Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 165 / Monday, August 28, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 40721

DATES: The rule is effective 12 a.m. local board a fishing vessel on August 28, prevent the development of new, and time August 28, 2017, through 11:59 2017, may be retained on board, the expansion of existing, commercial p.m. local time December 31, 2017. transshipped, and/or landed, to the fisheries on certain forage species until FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: extent authorized by applicable laws the Council has adequate opportunity Celia Barroso, NMFS West Coast Region, and regulations, provided all Pacific and information to evaluate the 562–432–1850. bluefin tuna are landed within 14 days potential impacts of forage fish harvest SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The after the effective date of this rule, that on existing fisheries, fishing United States is a member of the IATTC, is, no later than September 11, 2017. communities, and the marine ecosystem. This final rule implements which was established under the Classification Convention for the Establishment of an an annual landing limit, possession NMFS has determined there is good Inter-American Tropical Tuna limits, and permitting and reporting cause to waive prior notice and Commission signed in 1949 requirements for Atlantic chub mackerel opportunity for public comment (Convention). The Convention provides and certain previously unmanaged pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). This an international agreement to ensure the forage species and species groups action is based on the best available effective international conservation and caught within Mid-Atlantic Federal information and is necessary for the management of highly migratory species waters; allows vessels to transit Mid- conservation and management of Pacific of fish in the IATTC Convention Area. Atlantic Federal waters with forage bluefin tuna. Compliance with the The IATTC Convention Area, as species caught in other areas; and notice and comment requirement would amended by the Antigua Convention, identifies measures that can be revised be impracticable and contrary to the includes the waters of the EPO bounded through a future framework adjustment. public interest because NMFS would be by the coast of the Americas, the 50° N. DATES: This rule is effective September unable to ensure that the 2017 Pacific and 50° S. parallels, and the 150° W. 27, 2017 bluefin tuna catch limit is not further meridian. exceeded, and that biennial limit of ADDRESSES: The Council prepared an Fishing for Pacific bluefin tuna in the 600mt is also not exceeded. For the environmental assessment (EA) for the EPO is managed, in part, under the same reasons, NMFS has also Mid-Atlantic Unmanaged Forage Tuna Conventions Act as amended determined there is good cause to waive Omnibus Amendment that describes the (Act), 16 U.S.C. 951–962. Under the Act, the requirement for a 30-day delay in Council’s preferred management NMFS must publish regulations to carry effectiveness under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). measures and other alternatives out recommendations of the IATTC that This action is required by § 300.25(a) considered and provides a thorough have been approved by the Department and is exempt from review under analysis of the impacts of the all of State (DOS). Regulations governing Executive Order 12866. alternatives considered. Copies of the fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance Authority: 16 U.S.C. 951 et seq. Mid-Atlantic Unmanaged Forage with the Act appear at 50 CFR part 300, Species Omnibus Amendment, subpart C. These regulations implement Dated: August 23, 2017. including the EA, the Regulatory Impact IATTC recommendations for the Alan D. Risenhoover, Review, and the Regulatory Flexibility conservation and management of highly Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, Act analysis are available from: migratory fish resources in the EPO. National Marine Fisheries Service. Christopher Moore, Executive Director, In 2016, the IATTC adopted [FR Doc. 2017–18157 Filed 8–23–17; 4:15 pm] Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Resolution C–16–08, which establishes BILLING CODE 3510–22–P Council, Suite 201, 800 State Street a 600 metric ton (mt) catch limit of Dover, DE 19901. The supporting Pacific bluefin tuna applicable to U.S. documents are also accessible via the commercial fishing vessels in 2017 and DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Internet at: 2018, combined. Additionally, catch is • https://www.regulations.gov/ not to exceed 425 mt in a single year; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration docket?D=NOAA-NMFS-2017-0013 therefore, the annual limit in 2017 is • 425 mt. With the approval of the DOS, https://www.greateratlantic. NMFS implemented this catch limit by 50 CFR Part 648 fisheries.noaa.gov/regs/2017/April/17 notice-and-comment rulemaking under ForageOmnibusAmendmentpr.html or [Docket No. 161025999–7662–02] • the Act (82 FR 18704, April 21, 2017, http://www.mafmc.org/actions/ and codified at 50 CFR 300.25). RIN 0648–BG42 unmanaged-forage. NMFS, through monitoring landings Copies of the small entity compliance data and other available information, Fisheries of the Northeastern United guide prepared for this action are has determined that the 2017 catch limit States; Mid-Atlantic Unmanaged available from John K. Bullard, Regional has been exceeded. In accordance with Forage Omnibus Amendment Administrator, NMFS, Greater Atlantic 50 CFR 300.25(g), this Federal Register AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Regional Fisheries Office, 55 Great notice announces that the U.S. fishery Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930– for Pacific bluefin tuna in the IATTC Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 2298, or available on the internet at: Convention Area will be closed starting Commerce. https://www.greateratlantic. fisheries.noaa.gov/sustainable/species/ on August 28, 2017, through the end of ACTION: Final rule. the 2017 calendar year. The 2018 catch forage/index.html. limit will be calculated by subtracting SUMMARY: NMFS partially approves and Written comments regarding the the amount caught in 2017 from 600 mt. implements through regulations burden-hour estimates or other aspects During the closure, a U.S. fishing measures included in the Mid-Atlantic of the collection-of-information vessel may not be used to target, retain Unmanaged Forage Omnibus requirements contained in this final rule on board, transship, or land Pacific Amendment, as adopted by the Mid- may be submitted to the Greater Atlantic bluefin tuna captured in the IATTC Atlantic Fishery Management Council Regional Fisheries Office and by email Convention Area, except as follows: and approved by NMFS on June 13, to [email protected] or Any Pacific bluefin tuna already on 2017. The purpose of this action is to fax to (202) 395–5806.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Aug 25, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28AUR1.SGM 28AUR1 asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES 40722 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 165 / Monday, August 28, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Disapproved Measures 7 inches (18 cm) in total length. Thus, Douglas Christel, Fishery Policy the adult sizes of bullet and frigate Designation of Bullet and Frigate mackerel are more than double the Analyst, (978) 281–9141, fax (978) 281– Mackerel as Ecosystem Component (EC) forage fish size range recommended by 9135. Species the Council’s SSC (1–10 inches (2–25 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Magnuson-Stevens Act permits cm) total length). Bullet and frigate Background NMFS to approve, partially approve, or mackerel feed on most of the other disapprove measures proposed by the forage species included in this On August 8, 2016, the Council Council based only on whether the amendment, confirming their higher adopted final measures under the Mid- measures are consistent with the fishery tropic classification. This is inconsistent Atlantic Unmanaged Forage Omnibus management plan, the Magnuson- with the SSC’s classification criteria that Amendment. On November 23, 2016, Stevens Act and its National Standards, forage species are typically low to mid the Council submitted the amendment and other applicable law. Following the tropic level species that consume very and draft EA to NMFS for preliminary consideration of public comment and small prey less than 1-inch long (2–2.5 additional review of this action and review, with final submission of the cm), typically zooplankton and or small supporting analysis, NMFS concluded draft amendment and EA on March 20, benthic invertebrates. While the that the inclusion of bullet and frigate 2017. NMFS published a Notice of amendment includes some information mackerel as EC species is inconsistent suggesting that these species are Availability in the Federal Register on with National Standard 2 of the March 28, 2017 (82 FR 15311), consumed by large pelagic species such Magnuson-Stevens Act regarding the as tunas, billfish, and sharks, it is not informing the public that the Council use of best available scientific had submitted this amendment to the clear what portion of the diet of these information. species that bullet and/or frigate Secretary of Commerce for review and The best available scientific mackerel represent. As a result, while approval. NMFS published a proposed information presented for this bullet and frigate mackerel may be prey rule that included implementing amendment does not support the for large pelagic species, it is unknown proposed designation of bullet and regulations on April 24, 2017 (82 FR whether they constitute forage for large frigate mackerel as forage for species 18882). The public comment period for pelagic species in the marine ecosystem, managed by the Council. Because this both the Notice of Availability and as defined by the SSC. Finally, even action is an amendment to the Council’s proposed rule ended on May 30, 2017. applying the lower forage thresholds existing FMPs, the species that are The Council developed the Mid- used by the Council (i.e., the presence included in the amendment must be a of forage species in at least two stomach Atlantic Unmanaged Forage Omnibus forage species and also must be linked Amendment and the measures to one or more FMP fisheries, either as content samples over a 40-year period of described in the proposed rule under prey for the managed species or as NMFS surveys), there is no scientific the discretionary provision specified in bycatch in the managed fisheries. This evidence presented in this amendment section 303(b)(12) of the Magnuson- is consistent with our understanding of that indicates bullet and frigate Stevens Fishery Conservation and Council intent, as documented in the mackerel are forage for managed Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens March 2016 Fishery Management species. Thus, the best available Act) (16 U.S.C. 1801, et seq.; Action Team meeting summary. As a scientific information does not support 1853(b)(12)). The objective of this action result, NMFS asserted that this the classification of these species as is to prevent the development of new, amendment needed to establish a logical forage for managed species, and NMFS determined that including them would and the expansion of existing, connection between the species be inconsistent with National Standard commercial fisheries on certain forage proposed as forage and at least one 2 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. species until the Council has adequate managed species. During the opportunity and information to evaluate development of this action and in the Other criteria considered by the the potential impacts of forage fish proposed rule, NMFS advised the Council to classify forage species for this amendment include the presence of harvest on existing fisheries, fishing Council and the public that bullet and such species as bycatch in managed communities, and the marine frigate mackerel do not meet the criteria used to identify forage for species fisheries and the potential for ecosystem. The two primary purposes of regulated by the Council. commercial exploitation. While there is this action are to: (1) Advance an Although the Council did not rely evidence that a small amount of bullet ecosystem approach to fisheries exclusively on the forage criteria mackerel was caught with bottom trawl management in the Mid-Atlantic identified by the Council’s Scientific gear that resulted in the landings of through consideration of management and Statistical Committee (SSC), as species managed by the Council, the alternatives that would afford protection summarized in Table 5 of the EA, the information and analysis indicate co- to currently unmanaged forage species forage criteria served as the initial occurrence that is not necessarily by regulating landings and/or foundation for evaluating species to indicative of systematic bycatch in those possession of those species; and (2) include in this action. These criteria fisheries. Many unmanaged species co- consider management alternatives to establish general parameters, including occur with managed species, but that address data collection and reporting of adult size, trophic level, and whether does not make them forage for the landings of currently unmanaged forage the species comprised a considerable managed species or susceptible to species. Details concerning the portion of the diet of other predators, routine bycatch in targeted fisheries for development of these measures are among other criteria, to determine managed species. NMFS concluded that contained in the EA prepared for this whether a species is forage for another available information is not sufficient to action and summarized in the preamble species. The adult sizes of bullet and suggest that bullet mackerel are of the proposed rule, and, therefore, are frigate mackerel (20–24 inches (51–61 systematically caught as bycatch in not repeated here. cm) total length) are larger than the size managed fisheries. With no dealer ranges identified for other forage species reported landings of bullet mackerel, included in this action, which average and an average of less than 7,500 lb (3.4

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Aug 25, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28AUR1.SGM 28AUR1 asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 165 / Monday, August 28, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 40723

mt) of frigate mackerel reported landed • Argentines (family Argentinidae) on both the GARFO and Council Web each year between 1996–2015, • Greeneyes (family sites (see ADDRESSES) and through your including several years when less than Chlorophthalmidae) local NMFS port agent office (see 1,000 lb (0.4 mt) was landed, there is • Halfbeaks (family Hemiramphidae) https:// limited information to support that • Herrings and Sardines (family www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/ these species are caught as bycatch in Clupeidae) sed/portagents/portagents.html). managed fisheries or will be subject to • Lanternfishes (family Myctophidae) The permit and reporting commercial exploitation at this time. • Pearlsides (family Sternoptychidae) requirements mentioned above for Finally, the best available information • Sand lances (family Ammodytidae) vessels, operators, and dealers fishing does not support the Council’s • Silversides (family Atherinopsidae) for, possessing, and purchasing chub determination that bullet and frigate • Cusk-eels (order Ophidiiformes) mackerel are effective through mackerel should be classified as EC • Atlantic Saury-Scomberesox saurus December 31, 2020, unless overwritten species based upon the National • Pelagic Mollusks (except Sharptail by another Council or NMFS action. Standard Guidelines at 50 CFR 600.305. Shortfin Squid) This is because the Council is currently As defined in § 600.305(d)(11) and • Copepods, Krill, Amphipods, and developing potential long-term noted during the April 2016 Council Other Species Under One Inch as measures and assembling the scientific meeting, EC species should not include Adults information necessary to consider target stocks that are caught for sale or formally integrating chub mackerel as a The Magnuson-Stevens Act contains personal use. However, the amendment stock in the fishery managed under the no requirements to designate EC includes evidence that bullet and frigate Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish species. To minimize confusion and mackerel are caught and sold by FMP. commercial vessels and are retained for reflect the purpose of this action to personal use as bait by recreational manage forage species, these species 3. Annual Landing Limits fisheries in Federal waters, creating will be collectively referred to as ‘‘Mid- This action sets an annual landing competing interests and conflicts among Atlantic forage species’’ for the limit of 2.86 million lb (1,297 mt) for user groups, both of which are criteria remainder of this preamble discussion Atlantic chub mackerel. All landings of that could exclude consideration of and in the final regulatory text. chub mackerel in ports from Maine bullet and frigate mackerel as EC species 2. Permit and Reporting Requirements through North Carolina will count under the National Standard Guidelines. against the annual landings limit. NMFS The Council could consider alternative This action requires any commercial will close the directed fishery for chub mechanisms to protect and manage vessel, operator, or dealer that lands or mackerel in the Mid-Atlantic Forage these and other similar species, such as sells Mid-Atlantic forage species and Species Management Unit once the little tunny/false albacore and bonito, Atlantic chub mackerel to comply with Regional Administrator determines that for the benefits they provide to the existing Federal permit and reporting 100 percent of the chub mackerel marine ecosystem and important requirements. Any commercial fishing annual landing limit has been commercial and recreational fisheries vessel that possesses, lands, or sells harvested. After the closure of the within the Mid-Atlantic. This is Mid-Atlantic forage species or chub directed fishery, vessels would be consistent with the May 19, 2017, mackerel caught in Federal waters from subject to the chub mackerel incidental discussion by the Ecosystem and Ocean New York through Cape Hatteras, North possession limit described below. As in Planning Committee (EOPC). If the Carolina (an area referred to as the the case for the permit and reporting Council believes that these species ‘‘Mid-Atlantic Forage Species requirements, the chub mackerel annual require conservation and management, a Management Unit’’ below and in the landing limit is effective through small tuna FMP or a broader ecosystem regulations), must be issued a valid December 31, 2020, unless overwritten based management action may be a commercial fishing vessel permit issued by a future Council or NMFS action. more effective vehicle to manage these by the Greater Atlantic Regional 4. Possession Limits species than an amendment predicated Fisheries Office (GARFO). Any on protecting forage for managed commercial vessel operator fishing for This action establishes a 1,700-lb species. This would allow the Council or possessing these species in or from (771-kg) combined possession limit for to develop a management approach and the Mid-Atlantic Forage Species all Mid-Atlantic forage species (see the measures that would reflect the unique Management Unit must obtain and list of EC species listed above) caught role these species play in the marine retain on board a valid operator permit within the Mid-Atlantic Forage Species ecosystem, and to better integrate the issued by GARFO. Similarly, a seafood Management Unit. Initially, commercial concerns of and impacts to the dealer purchasing and selling these vessels are not subject to a possession predominantly recreational fishery for species must obtain a valid commercial limit for chub mackerel. However, once these species. Such an approach is seafood dealer permit issued by GARFO. the chub mackerel annual landing limit supported by not only the EOPC, but Vessel operators and dealers are is harvested, NMFS will implement a also by members of the public required to report the catch and sale of 40,000-lb (18,144-kg) chub mackerel commenting on this action. these species and species groups on possession limit in the Mid-Atlantic existing vessel trip reports (logbooks) Forage Species Management Unit. As in Approved Measures and dealer reports, respectively. NMFS the case for the annual landing limit, the 1. Designation of Certain Mid-Atlantic and Council staff prepared a species chub mackerel incidental possession Forage Species as Ecosystem identification guide to help vessel limit will expire on December 31, 2020, Component Species operators and dealers differentiate unless overwritten by a future Council among these forage species and identify or NMFS action. This action designates the following the codes needed to accurately report forage species and species groups as EC these on vessel logbooks and dealer 5. Transit Provision species in all of the FMPs under the reports. We will send this guide to all This action allows a vessel issued a Council’s jurisdiction: vessels that landed in Mid-Atlantic Federal commercial fishing permit from • Anchovies (family Engraulidae) ports during 2016 and make it available GARFO that possesses Mid-Atlantic

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Aug 25, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28AUR1.SGM 28AUR1 asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES 40724 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 165 / Monday, August 28, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

forage species and chub mackerel in (Pew Charitable Trusts, Wild Oceans, Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish excess of the proposed possession limits and the Audubon Society); and FMP. to transit the Mid-Atlantic Forage comments from the Office of Comment 3: Two individuals were Species Management Unit in certain Management and Budget. Two concerned that climate change, circumstances. The following three individuals expressed general including ocean acidification, will conditions must be met to transit opposition to the rule, while 11,506 destroy fish habitat and negatively through the management unit: (1) individuals supported the action and 11 impact forage fish, sea birds, and marine Forage species were harvested outside individuals supported some, but not all mammals, with one individual of the Mid-Atlantic Forage Species of the proposed measures. The suggesting the Environmental Protection Management Unit; (2) the vessel lands following discussion summarizes the Agency (EPA) should protect our air and in a port that is outside of the Mid- issues raised in the comments that were water. Atlantic Forage Species Management relevant to this action and associated Response: Recent NMFS studies Unit (i.e., north of New York or south NMFS’s responses. Please note that, recognize that certain species are more of Cape Hatteras, North Carolina); and pursuant to section 304(a)(3) of the vulnerable than others to climate change (3) all gear is stowed and not available Magnuson-Stevens Act, when NMFS and associated effects to habitat. While for immediate use. The transiting considers the responses to comments, stock assessments and management provision for vessels possessing chub NMFS may only approve or disapprove measures can consider the impacts of mackerel is effective through December measures proposed in a particular climate change, NMFS is not authorized 31, 2020, unless overwritten by a future fishery management plan, amendment, to regulate the sources of air and water Council or NMFS action. or framework adjustment, and may not pollution referenced in these comments. The EPA develops regulations and 6. Administrative Measures change or substitute any measure in a substantive way. policies aimed at reducing air and water This action allows the Council to pollution. modify the list of EC species, annual General Comments Comment 4: One individual suggested landing limits, and possession limits for Comment 1: One individual expressed that forage fish should be limited to Mid-Atlantic forage species and chub disappointment that the Council waited processing as food, not fish meal or fish oil. mackerel through a framework six years to protect forage species, Response: Because the Council did adjustment to applicable FMPs rather indicating that the Council should have not impose any restrictions on the use than through an amendment to these acted sooner. FMPs. Although the preamble of the or processing of forage species in this Response: We are satisfied with the proposed rule did not indicate that the action, NMFS does not have the amount of time that the Council took to list of EC species could be modified authority to impose such restrictions develop this action, and contend that through a framework action, the through this final rule. proposed regulations did indicate that the measures implemented by this final Comment 5: Seven individuals, along the list of Mid-Atlantic forage species rule will provide meaningful protection with 11,484 form letters from Pew, (the same as the EC species listed above) to important forage species in the Mid- expressed general support for this could be modified in a framework Atlantic. The Council identified the action. Three individuals indicated that action. need to protect forage species as part of forage fish are a vitally important Under this action, the Council its strategic planning and visioning component to the ecology of our oceans establishes a policy that requires use of process in 2011, and initiated this through their role of energy transferors an experimental fishing permit (EFP) to action in 2014, shortly after receiving and as the primary food source for larger support any new fishery or the guidance about how to manage forage fish, marine mammals, and humans. A expansion of existing fisheries for Mid- species from its SSC. Because this was separate comment from Pew indicated Atlantic forage species. The Council the first management action to that forage fish are the bedrock of would consider the results of any specifically manage forage species in the coastal economies, jobs, recreation, and experimental fishing activity and other Atlantic Ocean, the Council conducted seafood, and that protecting them relevant information before deciding extensive outreach to solicit public through this action is an important step how to address future changes to the input during the development of this toward ecosystem based fisheries management of fisheries for Mid- action. This action represents proactive management. The Audubon Society Atlantic forage species. Pursuant to steps by the Council to protect commented that seabirds depend on existing regulations at § 648.12, the previously unmanaged forage species forage species, especially small, Regional Administrator already consults and prevent the initiation or further schooling fish that are protected by this with the Council’s Executive Director development of commercial fisheries on amendment. They provided a list of 15 before approving any exemption under these species as it collects information seabird species that rely upon forage an EFP request. on the importance of these species to fish for 20 percent or more of their diet. fisheries communities and the The 11,484 Pew form letters indicated Comments and Responses ecosystem. that, due to reductions in the During the public comment periods Comment 2: One individual was availability and catch rates of other for the Notice of Availability and the concerned that the proposed measures stocks, vessels will target unmanaged proposed rule for this amendment, we would not become effective until 2020. species, which would negatively affect received 11,519 comments from 11,510 Response: The comment is incorrect; those species and predators of those individuals. This included 11,484 form all measures approved in this final rule species. Similarly, one individual letters from Pew Charitable Trusts; are effective on September 27, 2017. As indicated that this amendment would comments from representatives of three noted above, the Atlantic chub mackerel help prevent the commercial fishing commercial fishing entities/groups measures will expire on December 31, industry from fishing down the food (Seafreeze Ltd., Lund’s Fisheries 2020, three years after implementation, web. Incorporated, and the Garden State to incentivize the Council to develop Response: We agree that forage Seafood Association (GSSA)); comments long-term management measures to species are an integral part of the marine from three environmental organizations formally integrate this species into the ecosystem, and that excessive catch of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Aug 25, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28AUR1.SGM 28AUR1 asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 165 / Monday, August 28, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 40725

forage species will have negative fishing activities are considered in the compare the trophic level of a number impacts not only on predators such as development of all fishery management of forage species, or to assess the fish, sea birds, and marine mammals, actions. Further, environmental factors number of trophic linkages for each but also on fishing communities that along with mortality resulting from species.’’ Instead, the Council rely upon predators of forage species for fishing activities are considered when determined how to best evaluate the important commercial and recreational developing a stock assessment and SSC’s and other criteria used to define fisheries. That is why the Council determining the appropriate levels of forage species. The Council used initiated this action as part of its efforts catch for managed species. Depending alternative dietary criteria due to the to integrate ecosystem approaches to on the species, fishing may not be the diversity of diet for many species. fisheries management. We recognize primary source of mortality, and this Specifically, the SSC’s dietary criteria that restrictions in targeted fisheries will influence the measures necessary to would have reduced the list of forage potentially could increase fishing effort sustain that species. This action will species to only a few species, many of on other unmanaged species, such as help collect data to help determine the which are not found in Federal waters. the forage species listed in this action. scale of fishing mortality on these forage As a result, any proposed measures to By preventing the creation of new or species should the Council determine protect such a limited list of forage expansion of existing commercial that these species require conservation species would not likely have been fisheries on previously unmanaged and management in the future. Finally, effective or offer much benefit to forage species, this action minimizes the while the EA does not explicitly managed species important to risk of fishing down the food web. evaluate the impacts of ‘‘factory ships’’ commercial and recreational fisheries Comment 6: One individual on the ecosystem, Section 7 of the EA managed by the Council. Accordingly, recommended that we use caution when evaluates the impacts of fishery the Council used a lower threshold to be allowing additional fishing to occur on operations of all sizes of vessels that fish more inclusive of forage species in this forage species until we know more within Federal waters on all aspects of action, while still prioritizing protection about the impacts of fishing on these the marine environment, including for species that had the greatest species. Another individual indicated target and non-target species, potential to support future large-scale that NMFS must achieve a sustainable endangered species, marine mammals, commercial fisheries. balance between species regeneration and habitat. Comment 10: The Garden State and harvest of forage fish. Comment 8: One individual suggested Seafood Association (GSSA) was critical Response: One of the primary that all fisheries management decisions of the amendment’s purpose and goals, purposes of this action is to maintain must be guided by peer reviewed indicating that there is no biological recent catch levels until we can collect scientific analysis to drive rational benefit from the proposed measures. additional data on the catch and decisions. This group suggested that NMFS should landings of these previously unmanaged Response: Fishery management delay the implementation of this final forage species. The data collected decisions must be based upon the best rule until measurable goals can be through the vessel logbook and dealer scientific information available, as identified. reporting requirements implemented by required by National Standard 2 of the Response: We disagree that there is no this action will help the Council make Magnuson-Stevens Act. The best biological benefit from this action. more informed decisions in the future available scientific information can take Although this action maintains existing regarding the appropriate levels of catch many forms and does not always take catch levels for forage species, in the for such species. Further, this action the form of peer reviewed analysis. All long-term, this action will help maintain adopts a policy that requires use of an fishery measures are developed, sustainable populations of several forage EFP and subsequent Council review analyzed, and reviewed by Council and species for various predators, including before considering any new fisheries or NMFS staff, external scientists, Council-managed predators, protected expansion of existing fisheries for Mid- academic researchers, industry species predators, and seabirds. The Atlantic forage species. representatives, and others with purposes of this action are to prevent Comment 7: One individual was scientific expertise. the expansion of existing and the concerned that by managing these Comment 9: Seafreeze Ltd. expressed development of future commercial species, fishermen would be held concern that measures were not based fisheries for certain forage species while responsible for declines in abundance. on a scientific threshold for determining the Council collects the information it This individual suggested that there are whether a species is a forage species in needs to assess the impacts to existing no plans to examine how environmental this amendment. It noted that the fisheries, fishing communities, and the factors affect forage species or predators, Council did not use the SSC’s dietary marine ecosystem. The measures and that this action does not assess the threshold in its definition of forage implemented by this action do exactly impacts of factory ships on the species (forage species represent greater that. Because data have not been ecosystem, only impacts of small boats. than five percent of an animal’s diet for collected on the catch of these species, Response: We disagree with this more than five years), suggesting that a it is difficult to quantitatively assess the commenter. The EA prepared for this lack of a threshold or consistent diet impacts of forage species on predators, action includes a cumulative effects data calls into question the purpose of the marine ecosystem, and communities analysis (Section 7.6 of the EA), as this action. at this time. Therefore, implementation required by the National Environmental Response: As noted above, the of reporting requirements through this Policy Act (NEPA) and the Council on Council did not rely exclusively upon final rule will provide the information Environmental Quality regulations. This the SSC’s forage species criteria to the Council and NMFS need to assess analysis considers the impacts of non- inform its decision to include forage catch of these species and develop more fishing activities such as climate species for this action, although the effective measures in the future, as change, point and non-point source SSC’s criteria did serve as the starting necessary. pollution, shipping, dredging, storm point for Council consideration. Section Comment 11: Seafreeze Ltd. and events, and other factors on the physical 4.2 of the EA prepared for this action Lund’s Fisheries Incorporated are and biological dimensions of the notes that there were ‘‘no uniform concerned that state permitted vessels environment. The impacts of these non- quantitative metrics available to do not have similar restrictions on the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Aug 25, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28AUR1.SGM 28AUR1 asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES 40726 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 165 / Monday, August 28, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

catch of forage species, with Lund’s this action, this policy guidance is not or Fishery Management Action Team), Fisheries suggesting that this creates relevant to this action. The Council will none of the species should be omitted two classes of fishermen and penalizes evaluate the significance of any future from this action. Another individual those with a Federal permit from selling action it may develop for chub mackerel indicated that the Council should be forage species. Lund’s Fisheries as it develops measures for that precautionary and implement catch suggested that NMFS and the Council particular action. limits for all forage species. should encourage the Atlantic States We disagree that the use of section Response: Section 4.2 of the EA Marine Fisheries Commission to take 303(b)(12) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act describes the background for how the similar action to protect forage species to develop chub mackerel measures Council determined which forage in state waters. under this action sets a precedent that species to include in this action. The Response: Neither the Council, nor would allow commercial fishing to Council did not intend to prohibit the NMFS has the authority to require states occur outside of a FMP and without harvest of all unmanaged forage species. to implement similar measures to oversight. Section 303(b) specifically Instead, the Council identified a list of protect forage species. Because each authorizes the development of such prioritized forage species to minimize state has a seat on the Council, and the discretionary measures as part of a FMP. the burden of the proposed new Council has already expressed its Therefore, this section allows for regulations on existing managed interest in protecting forage species, it is increased management and oversight of fisheries. In selecting the taxa to include incumbent upon each state to decide commercial fisheries by the Council, not in this amendment, the Council whether it should implement similar the opposite. We agree with Pew in that prioritized some species due to their forage species measures within waters it represents a viable mechanism to importance as prey for ‘‘socially and under their jurisdiction. We disagree proactively implement interim measures economically important species’’ and that this penalizes Federal permit to manage this species while the their perceived potential to become the holders from selling catch of these Council develops the required target of large-scale commercial species, as it implements possession provisions to formally manage chub fisheries. The Council could add forage limits that reflect 99 percent of trip-level mackerel as a stock in an FMP. species through a future action as more commercial landings of forage species Comment 13: Two individuals information becomes available, or as over the past 20 years. Therefore, based recommended that this action should needed to achieve conservation and on recent fishing operations, vessels include river herring, with one citing management objectives. issued a Federal permit should not be the millions of taxpayer dollars spent to Comment 15: Seafreeze Ltd. and the negatively affected by these possession restore habitat and breeding streams that GSSA oppose the approval of halfbeaks, limits. would be wasted if these species are not scaled sardine, Atlantic thread herring, Comment 12: One individual protected. He indicated that NMFS and Spanish sardine as EC species in suggested that this action violates needs to collect more data and protect this action, because there is no link as NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) river herring in the ocean. Three forage or bycatch between these species 216–6A because the Council did not individuals suggested that this action and fisheries managed by the Council. examine whether this action would set should also include Atlantic menhaden They contend that none of these species a precedent for future action with as a forage species. have been found in NMFS observer data significant effects or represent a Response: Because the Council did for trawls, gillnets, or hook gear decision in principle about future not consider managing river herring or resulting in landings of Council consideration. He also stated that the Atlantic menhaden as forage species managed species; that they have not use of discretionary authority under under this action, NMFS does not have been found in the stomachs of Council section 303(b)(12) of the Magnuson- the authority to add these species managed species in NMFS surveys; and Stevens Act to manage chub mackerel through this final rule. The Council has that they fail to meet all the criteria for sets a precedent regarding the regulation already considered ways to manage listing as an EC species and the forage of commercially targeted species outside river herring as part of Amendment 14 species criteria developed by the SSC. of a FMP and without adequate to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Response: We disagree that these oversight. In contrast, Pew supports the Butterfish FMP and associated species fail to meet the criteria for use of such discretionary authority until specifications since 2014. Specifically, listing as an EC species, as the the species can be formally integrated as the Council established a river herring amendment provides information that a species within the Atlantic Mackerel, and shad catch cap in the mackerel supports the determination that these Squid, and Butterfish FMP. fishery and established reporting species are eligible to be listed as EC Response: The commenter cites text requirements to monitor such catch in species based on the criteria outlined in related to the determination of the mackerel fishery. The Atlantic States the National Standard Guidelines at significance of NOAA’s actions as Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) § 600.305. The Council relied in part on required by the NEPA from an outdated already manages Atlantic menhaden the SSC’s definition of forage species as version of NAO 216–6A dated May 20, because this species is predominantly well as other criteria in its proposed list 1999. The new version of NAO 216–6A found in nearshore waters and is of forage species to manage as EC became effective April 22, 2016, and prosecuted by state fisheries. The species in this action. Section 6.1 of the contains no such language. In fact, the Council could consider management EA identifies the rationale for the new version authorizes the development measures for these species and other inclusion of each species in this action. of a companion manual to set policy species through a future action, as While halfbeaks have not been found in and procedures for complying with appropriate. the stomach contents of managed NEPA. That companion manual became species in NMFS surveys, they were effective January 13, 2017, and contains Ecosystem Component Species documented as forage for bluefish, a the text referenced by the commenter, Comment 14: One individual Council-managed species, in another but in the context of evaluating the use indicated that, until there is sufficient source. Further, the Council notes that of a categorical exclusion under science on the population dynamics and halfbeaks are often caught in Florida extraordinary circumstances. Since the trophic significance of all forage species and are commonly used as bait in Mid- Council developed an EA in support of originally listed (presumably by the SSC Atlantic recreational fisheries, making

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Aug 25, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28AUR1.SGM 28AUR1 asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 165 / Monday, August 28, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 40727

them vulnerable to potential future that these species are not vulnerable to ecosystem management action. NMFS commercial exploitation. There is commercial exploitation at this time. must evaluate this action within the sufficient evidence that other While we acknowledge that bullet and context in which it was developed, and unmanaged herrings and sardines are frigate are prey for large pelagic species, using the best available information, consumed as forage for many Council- available information does not confirm which, as noted above, is not sufficient managed species, are often documented that bullet and frigate mackerel to justify inclusion of bullet and frigate as bycatch in managed fisheries, and are constitute a substantial component of mackerel as EC species under this potentially vulnerable to commercial the diet of large pelagic species, or that action. exploitation due to market demand. they are forage for managed species. We also agree that the National Comment 16: The GSSA, Seafreeze Therefore, there is insufficient Standard 1 Guidelines allow the Ltd., and Lund’s Fisheries Incorporated information in the amendment to Council to consider forage and EC opposed the inclusion of bullet and conclude that failure to protect these species when determining optimum frigate mackerel as EC species for the species through this action would cause yield and the greatest benefit to the same reasons we highlighted in the trophic cascading or negative impacts nation. However, it is important to note proposed rule. However, Pew and Wild on managed species or large pelagic that the National Standard 1 Guidelines Oceans, along with 11,496 Pew form predators. apply to stocks in the fishery that the letters, supported the inclusion of these Comment 17: Pew asserts that a nexus Council determines require species, highlighting their importance to between forage species and regulated conservation and management. By ecosystems and coastal communities species is not required by the proposing to manage bullet and frigate who directly or indirectly depend upon Magnuson-Stevens Act, noting that the mackerel as EC species, the Council has the catch or use of these species. One discretionary authority provided in implicitly determined that such species individual disagreed with our assertion section 303 can be used to conserve do not require conservation and that the trophic level of these species is target and non-target species management measures at this time too high, suggesting that trophic considering ecological factors that may pursuant to the National Standard linkages are truncated in pelagic affect fish populations. They also cite Guidelines at § 600.305(c)(5) and are, ecosystems. Pew noted that bullet and the National Standard 1 guidelines in therefore, not stocks in the fishery. frigate mackerel are vulnerable to highlighting that maintaining adequate Accordingly, the National Standard 1 commercial exploitation because they forage may prevent overfishing and Guidelines do not apply to these school in predictable areas, while Wild achieve optimum yield. Wild Oceans species. That notwithstanding, if the Oceans contended that protecting bullet indicates that these Guidelines allow Council believes that these species and frigate could reduce predation on flexibility to achieve ecosystem goals, require conservation and management managed species by providing more including those in the Council’s in the future, a small tuna FMP or a prey for common predators. Supporters ecosystem approach to fisheries broader ecosystem based management also noted that many significant management (EAFM) guidance action may be a more effective vehicle keystone predators such as large pelagic document, and that failure to include to manage these species than an species (tuna, billfish, swordfish, these species is contrary to NMFS’ amendment predicated on protecting dolphinfish (dorado) and sharks) feed ecosystem based fishery management forage for managed species. Finally, on these mackerel, and a failure to (EBFM) policy. despite the disapproval of bullet and protect them could cause trophic Response: We agree that section 303 frigate mackerel as EC species in this cascading (e.g., effects on species higher of the Magnuson-Stevens Act provides action, we contend that the Council’s or lower in the food chain as a result of the Council with the discretion to use of discretionary authority to changes in prey or predator abundance) implement measures for target and non- designate certain other previously and indirect and unpredictable effects target species for ecosystem unmanaged forage species as EC species (presumably reduced abundance) on considerations. As noted in the scoping and to implement measures to protect large pelagic species. document for this action and Council against the further exploitation of these Response: As noted above, we meetings during the development of this species is consistent with both the maintain our original contention that action, the intent of this action was to Council’s EAFM guidance document the best available information does not maintain an adequate biomass of forage and the NMFS EBFM policy. support the classification of bullet and species to allow for abundant frigate mackerel as forage species in this populations of Council-managed Permitting and Reporting Requirements action and that they are not related to predators, as well as to integrate Comment 18: Pew, Lund’s Fisheries species managed by the Council. Public ecosystem considerations into the FMP. Incorporated, and the GSSA support the comments did not provide additional NMFS determined that forage species use of existing permitting requirements information that would change this considered in this action must have an for this action. They, along with one determination. The SSC did not ecological or operational (bycatch) individual and the 11,484 respondents differentiate trophic structure criteria linkage with Council-managed species to the Pew form letter, also support the based on where organisms were found, in order to maintain consistency with use of existing reporting requirements to and the commenter did not provide the Council’s intent to maintain an collect additional data on these species. sufficient evidence to warrant such a adequate biomass of forage species to Another individual indicated that the differentiation. Although Wild Oceans allow for abundant populations of proposed reporting requirements would asserts that these species are vulnerable Council-managed predators of the forage not collect acceptable data, but did not to commercial exploitation because they species. Although the description of the suggest why. The Office of Management school in predictable areas, Pew notes purpose and need for this action, as and Budget indicated that this action that these species are less vulnerable to included in the EA, indicated that the would have no effect on any current commercial fishing, particularly trawl Council was also integrating an information collections. gear, because of their fast swimming ecosystem approach to management into Response: The existing permitting and speed. This, in conjunction with this action, the Council did so by reporting requirements are necessary to minimal commercial landings of these protecting forage species; this action collect information to effectively species over the past 20 years, suggests was not intended to be a comprehensive monitor and manage the catch of forage

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Aug 25, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28AUR1.SGM 28AUR1 asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES 40728 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 165 / Monday, August 28, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

species. The permitting and reporting harm the stock and that it would reduce indicates that between 2006 and 2015, requirements allow us to identify which discards until the SSC can set a 63 small businesses and affiliated vessels are catching chub mackerel and reasonable biologically-based limit in a entities reported fishing revenues from Mid-Atlantic forage species, how much future action. They also suggest the forage species affected by this action. they are catching of each species or ecosystem management approach All of these entities had average annual species group, where and when the should consider changing species sales during 2013–2015 that were less catch occurs, and what gear is used to distribution, including the increasing than $11 million, which is the level of catch these species. This information availability of a species like chub annual fishery revenue used to could then be used to monitor catch mackerel in setting landing limits. In determine small entities under the RFA. against the chub mackerel annual contrast, Pew and another individual Thus, all entities affected by this action landing limits, enforce possession felt that the proposed limit is too high are classified as small businesses. limits, and provide information and that the limit should be set lower Further, this analysis concluded that all necessary to assess the status of the as a precaution because NMFS does not proposed measures, including the chub stock and develop potential future have adequate data about biological and mackerel annual landing limit, would management measures, as necessary. ecological status of stock, what fishing not place a substantial number of small Thus, this final rule implements the level is sustainable, and the impacts of entities at a significant competitive permitting and reporting requirements recent increased fishing. disadvantage to large entities. for Mid-Atlantic forage species. Response: Although chub mackerel Comment 21: Seafreeze Ltd., Lund’s landings have fluctuated greatly since Fisheries Incorporated, and the GSSA Annual Landing and Possession Limits 1996, landings since 2013 are support the 40,000-lb (18-mt) chub Comment 19: One individual substantially higher than previous years. mackerel possession limit once the suggested that NMFS should stop all The Council considered several annual landing limit is reached. Pew fishing for forage species, stating that, alternative annual landing limits for indicated that the limit is not supported without limits, commercial vessels will chub mackerel, including the average by the best available science or a harvest them until endangered and landing amount from 1996–2015 methodology similar to the limit used to overfished. Respondents to the Pew (900,127 lb (408 mt)), average landings derive the possession limit for other EC form letter and another individual from 2011–2015 (1.75 million lb (794 species, suggesting that it should be suggested that forage fish quotas should mt), and the highest landings recorded lower to prevent a directed fishery. be set to prevent overfishing. in 2013 (5.25 million lb (2,381 mt)). Another individual stated the Response: We do not agree that it is Instead, the Council adopted a 2.86 possession limit is higher than annual necessary to stop all fishing for forage million-lb (1,297-mt) annual landing chub mackerel landings before 2003, species or impose quotas for all species limit to reflect more recent average and suggested that it disproportionately to prevent overfishing or prevent such landings between 2013–2015. This limit benefits larger vessels. He recommended species from becoming endangered. We accounts for variations in resource that if NMFS implements the 2.86 do not know much about the status of availability and catch, and is higher million-lb (1,297-mt) chub mackerel these species. As noted in the response than the five-year average landings, but annual landing limit, NMFS should also to the previous comment, the lower than the highest landings implement the 10,000-lb (4.5-mt) information collected through measures recorded in 2013. This compromise is possession limit because the annual implemented by this final rule will: not only consistent with the purpose of limit and possession limit must be Provide the information the Council this action to maintain existing catch similarly restrictive to equitably restrict needs to effectively monitor the catch of levels, but also with the principles all fisheries regardless of size and better these species; allow the Council and advocated by several commenters to align with the amendment’s purpose of NMFS to evaluate the potential impacts mirror recent landings trends, reduce preventing fishery expansion. He also of existing catch levels on existing discards, and set a precautionary catch noted that the lower possession limit fisheries, fishing communities, and the limit while the Council develops long- reduces discards, but does not provide marine ecosystem; and allow the term measures in a subsequent action. enough incentive to target the species. Council and NMFS to set appropriate We disagree that the chub mackerel Response: To be consistent with the future landing limits to prevent annual landing limit implemented by methodology used by the Council to overfishing, as necessary. this final rule implements artificial determine the possession limit for EC Comment 20: One individual constraints, prevents equal access to the species, the Council would have had to recommended that NMFS implement a resource or markets, or adopt a much higher chub mackerel 5.25 million-lb (2,381-mt) annual disproportionately benefits large possession limit than the proposed landing limit for chub mackerel because vessels. Even without constraints, the 40,000-lb (18-mt) limit. The limit for EC it reflects the historical fluctuation of landing price for chub mackerel has species was based on the 99th percentile the chub mackerel market, is more been highly variable and not necessarily of dealer-reported landings of these consistent with the market’s overall correlated with landing amounts since species from 1997–2015. That limit was direction, avoids implementing artificial 1996. The EA suggests that landings meant to maintain existing catch levels constraints, allows equal access to the amounts and associated price is affected for those species. In contrast, as noted market, and facilitates competition in by several variables, including by Pew, the chub mackerel limit was the market rather than consolidating availability of chub mackerel and other intended to prevent directed fishing. control by a select group of large species. Therefore, the Council and Accordingly, using a similar vessels. He notes that implementing the NMFS cannot determine how any one methodology is not appropriate, as the proposed 2.86 million lb (1,297 mt) particular measure affects market prices trip limit should reduce incentives to limit artificially caps the market and at this time. All vessels of all sizes have target chub mackerel. could increase landing price to the equal access to available chub mackerel The Council chose a 40,000-lb (18-mt) disproportionate benefit of large vessels. under this action. Section 8.11.4.3 of the limit because that is the capacity of a Lund’s Incorporated and the GSSA EA describes the economic impact bait truck, and limiting landings to that support the higher limit, stating there is analysis required under the Regulatory amount reduces economic incentives to no evidence that the higher limit would Flexibility Act (RFA). That analysis target chub mackerel, while allowing

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Aug 25, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28AUR1.SGM 28AUR1 asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 165 / Monday, August 28, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 40729

vessels to land smaller, incidental jurisdictions to be exempted from of its Comprehensive Ecosystem Based amounts of chub mackerel to minimize possession limits imposed on Mid- Amendment 1 and documented in its discards. The Council considered a Atlantic harvesters. Council Operating Procedure 24 before 10,000-lb (4.5-mt) possession limit Response: The transit measure would opening or expanding any fishery. Pew based on average trip-level landings only apply to catch of Mid-Atlantic also recommended that NMFS should from 1996–2015, but that would likely forage species outside of the Mid- prohibit new or expanded fishing on EC result in higher discards due to larger Atlantic Forage Species Management species until full Federal management is volumes of chub mackerel caught by Unit (Mid-Atlantic Federal waters), in place that protects their role as prey larger vessels in recent years. The which is outside of the jurisdiction of in the ecosystem, and that the Council possession limit selected is separate and the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management should evaluate whether a species is in distinct from the annual landings limit, Council. In addition, because transiting need of conservation and management and does not need to be proportional to vessels must have their gear stowed before allowing new or expanded have the desired effect of reducing when transiting the Management Unit, fisheries for these species. incentives to target this species once the this measure is unlikely to negatively Response: The Council documented annual landing limit is caught. We impact Mid-Atlantic forage species, its intent to require an EFP and recognize that the possession limit is managed species, or other predators. subsequent review through the adoption higher than annual landings before Further, this measure was developed of this action. Existing regulations at 2003, but note that landings since 1996 mostly to address the targeting of chub § 648.12 require the Regional have been highly variable, ranging from mackerel within the Gulf of Mexico that Administrator to consult with the 479 lb (217 kg) to 5.25 million lb (2,381 are landed in Rhode Island. Since this Council’s Executive Director before mt). Contrary to what one commenter action counts all chub mackerel landed approving any exemptions to the indicated, this possession limit would in New England ports against the chub Council’s FMPs. The regulations revised actually benefit smaller capacity vessels mackerel annual landing limit, impacts by this action have already expanded more than larger capacity vessels to chub mackerel are minimized. The that consultation requirement to because it is less likely to constrain Magnuson-Stevens Act requires the specifically include exemptions that landings once the annual landing limit Council to manage a stock throughout would contribute to the development of is reached. Section 5.2.3 of the EA states its range. Therefore, when considering a new fishery or the expansion of that there is a substantial range in integrating chub mackerel into the existing fisheries for Mid-Atlantic forage landing amounts within the fishery, Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish species and chub mackerel. Therefore, concluding that the amount of chub FMP in a future action under the Council has already developed a mackerel catch which is truly incidental development, the Council will need to protocol similar to the Pacific Council’s is not well understood and is likely consider the species range as it develops Operating Procedure 24. different for larger, faster vessels than measures for that action, including At § 648.14(w), this action for smaller, slower vessels. potentially reconsidering the need for implements a prohibition against Comment 22: Pew, Lund’s Fisheries this transiting provision. vessels possessing more Mid-Atlantic Incorporated, and the GSSA support the Forage Species and chub mackerel than proposed 1,700-lb (771-kg) limit for EC Other Administrative Measures authorized in § 648.351. As a result, no species. Comment 25: Pew Charitable Trusts additional prohibition is needed to Response: This final rule implements noted that the Mid-Atlantic Fishery prevent the expansion of existing this trip limit for approved EC species. Management Council manages some fisheries or the development of new Comment 23: The Executive Director species to the Virginia/North Carolina fisheries for these species. In addition, of the New England Fishery border and others to the latitude of Cape fisheries for Mid-Atlantic Forage Management Council highlighted that Hatteras. Pew supported extending the Species cannot develop or expand existing regulations for the Northeast Mid-Atlantic Forage Species without a future Council or NMFS Multispecies FMP only allow the Management Unit to Cape Hatteras to action, which must be consistent with retention of certain species in exempted ensure there is no gap in the the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other fisheries within the Southern New management of these species within the applicable law. Thus, both the Council England Regulated Mesh Area, an area jurisdiction of the Mid-Atlantic Fishery and NMFS will evaluate whether a stock that overlaps with the proposed Mid- Management Council. requires conservation and management, Atlantic Forage Species Management Response: We agree and have and NMFS will ensure that all measures Unit. He suggested that the final rule implemented the Management Unit as developed for those stocks in the future, clarify that the most restrictive proposed. including measures to achieve optimum possession limit would apply to vessels Comment 26: The GSSA and Lund’s yield, are consistent with applicable subject to the Northeast Multispecies Fisheries Incorporated supported the law, before approving any new or FMP that are fishing within the Mid- ability to revise landing and possession expanded fisheries for EC species. Atlantic Forage Species Management limits through a future framework Comment 28: Pew Charitable Trusts Unit. adjustment action. recommended that NMFS update the Response: We agree. This was an Response: The framework measures list of authorized fisheries and gear in oversight, and we made the appropriate have been implemented through this § 600.725(v) to ensure that no fishery on changes to the regulatory text at action. unmanaged forage species emerges § 648.351(a) in this final rule. Comment 27: The GSSA, Lund’s without the knowledge of NMFS and Fisheries Incorporated, and the Pew the Council. Transit Measure Charitable Trusts support the use of an Response: As noted in Section 5.3.2.2 Comment 24: Seafreeze Ltd. EFP to support the development of any of the EA for this action, the list of supported the transit measure, but both new or expanded fishery for forage authorized fisheries and gear at Lund’s Fisheries Incorporated and the species. Pew indicated that the Council § 600.725(v) already includes two GSSA opposed the measure, stating that should emulate the more formal EFP general categories of commercial it creates an unfair competitive situation review process adopted by the Pacific fisheries for which the legal harvest of by allowing harvesters from other Fisheries Management Council as part unmanaged forage species would be

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Aug 25, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28AUR1.SGM 28AUR1 asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES 40730 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 165 / Monday, August 28, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

allowed without advanced notification the Regulatory Flexibility Act does not Classification to the Council. The Council considered require consideration of the impacts to The Administrator, Greater Atlantic modifying this list as part of this action, non-regulated entities such as the diving Region, NMFS, determined that the but instead implemented more discrete industry. However, this action should Mid-Atlantic Unmanaged Forage possession limits for forage species. As provide benefits to the diving Omnibus Amendment is necessary for a result, NMFS cannot unilaterally community similar to the benefits that the conservation and management of the implement such changes through this would accrue to the recreational fishery fisheries managed by the Mid-Atlantic final rule. It is likely that any fishery for in that it will protect forage species from Fishery Management Council and that it other unmanaged forage species would further commercial exploitation, which is consistent with the Magnuson- be detected through existing data will help maintain predator and seal Stevens Fishery Conservation and collections such as the vessel logbook or populations important to the Management Act and other applicable dealer reports. For example, landings of spearfishing and diving communities. laws. several species of previously Changes From the Proposed Rule This final rule has been determined to unmanaged forage species included in be not significant for purposes of this action (anchovies, argentines, sand We have made several changes to the Executive Order 12866. This rule is not lances, silversides, chub mackerel, and proposed regulations, including changes an E.O. 13771 regulatory action because frigate mackerel) were recorded in as a result of public comment and our this rule is not significant under E.O. Federal dealer reports. This prompted decision to disapprove the inclusion of 12866. the Council to develop appropriate bullet and frigate mackerel as EC The Chief Counsel for Regulation of management measures through this and species. Some of these changes are the Department of Commerce certified the follow-on chub mackerel administrative in nature, clarify the new to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the amendment. Similar action can be taken or existing management measures, or Small Business Administration during in the future for other species, as correct inadvertent omissions in the the proposed rule stage that this action appropriate. proposed rule. All of these changes are would not have a significant economic Impact Analysis consistent with section 305(d) of the impact on a substantial number of small Comment 29: One individual Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. entities. The factual basis for the indicated that the negative 1855(d)), which provides that the certification was published in the socioeconomic impacts of this action Secretary of Commerce may promulgate proposed rule and is not repeated here. will be offset by the positive regulations necessary to ensure that NMFS received two comments socioeconomic impacts of maintaining amendments to an FMP are carried out regarding the socioeconomic impacts of healthy populations of forage species. in accordance with the FMP and the this action (see Comments 20 and 29 He also noted that the amendment Magnuson-Stevens Act. These changes above). In Comment 20, the commenter should consider the recreational and are listed below in the order that they suggested that this action would professional diving communities in the appear in the regulations. artificially cap the market that could socioeconomic impact analysis, as a In this final rule’s amendments to disproportionately benefit large vessels. lack of forage species could negatively § 648.2, paragraph (a)(14) is renumbered However, as noted above, because all affect seal and predator populations, as (a)(12), and paragraph (a)(15) is entities affected by this action are small which are important drivers of demand renumbered as (a)(13), to reflect the businesses, this action could not place for diving and spearfishing trips. The disapproval of the inclusion of bullet a substantial number of small entities at comment included a statement from and frigate mackerel as Mid-Atlantic a significant competitive disadvantage another individual who estimated that forage species in this final rule. to large entities. Comment 20 pertained dive shops in the Greater Boston Area to the diving community, a group that The regulations at §§ 648.4(a)(15), cater to up to 1,500 divers each year and is not subject to the regulations under 648.5(a)(2), 648.6(a)(1), 648.7(a)(1) and have yearly revenues of $3–4 million. this action. Accordingly, no comments Response: We agree that the benefits (b)(1)(i), and 648.351(d) were revised by were received that would change the of maintaining recent catch levels of adding language specifying that the certification that this action will not certain forage species through measures vessel permit, operator permit, dealer have a significant economic impact on implemented by this action outweigh permit, reporting requirements, and a substantial number of small entities the potential costs associated with transiting provision for vessels fishing regarding this certification. As a result, annual landing limits and possession for and possessing Atlantic chub a regulatory flexibility analysis was not limits. The EA prepared for this action mackerel and dealers purchasing chub required and none was prepared. included a description of the affected mackerel are effective through This final rule contains a collection- environment in Section 6, and an December 31, 2020, as intended. of-information requirement subject to evaluation of the impacts of the In § 648.351(a), the phrase ‘‘Unless the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) and proposed measures on components of otherwise prohibited under § 648.80,’’ which has been approved by the Office the affected environment, including was added to the beginning of this of Management and Budget (OMB) marine predators such as fish species, paragraph to reference the possession under the OMB control numbers listed marine mammals, and fishing restrictions of Northeast multispecies below. Public reporting burden for these communities, in Section 7. The exempted fisheries. As noted above in collections of information, including the socioeconomic impact analysis focused Comment 23, the Executive Director of time for reviewing instructions, on commercial and recreational fishery the New England Fishery Management searching existing data sources, participants because they are the Council indicated that the proposed gathering and maintaining the data entities most likely to be affected by this possession limits for Mid-Atlantic needed, and completing and reviewing action. That analysis did not evaluate forage species would inadvertently the collection of information, are impacts to diving operations because allow a vessel to possess species that are estimated to average, as follows: diving operations are only indirectly not explicitly authorized for exempted 1. Initial Federal vessel permit affected by this action and are not fisheries implemented under the application, OMB# 0648–0202, (45 subject to these measures. As a result, Northeast Multispecies FMP. minutes/response);

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Aug 25, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28AUR1.SGM 28AUR1 asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 165 / Monday, August 28, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 40731

2. Initial Federal dealer permit (i) Striated argentine-Argentina (9) Silversides (family application, OMB# 0648–0202, (15 striata. Atherinopsidae), including but not minutes/response); (ii) Pygmy argentine-Glossanodon limited to the following species: 3. Initial Federal operator permit pygmaeus. (i) Rough silverside-Membras application, OMB# 0648–0202, (60 (3) Greeneyes (family martinica. minutes/response); Chlorophthalmidae), including but not (ii) Inland silverside-Menidia 4. Vessel logbook report of catch by limited to the following species: beryllina. species, OMB# 0648–0212, (5 minutes/ (i) Shortnose greeneye- (iii) Atlantic silverside-Menidia response); and Chlorophthalmus agassizi. menidia. 5. Dealer report of landings by (ii) Longnose greeneye-Parasudis (10) Cusk-eels (order Ophidiiformes), species, OMB# 0648–0229, (4 minutes/ truculenta. including but not limited to the response). (4) Halfbeaks (family following species: Send comments on these or any other Hemiramphidae), including but not (i) Chain pearlfish-Echiodon dawsoni. aspects of the collection of information limited to the following species: (ii) Fawn cusk-eel-Lepophidium to the Greater Atlantic Regional (i) Flying halfbeak-Euleptorhamphus profundorum. Fisheries Office at the ADDRESSES above, velox. (iii) Striped cusk-eel-Ophidion _ and email to OIRA Submission@ (ii) Balao-Hemiramphus balao. marginatum. omb.eop.gov, or fax to (202) 395–5806. (iii) Ballyhoo-Hemiramphus (11) Atlantic saury-Scomberesox Notwithstanding any other provision of brasiliensis. saurus. the law, no person is required to (iv) False silverstripe halfbeak/ (12) Pelagic mollusks and respond to, and no person shall be American halfbeak/Meek’s halfbeak- cephalopods, excluding sharptail subject to penalty for failure to comply Hyporhamphus meeki. shortfin squid (Illex oxygonius), but with, a collection of information subject (5) Herrings and Sardines (family including the following pelagic mollusc to the requirements of the PRA, unless Clupeidae). With the exception of other species: that collection of information displays a herring and sardine species managed (i) Neon flying squid-Ommastrephes currently valid OMB control number. under this part, including American bartramii. List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648 shad, Atlantic herring, blueback herring, (ii) European flying squid-Todarodes hickory shad, and river herring/alewife, sagittatus. Fisheries, Fishing, Recordkeeping and as defined in this section, the following (iii) Atlantic brief squid-Lolliguncula reporting requirements. herring and sardine species are Mid- brevis. Dated: August 21, 2017. Atlantic forage species: (iv) Bobtail squids (family Samuel D. Rauch III, (i) Round herring-Etrumeus teres. Sepiolidae), including but not limited to Deputy Assistant Administrator for (ii) Scaled sardine-Harengula the following species: Regulatory Programs, National Marine jaguana. (A) Odd bobtail squid-Heteroteuthis Fisheries Service. (iii) Atlantic thread herring- dispar. (B) Big fin bobtail squid-Rossia For the reasons set out in the Opisthonema oglinum. megaptera. preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is amended (iv) Spanish sardine-Sardinella aurita. (C) Warty bobtail squid-Rossia as follows: (6) Lanternfishes (family Myctophidae), including but not limited palpebrosa. PART 648—FISHERIES OF THE to the following species: (D) Lesser bobtail squid-Semirossia NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES (i) Horned lanternfish-Ceratoscopelus tenera. maderensis. (E) Butterfly bobtail squid- ■ 1. The authority citation for part 648 (ii) Dumril’s headlightfish-Diaphus Stoloteuthis leucoptera. continues to read as follows: dumerilii. (v) Sea angels and sea butterflies Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. (iii) Crocodile lanternfish- (orders Gymnosomata and Thecosomata). ■ 2. In § 648.2, add definitions for Lampanyctus crocodilus. (vi) Tuberculate pelagic octopus- ‘‘Atlantic chub mackerel’’ and ‘‘Mid- (iv) Doflein’s false headlightfish- Ocythoe tuberculata. Atlantic forage species’’ in alphabetical Lobianchia dofleini. (13) Species under one inch as adults, order to read as follows: (v) Spotted lanternfish-Myctophum punctatum. including but not limited to the § 648.2 Definitions. (7) Pearlsides (family following species groups: * * * * * Sternoptychidae), including but not (i) Copepods (subclass Copepoda). Atlantic chub mackerel means limited to the following species: (ii) Krill (order Euphausiacea). Scomber colias. (i) Atlantic silver hatchetfish- (iii) Amphipods (order Amphipoda). (iv) Ostracods (class Ostracoda). * * * * * Argyropelecus aculeatus. Mid-Atlantic forage species means the (ii) Muller’s pearlside-Maurolicus (v) Isopods (order Isopoda). following species and species groups: muelleri. (vi) Mysid shrimp (order Mysidacea). (1) Anchovies (family Engraulidae), (iii) Weizman’s pearlside-Maurolicus * * * * * including but not limited to the weitzmani. ■ 3. In § 648.4, add paragraph (a)(15) to following species: (iv) Slope hatchetfish-Polyipnus read as follows: (i) Striped anchovy-Anchoa hepsetus. clarus. (ii) Dusky anchovy-Anchoa lyolepis. (8) Sand lances (family § 648.4 Vessel permits. (iii) Bay anchovy-Anchoa mitchilli. Ammodytidae), including but not (a) * * * (iv) Silver anchovy-Engraulis limited to the following species: (15) Mid-Atlantic forage species and eurystole. (i) American/inshore sand lance- Atlantic chub mackerel. Any (2) Argentines (family Argentinidae), Ammodytes americanus. commercial fishing vessel must have including but not limited to the (ii) Northern/offshore sand lance- been issued and have on board a valid following species: Ammodytes dubius. commercial vessel permit issued in

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Aug 25, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28AUR1.SGM 28AUR1 asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES 40732 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 165 / Monday, August 28, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

accordance with this paragraph (a)(15) red crab, spiny dogfish, summer possessing, or landing Atlantic chub to fish for, possess, transport, sell, or flounder, Atlantic surfclam, ocean mackerel are effective through land Mid-Atlantic forage species or quahog, Atlantic mackerel, squid, December 31, 2020. If authorized in Atlantic chub mackerel in or from the butterfish, scup, bluefish, tilefish, and writing by the Regional Administrator, a EEZ portion of the Mid-Atlantic Forage black sea bass; Atlantic surfclam and vessel owner or operator may submit Species Management Unit, as defined at ocean quahog processors; Atlantic reports electronically, for example by § 648.351(c). The vessel permit hagfish dealers and/or processors, and using a VMS or other media. With the requirements specified in this paragraph Atlantic herring processors or dealers, exception of those vessel owners or (a)(15) for a commercial fishing vessel as described in § 648.2; must have been operators fishing under a surfclam or fishing for, possessing, transporting, issued under this section, and have in ocean quahog permit, at least the selling, or landing Atlantic chub their possession, a valid permit or following information and any other mackerel are effective through permits for these species. A dealer of information required by the Regional December 31, 2020. A vessel that fishes Atlantic chub mackerel or Mid-Atlantic Administrator must be provided: Vessel for such species exclusively in state forage species, as defined in § 648.2, name; USCG documentation number (or waters is not required to be issued a harvested in or from the EEZ portion of state registration number, if Federal permit. the Mid-Atlantic Forage Species undocumented); permit number; date/ * * * * * Management Unit, as defined at time sailed; date/time landed; trip type; ■ 4. In § 648.5, revise paragraph (a) to § 648.351(c), must have been issued and number of crew; number of anglers (if a read as follows: have in their possession, a valid dealer charter or party boat); gear fished; permit for any species issued in quantity and size of gear; mesh/ring § 648.5 Operator permits. accordance with this paragraph. The size; chart area fished; average depth; (a) General. (1) Any operator of a dealer permit requirements specified in latitude/longitude (or loran station and vessel issued a permit, carrier permit, or this paragraph (a)(1) for dealers bearings); total hauls per area fished; processing permit for, and that fishes for purchasing Atlantic chub mackerel are average tow time duration; hail weight, or possesses, the species listed in effective through December 31, 2020. in pounds (or count of individual fish, paragraph (a)(2) of this section, must * * * * * if a party or charter vessel), by species, have been issued, and carry on board, a ■ 6. In § 648.7, revise paragraphs (a)(1) of all species, or parts of species, such valid operator permit for these species. and (b)(1)(i) to read as follows: as monkfish livers, landed or discarded; An operator’s permit issued pursuant to and, in the case of skate discards, part 622 or part 697 of this chapter, § 648.7 Recordkeeping and reporting ‘‘small’’ (i.e., less than 23 inches (58.42 satisfies the permitting requirement of requirements. cm), total length) or ‘‘large’’ (i.e., 23 this section. This requirement does not (a)(1) Detailed report. Federally inches (58.42 cm) or greater, total apply to operators of recreational permitted dealers, and any individual length) skates; dealer permit number; vessels. acting in the capacity of a dealer, must dealer name; date sold, port and state (2) Following are the applicable submit to the Regional Administrator or landed; and vessel operator’s name, species: Atlantic sea scallops, NE to the official designee a detailed report signature, and operator’s permit number multispecies, spiny dogfish, monkfish, of all fish purchased or received for a (if applicable). Atlantic herring, Atlantic surfclam, commercial purpose, other than solely * * * * * ocean quahog, Atlantic mackerel, squid, for transport on land, within the time ■ 7. In § 648.12, revise the introductory butterfish, scup, black sea bass, or period specified in paragraph (f) of this text to read as follows: Atlantic bluefish, harvested in or from section, by one of the available the EEZ; tilefish harvested in or from electronic reporting mechanisms § 648.12 Experimental fishing. the EEZ portion of the Tilefish approved by NMFS, unless otherwise The Regional Administrator may Management Unit; skates harvested in directed by the Regional Administrator. exempt any person or vessel from the or from the EEZ portion of the Skate The dealer reporting requirements requirements of subparts A (General Management Unit; Atlantic deep-sea red specified in this paragraph (a)(1) for provisions), B (Atlantic mackerel, squid, crab harvested in or from the EEZ dealers purchasing or receiving for a and butterfish), D (Atlantic sea scallop), portion of the Red Crab Management commercial purpose Atlantic chub E (Atlantic surfclam and ocean quahog), Unit; or Atlantic chub mackerel and mackerel are effective through F (NE multispecies and monkfish), G Mid-Atlantic forage species, as defined December 31, 2020. The following (summer flounder), H (scup), I (black at § 648.2, harvested in or from the EEZ information, and any other information sea bass), J (Atlantic bluefish), K portion of the Mid-Atlantic Forage required by the Regional Administrator, (Atlantic herring), L (spiny dogfish), M Species Management Unit, as defined at must be provided in each report: (Atlantic deep-sea red crab), N (tilefish), § 648.351(c). The operator permit * * * * * O (skates), and P (Mid-Atlantic forage requirements specified in this paragraph (b) * * * species and Atlantic chub mackerel) of (a)(2) for an operator of a vessel fishing (1) * * * this part for the conduct of experimental for and possessing Atlantic chub (i) The owner or operator of any fishing beneficial to the management of mackerel are effective through vessel issued a valid permit or eligible the resources or fishery managed under December 31, 2020. to renew a limited access permit under that subpart. The Regional * * * * * this part must maintain on board the Administrator shall consult with the ■ 5. In § 648.6, revise paragraph (a)(1) to vessel, and submit, an accurate fishing Executive Director of the MAFMC read as follows: log report for each fishing trip, before approving any exemptions for the regardless of species fished for or taken, Atlantic mackerel, squid, butterfish, § 648.6 Dealer/processor permits. on forms supplied by or approved by summer flounder, scup, black sea bass, (a) * * * the Regional Administrator. The spiny dogfish, bluefish, and tilefish (1) All dealers of NE multispecies, reporting requirements specified in this fisheries, including exemptions for monkfish, skates, Atlantic herring, paragraph (b)(1)(i) for an owner or experimental fishing contributing to the Atlantic sea scallop, Atlantic deep-sea operator of a vessels fishing for, development of new or expansion of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Aug 25, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28AUR1.SGM 28AUR1 asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 165 / Monday, August 28, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 40733

existing fisheries for Mid-Atlantic forage Atlantic forage species, as defined at area of the Atlantic Ocean that is species and Atlantic chub mackerel. § 648.2. bounded on the southeast by the outer * * * * * (b) Atlantic chub mackerel. Effective limit of the U.S. EEZ; bounded on the ° ′ ■ 8. In § 648.14, add paragraph (w) to through December 31, 2020, the annual south by 35 15.3 N. lat. (the read as follows: landings limit for Atlantic chub approximate latitude of Cape Hatteras, mackerel is set at 2.86 million lb (1,297 NC); bounded on the west and north by § 648.14 Prohibitions. mt). All landings of Atlantic chub the coastline of the United States; and * * * * * mackerel by vessels issued a Federal bounded on the northeast by the (w) Mid-Atlantic forage species and commercial permit in accordance with following points, connected in the order Atlantic chub mackerel. It is unlawful § 648.4 in ports from Maine through listed by straight lines: for any person owning or operating a North Carolina shall count against the vessel issued a valid commercial permit annual landings limit. NMFS shall close Point Latitude Longitude under this part to do any of the the directed fishery for Atlantic chub mackerel in the EEZ portion of the Mid- 1 ...... 40°59.32′ N. 73°39.62′ W. following: 2 ...... 40°59.02′ N. 73°39.41′ W. (1) Fish for, possess, transfer, receive, Atlantic Forage Species Management ° ′ ° ′ Unit in a manner consistent with the 3 ...... 40 57.05 N. 73 36.78 W. or land; or attempt to fish for, possess, 4 ...... 40°57.87′ N. 73°32.85′ W. transfer, receive, or land; more than Administrative Procedure Act when the 5 ...... 40°59.78′ N. 73°23.70′ W. 1,700 lb (771.11 kg) of all Mid-Atlantic Regional Administrator determines that 6 ...... 41°1.57′ N. 73°15.00′ W. forage species combined per trip in or 100 percent of the Atlantic chub 7 ...... 41°3.40′ N. 73°6.10′ W. from the Mid-Atlantic Forage Species mackerel annual landings limit has been 8 ...... 41°4.65′ N. 73°0.00′ W. Management Unit, as defined at harvested. Following closure of the 9 ...... 41°6.67′ N. 72°50.00′ W. ° ′ ° ′ § 648.351(c). A vessel not issued a directed Atlantic chub mackerel fishery, 10 ...... 41 8.69 N. 72 40.00 W. a vessel must adhere to the possession 11 ...... 41°10.79′ N. 72°29.45′ W. commercial permit in accordance with ° ′ ° ′ limit specified in § 648.351(b). 12 ...... 41 12.22 N. 72 22.25 W. § 648.4 that fished exclusively in state 13 ...... 41°13.57′ N. 72°15.38′ W. waters or a vessel that fished Federal § 648.351 Mid-Atlantic forage species and 14 ...... 41°14.94′ N. 72°8.35′ W. waters outside of the Mid-Atlantic Atlantic chub mackerel possession limits. 15 ...... 41°15.52′ N. 72°5.41′ W. Forage Species Management Unit that is 16 ...... 41°17.43′ N. 72°1.18′ W. (a) Mid-Atlantic forage species. Unless ° ′ ° ′ transiting the area with gear that is otherwise prohibited in § 648.80, a 17 ...... 41 18.62 N. 71 55.80 W. stowed and not available for immediate 18 ...... 41°18.27′ N. 71°54.47′ W. vessel issued a valid commercial permit 19 ...... 41°10.31′ N. 71°46.44′ W. use is exempt from this prohibition. in accordance with § 648.4 may fish for, (2) Fish for, possess, transfer, receive, 20 ...... 41°2.35′ N. 71°38.43′ W. possess, and land up to 1,700 lb (771.11 ° ′ ° ′ or land; or attempt to fish for, possess, 21 ...... 40 54.37 N. 71 30.45 W. kg) of all Mid-Atlantic forage species 22 ...... 40°46.39′ N. 71°22.51′ W. transfer, receive, or land; more than combined per trip in or from the EEZ 23 ...... 40°38.39′ N. 71°14.60′ W. 40,000 lb (18.14 mt) of Atlantic chub portion of the Mid-Atlantic Forage 24 ...... 40°30.39′ N. 71°6.72′ W. mackerel per trip in or from the Mid- Species Management Unit, as defined in 25 ...... 40°22.38′ N. 70°58.87′ W. Atlantic Forage Species Management 26 ...... 40°14.36′ N. 70°51.05′ W. paragraph (c) of this section. A vessel ° ′ ° ′ Unit, as defined at § 648.351(c), after the not issued a permit in accordance with 27 ...... 40 6.33 N. 70 43.27 W. annual Atlantic chub mackerel landing 28 ...... 39°58.29′ N. 70°35.51′ W. § 648.4 that is fishing exclusively in 29 ...... 39°50.24′ N. 70°27.78′ W. limit has been harvested and notice has state waters is exempt from the been provided to the public consistent 30 ...... 39°42.18′ N. 70°20.09′ W. possession limits specified in this ° ′ ° ′ with the Administrative Procedure Act. 31 ...... 39 34.11 N. 70 12.42 W. section. 32 ...... 39°26.04′ N. 70°4.78′ W. A vessel not issued a commercial permit (b) Atlantic chub mackerel. Effective 33 ...... 39°17.96′ N. 69°57.18′ W. in accordance with § 648.4 that fished through December 31, 2020, a vessel 34 ...... 39°9.86′ N. 69°49.6′ W. exclusively in state waters or a vessel issued a valid commercial permit in 35 ...... 39°1.77′ N. 69°42.05′ W. that fished in Federal waters outside of accordance with § 648.4 may fish for, 36 ...... 38°53.66′ N. 69°34.53′ W. the Mid-Atlantic Forage Species 37 ...... 38°45.54′ N. 69°27.03′ W. possess, and land an unlimited amount ° ′ ° ′ Management Unit that is transiting the of Atlantic chub mackerel from the Mid- 38 ...... 38 37.42 N. 69 19.57 W. 39 ...... 38°29.29′ N. 69°12.13′ W. area with gear that is stowed and not Atlantic Forage Species Management available for immediate use is exempt 40 ...... 38°21.15′ N. 69°4.73′ W. Unit, as defined in paragraph (c) of this ° ′ ° ′ from this prohibition. 41 ...... 38 13.00 N. 68 57.35 W. section, provided the Atlantic chub 42 ...... 38°4.84′ N. 68°49.99′ W. ■ 9. Add subpart P to read as follows: mackerel annual landing limit has not 43* ...... 38°2.21′ N. 68°47.62′ W. been harvested. Once the Atlantic chub Subpart P—Mid-Atlantic Forage Species * Point 43 falls on the U.S. EEZ. and Atlantic Chub Mackerel mackerel annual landing limit has been Sec. harvested, as specified in § 648.350, a (d) Transiting. Any vessel issued a 648.350 Mid-Atlantic forage species and vessel may fish for, possess, and land up valid permit in accordance with § 648.4 Atlantic chub mackerel annual landing to 40,000 lb (18.14 mt) of Atlantic chub may transit the Mid-Atlantic Forage limits. mackerel per trip in or from the Mid- Species Management Unit, as defined in 648.351 Mid-Atlantic forage species and Atlantic Forage Species Management paragraph (c) of this section, with an Atlantic chub mackerel possession Unit for the remainder of the fishing amount of Mid-Atlantic forage species limits. year (until December 31). A vessel not or Atlantic chub mackerel on board that 648.352 Mid-Atlantic forage species and issued a permit in accordance with exceeds the possession limits specified Atlantic chub mackerel framework in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, measures. § 648.4 that is fishing exclusively in state waters is exempt from the respectively, to land in a port in a state § 648.350 Mid-Atlantic forage species and possession limits specified in this that is outside of the Mid-Atlantic Atlantic chub mackerel annual landing section. Forage Species Management Unit, limits. (c) Mid-Atlantic Forage Species provided that those species were (a) Mid-Atlantic forage species. There Management Unit. The Mid-Atlantic harvested outside of the Mid-Atlantic is no annual landing limit for Mid- Forage Species Management Unit is the Forage Species Management Unit and

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Aug 25, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28AUR1.SGM 28AUR1 asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES 40734 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 165 / Monday, August 28, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

that all gear is stowed and not available FMP; the Atlantic Bluefish FMP; the following categories: The list of Mid- for immediate use as defined in § 648.2. Spiny Dogfish FMP; and Tilefish FMPs. Atlantic forage species, possession The transitting provisions specified in (b) Adjustment process. The MAFMC limits, annual landing limits, and any this paragraph (d) for a vessel shall develop and analyze appropriate other measure currently included in the possessing Atlantic chub mackerel are management actions over the span of at applicable FMPs specified in paragraph effective through December 31, 2020. least two MAFMC meetings. The (a) of this section. Issues that require significant departures from previously § 648.352 Mid-Atlantic forage species and MAFMC must provide the public with Atlantic chub mackerel framework advance notice of the availability of the contemplated measures or that are measures. recommendation(s), appropriate otherwise introducing new concepts (a) General. The MAFMC may, at any justification(s) and economic and may require an amendment of the FMPs time, initiate action to add or revise biological analyses, and the opportunity instead of a framework adjustment. management measures if it finds that to comment on the proposed (c) MAFMC recommendation. See action is necessary to meet or be adjustment(s) at its first meeting, prior § 648.110(a)(2). consistent with the goals and objectives to its second meeting, and at its second (d) NMFS action. See § 648.110(a)(3). of the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and meeting. The MAFMC’s (e) Emergency actions. See Butterfish FMP; the Atlantic Surfclam recommendations on adjustments or § 648.110(a)(4). and Ocean Quahog FMP; the Summer additions to management measures [FR Doc. 2017–18034 Filed 8–25–17; 8:45 am] Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass must come from one or more of the BILLING CODE 3510–22–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:18 Aug 25, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\28AUR1.SGM 28AUR1 asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES