditions. The Council held two public
workshops to generate stakeholder input to help identify objectives for
the MSE analysis. Input generated by the workshops was considered by
the Council and, for the most part, adopted and included in Amendment
8. The MSE used three models, a herring model, a predator model, and an
economic model, to compare ABC control rule performance. The models
simulated how well the ABC control rules achieved herring management
objectives, such as biomass, yield, revenue, and predator
considerations, under simulated environmental conditions related to
herring growth, stock assessment bias, and productivity of herring.
Results of the MSE informed the range of ABC control rule alternatives
and impact analyses of those alternatives in Amendment 8.
On August 21, 2015 (80 FR 50825), the Council published a
supplemental NOI announcing it was expanding the scope of Amendment 8
to consider localized depletion in inshore waters. The supplemental NOI
defined localized depletion as harvesting more fish from an area than
can be replaced within a given time period. It also explained the
Council was seeking input from the interested public as to how to
define, measure, and evaluate impacts, and minimize inshore, localized
depletion in the herring fishery as part of Amendment 8. Public comment
during the supplemental scoping made it clear that localized depletion
concerns voiced by many stakeholders were not just related to the
biological impacts of herring removals on the herring stock and on
predators of herring. Public comment also indicated that impacts of
localized depletion should be measured and evaluated relative to
competing uses for the herring resource and potentially negative
economic impacts on businesses that rely on predators of herring.
The Council's interest in the localized depletion of herring
extends back to the early development of the Herring FMP. Despite a
lack of quantitative evidence demonstrating localized depletion,
Amendment 1 to the Herring FMP (72 FR 11252, March 12, 2007) prohibited
midwater trawling for herring in Herring Management Area 1A from June
through September as a proactive measure to prevent potential negative
impacts on the stock, the fishery, and predators of herring resulting
from over harvesting in Area 1A.
Ultimately, the Council's consideration of localized depletion in
Amendment 8 included describing localized depletion as involving user
group conflict and included both an evaluation of impacts of the user
group conflict and consideration of competing interests for how herring
should be used. The Council's concern with localized depletion and user
group conflict is explained in this excerpt from the Council's April
2016 problem statement: ``. . . concerns with concentrated, intense
commercial fishing of Atlantic herring in specific areas and at certain
times that cause detrimental socioeconomic impacts on other user groups
(commercial, recreational, ecotourism) who depend upon adequate local
availability of Atlantic herring to support business and recreational
interests both at sea and on shore.'' The range of localized depletion
and user group conflict alternatives in Amendment 8 were developed to
address potential localized depletion of herring to minimize possible
detrimental biological impacts on predators of herring and associated
socioeconomic impacts on other user groups.
A Notice of Availability (NOA) for Amendment 8 was published in the
Federal Register on August 21, 2019 (84 FR 43573). The Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) allows
us to approve, partially approve, or disapprove measures recommended by
the Council in an amendment based 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. The Council develops policy for its fisheries, and we defer to the
Council on policy decisions unless those policies are inconsistent with
the Magnuson-Steven Act or other applicable law. As such, we are
seeking comments on whether measures in Amendment 8 are consistent with
the Herring FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act and its National Standards,
and other applicable law. The comment period for the NOA ends on
October 21, 2019. Comments submitted on the NOA and/or this proposed
rule prior to October 21, 2019, will be considered in our decision to
approve, partially approve, or disapprove Amendment 8. We will consider
comments received by the end of the comment period for this proposed
rule November 25, 2019 in our decision to implement measures proposed
by the Council.
Proposed Measures
This rule proposes a long-term ABC control rule for herring. Under
the proposed control rule, when biomass is at or above 50 percent of
the biomass associated with maximum sustainable yield (BMSY)
or its proxy, ABC is the catch associated with a maximum fishing
mortality (F) of 80 percent of FMSY or its proxy. When
biomass falls below 50 percent of BMSY or its proxy, F
declines linearly to 0 at 10 percent of BMSY or its proxy.
The control rule would set ABC for a three-year period
[[Page 54096]]
but would allow ABC to vary year-to-year in response to projected
changes in biomass. This rule proposes that the control rule could be
revised via a framework adjustment if a quantitative assessment is not
available, if projections are producing ABCs that are not justified or
consistent with available information, or if the stock requires a
rebuilding program.
The proposed control rule is intended to explicitly account for
herring as forage in the ecosystem by limiting F to 80 percent of
FMSY when biomass is high and setting it at zero when
biomass is low. It is also intended to generate an ABC consistent with
specific criteria identified by the Council, including low variation in
yield, low probability of the stock becoming overfished, low
probability of a fishery shutdown, and catch limits set at a relatively
high proportion of MSY. The Council anticipates that short-term
negative economic impacts on participants in the herring or lobster
fisheries, resulting from a reduced herring harvest in response to low
herring biomass, may become a long-term economic benefit for industry
participants, especially if the proposed control rule results in low
variation in yield, low probability of a fishery shutdown, and low
probability of overfishing. Relative to other control rules considered
by the Council, the proposed control rule is designed to more
effectively balance the goal and objectives of the Herring FMP,
including managing the fishery at long-term sustainable levels, taking
forage for predators into account to support the ocean ecosystem, and
providing a biologically sustainable harvest as a source of revenue for
fishing communities and bait for the lobster fishery.
Shortly before the Council took final action on Amendment 8, an
updated stock assessment concluded that herring biomass is low, and the
probability of overfishing and the stock becoming overfished is high.
While not directly applicable to a long-term harvest policy, the
Council noted that under herring's current condition of low biomass,
setting catch more conservatively than status quo may increase the
likelihood of stock growth. In turn, this would have positive impacts
on the herring fishery, predators, and predator fisheries.
This rule also proposes prohibiting the use of midwater trawl gear
inshore of 12 nautical miles (22 km) from the U.S./Canada border to the
Rhode Island/Connecticut border and inshore of 20 nautical miles (37
km) off the east coast of Cape Cod. Specifically, federally permitted
vessels would be prohibited from using, deploying, or fishing with
midwater trawl gear within the inshore midwater trawl restricted area
located shoreward of the 12-nautical mile (22-km) territorial sea
boundary from Canada to Connecticut and within thirty-minute squares
114 and 99 off Cape Cod (Figure 1). Midwater trawl vessels would be
able to transit the inshore midwater trawl restricted gear area
provided gear was stowed and not available for immediate use. The
proposed measure would be in addition to the existing prohibition on
midwater trawling for herring in Area 1A during June 1 through
September 30.
[[Page 54097]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09OC19.024
The Council recommended the proposed inshore midwater trawl
restricted area to minimize local depletion and user group conflict
when midwater trawl vessels harvesting herring overlap with other user
groups (i.e., commercial fisheries, recreational fisheries, ecotourism)
that rely on herring as forage and provide inshore conservation
benefits. The Council focused on midwater trawl gear to mitigate
potential negative socioeconomic impacts on other user groups in
response to short duration, high volume herring removals by midwater
trawl vessels that are relatively more mobile and capable of fishing in
offshore areas than vessels using other gear types. Information to
quantify the impact of midwater trawling on other user groups is
scarce, so the amendment analyzed the degree of overlap between
midwater trawl vessels and other user groups. The proposed measure is
intended to incorporate areas with a high degree of overlap between
midwater trawl vessels and other user groups throughout the year.
Specifically, it incorporates the overlap with predator fisheries in
the Gulf of Maine and southern New England throughout the year, as well
as the overlap with ecotourism and the tuna fishery in Area 1A during
the fall. While overlap with the midwater trawl vessels does not
necessarily translate into negative biological impacts on predators,
less overlap may reduce potential user conflicts, provided midwater
trawl effort does not shift into other areas and generate additional
overlap.
The Herring FMP specifies that herring research set-aside (RSA) can
equal up to three percent of the sub-annual catch limit for a herring
management area. This rule proposes that RSA compensation fishing using
midwater trawl gear would be permitted within the inshore midwater
trawl restricted area. The Council recommended permitting RSA
compensation fishing within the inshore midwater trawl restricted area
to help ensure the RSA would be harvested and those funds would be
available to support the projects awarded RSA. Vessels engaged in
herring RSA compensation fishing typically operate as authorized by an
exempted fishing permit (EFP) so they can request exemptions from
certain regulations that would otherwise restrict herring harvest.
While vessels would be permitted to use midwater trawl gear within the
inshore midwater trawl restricted area while RSA compensation fishing,
it does not mean that compensations trips would be without
restrictions. Terms and conditions of the EFP must be consistent with
the Magnuson-Stevens Act, other applicable
[[Page 54098]]
law, and Herring FMP. Additionally, we would consider whether
additional terms and conditions would be required for EFPs to ensure
RSA compensation trips do not exacerbate the overlap between midwater
trawl vessels and other user groups.
This rule proposes that the inshore midwater trawl restricted area
or new closures to address localized depletion and/or user group
conflict could be modified or implemented via framework adjustment. The
list of framework provisions at Sec. 648.206 already includes closed
areas; this amendment would add the inshore midwater trawl restricted
area to that list.
The Council's recommendation to prohibit midwater trawling in
inshore areas is an allocation decision intended to balance the needs
of user groups and provide conservation benefits. Consistent with
objectives in the Herring FMP, the proposed measure is intended to
facilitate an efficient, fair, and equitable accommodation of social,
economic, and ecological factors associated with achieving OY, in part
by providing, to the extent practicable, controlled opportunities for
participants in other New England and Mid-Atlantic fisheries. Because
midwater trawl vessels historically harvested a larger percentage of
herring than other gear types and are able to fish offshore, the
Council recommended prohibiting them from inshore waters to help ensure
herring was available inshore for other user groups and predators of
herring. The proposed inshore midwater trawl restricted area is
designed to be reasonably large enough to address the overlap between
midwater trawl vessels and other user groups and, ultimately, user
group conflict in inshore waters. This proposed measure is likely to
negatively impact the midwater trawl fleet, with potentially increased
trip costs and lower annual catches, but the Council believes that, on
balance, the benefits to other user groups, such as potentially reduced
trips costs, higher annual catches, and improved safety, outweigh the
costs to midwater trawl vessels. The proposed measure may also have
biological benefits if moving midwater trawl vessels offshore minimizes
catch of river herring and shad, reduces fishing pressure on the
inshore component of the herring stock, and helps ensure herring are
available to predators. Herring is currently assessed as one stock, but
it likely has stock components. Reducing fishing pressure inshore would
benefit an inshore stock component. Analyses in Amendment 8 estimate
that in recent years approximately 30 percent of the midwater trawl
fleet's annualized revenue came from within the proposed inshore
midwater trawl restricted area. Negative economic impacts on the
midwater trawl fleet may be mitigated if the fleet is able to offset
lost revenue from inshore areas with increased revenue from offshore
areas. Herring catch limits are currently low, so the fishery has the
capacity to harvest the OY. Recent midwater trawl landings (2007-2015)
offshore of the proposed midwater trawl restricted area (36,903 mt) are
much higher than the Council-recommended OY for 2020 and 2021 (11,621
mt). In the longer-term, the fishery will likely adapt to be able
harvest an increased OY, provided vessels are able to locate herring.
Proposed Clarifications
We propose the following revision and clarifications to Sec.
648.202(a) under the authority of section 305(d) to the Magnuson-
Stevens Act, which provides that the Secretary of Commerce may
promulgate regulations necessary to carry out a FMP or the Magnuson-
Stevens Act.
First, this rule proposes revising the title from ``Purse Seine/
Fixed Gear Only Area'' to ``Midwater Trawl Restricted Area.'' Bottom
trawl gear, in addition to purse seine and fixed gear, is permitted in
the referenced area; only midwater trawl gear is prohibited in the
area. The proposed revision is a more accurate description of the
referenced area and is necessary to clarify the intent of the
regulation.
Second, this rule proposes clarifying that the regulation applies
to all federally permitted vessels fishing for herring. The regulation
currently applies midwater trawl gear restrictions to vessels fishing
for herring. This clarification is necessary to specify that
restrictions on fishing for herring with midwater trawl gear only apply
to federally permitted vessels and do not apply to vessels with only a
state herring permit fishing exclusively in state waters.
Third, the rule proposes clarifying the conditions under which
midwater trawl vessels may transit the ``Midwater Trawl Restricted
Area'' described above. Current regulations specify that midwater trawl
vessels with a limited access herring permit may transit Area 1A during
June through September with midwater trawl gear on board, provided the
gear is stowed and not available for immediate use. This rule proposes
clarifying that any federally permitted herring vessel may transit Area
1A during June through September, provided midwater trawl gear is
stowed and not available for immediate use. The unnecessary addition of
a limited access permit requirement to transit Area 1A is likely a
byproduct of the impact analysis identifying the number of limited
access vessels that would be affected by the prohibition of midwater
trawling in Area 1A implemented in Amendment 1 to the Herring FMP.
Lastly, we propose a revision to Sec. 648.200(b)(3) under the
authority of section 305(d) to the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This revision
would change the reference from ``at'' Sec. 648.201(a) to ``in'' Sec.
648.201(a) to be consistent with other regulatory references within
Sec. 648.200.
Classification
Pursuant to section 304(a)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the
NMFS Assistant Administrator has made a preliminary determination that
this proposed rule is consistent the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other
applicable law. In making the final determination, we will consider the
data, views, and comments received during the public comment period.
This proposed rule has been preliminarily determined to be not
significant for purposes of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866.
An Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was prepared for
this proposed rule, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 603. The IRFA describes the economic
impact that this proposed rule would have on small entities, including
small businesses, and also determines ways to minimize these impacts.
The IRFA includes this section of the preamble to this rule and
analyses contained in Amendment 8 and its accompanying EIS/RIR/IRFA. A
copy of the full analysis is available from the Council (see
ADDRESSES). A summary of the IRFA follows.
Description of the Reason Why Action by the Agency Is Being Considered
and Statement of the Objective of, and Legal Basis for, This Proposed
Rule
This action proposes management measures 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 the Number of Small Entities to Which the
Proposed Rule Would Apply
Effective July 1, 2016, NMFS established a small business size
standard of $11 million in annual gross receipts for all businesses
primarily engaged in the commercial fishing
[[Page 54099]]
industry for RFA compliance purposes only (80 FR 81194, December 29,
2015). A commercial fishing business is classified as a small business
if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field
of operation, and has combined annual receipts not in excess of $11
million.
This action would affect all permitted herring vessels; therefore,
the direct regulated entity is a firm that owns at least one herring
permit. There are many firms that hold an open-access (Category D)
herring permit. These firms harvest only a small fraction of herring;
furthermore, they are minimally affected by the regulations.
As of June 1, 2018, there were 862 firms (852 small) that held at
least one herring permit. There were 126 (123 small) active firms that
held at least one herring permit. There were 101 (94 small) firms that
held at least one limited access (Categories A, B, C) herring permit or
a Category E open access herring permit. There were 53 (50 small) firms
that held a limited access or Category E herring permit and were active
in the herring fishery. Table 1 characterizes ``gross receipts'' and
``herring receipts'' for firms that held a limited access or Category E
open access herring permit. Table 2 characterizes ``gross receipts''
and ``herring receipts'' for firms that held a limited access or
Category E open access herring permit and were active in the herring
fishery. In both tables, the small entities are further characterized
by gear type to facilitate comparisons. There are fewer than three
large entities that use midwater trawl gear, so the description of the
large entities is not disaggregated to gear type to preserve
confidentiality under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Table 3 characterizes
``gross receipts'' and ``herring receipts'' for firms that held a
herring permit and Table 4 characterizes ``gross receipts'' and
``herring receipts'' for firms that held a herring permit and were
active in the herring fishery. Tables 3 and 4 include firms with
Category D open access herring permits that would be minimally impacted
by this action.
Table 1--Average Receipts From Firms With Limited Access and Category E Open Access Herring Permits in 2017
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Herring
Firm size Firms Gear Gross receipts receipts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Large................................. 7 All..................... $20,396,374 $492,598
Small................................. 9 Midwater Trawl.......... 2,499,646 1,241,225
Small................................. 85 Non-Midwater Trawl...... 1,299,110 137,954
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: NMFS.
Table 2--Average Receipts From Firms With Limited Access and Category E Open Access Herring Permits That Were
Active in the Herring Fishery in 2017
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Herring
Firm size Firms Gear Gross receipts receipts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Large................................. 3 All..................... $16,567,731 $1,149,395
Small................................. 9 Midwater Trawl.......... 2,499,646 1,241,225
Small................................. 41 Non-Midwater Trawl...... 1,276,255 286,002
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: NMFS.
Table 3--Average Receipts From All Firms With a Herring Permit in 2017
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Herring
Firm size Firms Gear Gross receipts receipts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Large................................. 10 All..................... $19,873,801 $344,818
Small................................. 9 Midwater Trawl.......... 2,499,646 1,241,225
Small................................. 843 Non-Midwater Trawl...... 639,591 14,002
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: NMFS.
Table 4--Average Receipts From All Firms With a Herring Permit That Were Active in the Herring Fishery in 2017
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Herring
Firm size Firms Gear Gross receipts receipts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Large................................. 3 All..................... $16,567,731 $1,149,395
Small................................. 9 Midwater Trawl.......... 2,499,646 1,241,225
Small................................. 114 Non-Midwater Trawl...... 681,943 103,540
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: NMFS.
[[Page 54100]]
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 Statutes and Which
Minimize Any Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities
When evaluating ABC control rule alternatives, Alternative 1 is the
non-preferred alternative with potential to lessen economic impacts on
small entities compared to the proposed measure. Alternative 1 is less
conservative than the proposed ABC control rule and represents the
interim control rule that was used to set herring ABC for 2016-2018.
Analyses in Amendment 8 suggest the difference between the average ABCs
under Alternative 1 (24,553 mt) and the proposed ABC control rule
(22,685 mt) in the short-term (2019-2021) is less than 2,000 mt. Long-
term differences between the average ABCs resulting from Alternative 1
and the proposed ABC control rule are expected to be minimal. Relative
to Amendment 8's goal for an ABC control rule, F is lower under the
proposed ABC control rule (80 percent of FMSY) than under
Alternative 1 (90 percent of FMSY), therefore, the proposed
ABC control rule likely better accounts for herring's role as forage in
the ecosystem by limiting fishing than Alternative 1.
When evaluating localized depletion and user group conflict
alternatives, several of the non-preferred alternatives have the
potential to lessen economic impacts on small entities compared to the
proposed measure. The proposed measure would prohibit federally
permitted vessels from fishing inshore with midwater trawl gear. Under
the proposed measure, analyses in Amendment 8 estimate that herring
revenue will decline by about 13 percent for small firms that use
midwater trawl gear compared to the no action alternative.
Additionally, under the proposed measure, small firms that use purse
seine or bottom trawl gear may have revenue increases of 29 percent
compared to the no action alternative. Negative economic impacts on
midwater trawl vessels may be mitigated if vessels are able to catch a
greater percentage of fish offshore or if they switch to purse seine or
bottom trawl gear and continue to fish inshore. Relative to the goals
in Amendment 8, the proposed action is expected to minimize potential
localized depletion and user group conflict, by reducing the overlap
between midwater trawl vessels and other user groups, better than the
non-preferred alternatives that would minimize economic impacts on
midwater trawl vessels.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648
Fisheries, Fishing, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
Dated: October 1, 2019.
Samuel D. Rauch, III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is
proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 648--FISHERIES OF THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES
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. 648.14, add paragraphs (r)(1)(vi)(H) and (I) to read as
follows:
Sec. 648.14 Prohibitions.
* * * * *
(r) * * *
(1) * * *
(vi) * * *
(H) Use, deploy, or fish with midwater trawl gear within the
inshore midwater trawl restricted area as defined in Sec.
648.202(a)(2), unless the vessel is on a declared research set-aside
trip and operating as authorized by an exempted fishing permit or the
vessel has not been issued a valid, Federal permit under this part and
fishes exclusively in state waters.
(I) Transit the inshore midwater trawl restricted area, defined in
Sec. 648.202(a)(2), with midwater trawl gear onboard unless midwater
trawl gear is stowed and not available for immediate use, as defined in
Sec. 648.2 or the vessel has not been issued a valid, Federal permit
under this part and fishes exclusively in state waters.
* * * * *
0
3. In Sec. 648.200, revise paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) to read as
follows:
Sec. 648.200 Specifications.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) OFL must be equal to catch resulting from applying the maximum
fishing mortality threshold to a current or projected estimate of stock
size. When the stock is not overfished and overfishing is not
occurring, this is the fishing rate supporting maximum sustainable
yield (FMSY or proxy). Catch that exceeds this amount would
result in overfishing.
(2) ABC must be less than the OFL. The Council's Scientific and
Statistical Committee (SSC) shall recommend ABC to the Council by
applying the ABC control rule in Sec. 648.200 and considering
scientific uncertainty. Scientific uncertainty, including, but not
limited to, uncertainty around stock size estimates, variability around
estimates of recruitment, and consideration of ecosystem issues, shall
be considered when setting ABC.
(3) ACL must be equal to or less than the ABC. Management
uncertainty, which includes, but is not limited to, expected catch of
herring in the New Brunswick weir fishery and the uncertainty around
discard estimates of herring caught in Federal and state waters, shall
be considered when setting the ACL. Catch in excess of the ACL shall
trigger accountability measures (AMs), as described in Sec.
648.201(a).
* * * * *
0
4. In Sec. 648.202, revise paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 648.202 Season and area restrictions.
(a) Midwater Trawl Restricted Areas--(1) Area 1A. Federally
permitted vessels fishing for Atlantic herring may not use, deploy, or
fish with midwater trawl gear in Area 1A from June 1 September 30 of
each fishing year. A vessel with midwater trawl gear on board may
transit Area 1A from June 1-September 30, provided such midwater trawl
gear is stowed and not available for immediate use as defined in Sec.
648.2. Vessels may use any authorized gear type to harvest herring in
Area 1A from October 1--May 31.
(2) Inshore. Federally permitted vessels may not use, deploy, or
fish with midwater trawl gear within the inshore midwater trawl
restricted area. A federally permitted vessel with midwater trawl gear
on board may transit the inshore midwater trawl restricted area,
provided such midwater trawl gear is stowed and not available for
immediate use as defined in Sec. 648.2. Vessels on a declared research
set-aside trip are permitted to use, deploy, or fish with midwater
trawl gear within the inshore midwater trawl restricted areas provided
the vessel is operating as authorized by an exempted fishing permit.
The Inshore Midwater Trawl Restricted Area includes all state and
Federal waters between the U.S.
[[Page 54101]]
coastline and the following points, connected in the order listed by
straight lines, unless otherwise noted:
Table 1 to Paragraph (a)(2)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Latitude Longitude Note
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IMT1.................................... 44[deg] 17.986' N......... 67[deg] 5.503' W.......... (\1\)(\2\)
IMT2.................................... 42[deg] 00.00' N.......... 69[deg] 43.474' W......... (\2\)(\3\)
IMT3.................................... 42[deg] 00.00' N.......... 69[deg] 30.00' W.......... ..............
IMT4.................................... 41[deg] 00.00' N.......... 69[deg] 30.00' W.......... ..............
IMT5.................................... 41[deg] 00.00' N.......... 70[deg] 00.00' W.......... ..............
IMT6.................................... 41[deg] 2.339' N.......... 70[deg] 00.00' W.......... (\4\)(\5\)
IMT7.................................... 40[deg] 50.637' N......... 71[deg] 51.00' W.......... (\5\)(\6\)
IMT8.................................... 41[deg] 18.503' N......... 71[deg] 51.00' W.......... (\7\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Point IMT1 represents the intersection of the U.S./Canada Maritime Boundary and the 12 nautical mile (nmi)
Territorial Sea boundary.
\2\ From Point IMT1 to Point IMT2 following the 12 nmi Territorial Sea boundary.
\3\ Point IMT2 represents the intersection of the 12 nmi Territorial Sea boundary and 42[deg]00' N lat.
\4\ Point IMT6 represents the intersection of 70[deg]00' W long. and the 12 nmi Territorial Sea boundary.
\5\ From Point IMT6 to Point IMT7 following the 12 nmi Territorial Sea Boundary.
\6\ Point IMT7 represents the intersection of 71[deg]51' W long. and the 12 nmi Territorial Sea boundary.
\7\ Point IMT8 represents the intersection of 71[deg]51' W long. and the coastline of Watch Hill, RI.
* * * * *
0
5. In Sec. 648.206, revise paragraphs (b)(3), (37), and (38) and add
paragraph (b)(39) to read as follows:
Sec. 648.206 Framework provisions.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(3) Closed areas, including midwater trawl restricted areas, other
than spawning closures;
* * * * *
(37) River herring and shad Catch Cap Areas and Catch Cap Closure
Areas;
(38) Modifications to the ABC control rule in Sec. 648.200,
including, but not limited to, control rule parameters, if a
quantitative stock assessment is not available, if the projections are
producing ABCs that are not justified or consistent with available
information, or if the stock requires a rebuilding program; and
(39) Any other measure currently included in the FMP.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2019-21712 Filed 10-8-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P