71960 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 233 / Thursday, December 4, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

During the closure, the possession 

limit for cobia remains in effect, 

however, in accordance with regulations 

at 50 CFR 622.384(e)(3), the sale or 

purchase of Atlantic migratory group 

cobia taken under the possession limit 

is prohibited. The prohibition on sale 

and purchase does not apply to the sale 

or purchase of Atlantic migratory group 

cobia that were harvested, landed 

ashore, and sold prior to 12:01 a.m., 

local time, December 11, 2014, and were 

held in cold storage by a dealer or 

processor. 

Classification 

The Regional Administrator, 

Southeast Region, NMFS, has 

determined this temporary rule is 

necessary for the conservation and 

management of Atlantic migratory group 

cobia and is consistent with the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act and other 

applicable laws. 

This action is taken under 50 CFR 

622.8(b) and is exempt from review 

under Executive Order 12866. 

These measures are exempt from the 

procedures of the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act because the temporary rule is issued 

without opportunity for prior notice and 

comment. 

This action responds to the best 

scientific information available. The 

Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, 

NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive 

the requirements to provide prior notice 

and opportunity for public comment, 

pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 

U.S.C. 553(b)(B), as such prior notice 

and opportunity for public comment is 

unnecessary and contrary to the public 

interest. Such procedures are 

unnecessary and contrary to the public 

interest because the AMs for Atlantic 

migratory group cobia established by 

Amendment 18 to the FMP (76 FR 

82058, December 29, 2011), and located 

at 50 CFR 622.388(f)(1)(i), have already 

been subject to notice and comment, 

and all that remains is to notify the 

public of the commercial closure for the 

remainder of the 2014 fishing year. 

Additionally, there is a need to 

immediately implement the closure to 

prevent further commercial harvest and 

prevent the ACL from being exceeded, 

which will protect the cobia resource. 

Prior notice and opportunity for public 

comment on this action would be 

contrary to the public interest, because 

those affected by the closure need as 

much advance notice as NMFS is able 

to provide. 

For the aforementioned reasons, the 

AA also finds good cause to waive the 

30-day delay in the effectiveness of this 

action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. 

Dated: November 28, 2014. 

Alan D. Risenhoover, 

Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2014–28468 Filed 12–3–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 648 

[Docket No. 140221166–4963–02] 

RIN 0648–BE01 

Fisheries of the Northeastern United 

States; Atlantic Herring Fishery; 

Framework Adjustment 3 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: NMFS implements final 

regulations to establish a process for 

setting river herring (alewife and 

blueback) and shad (American and 

hickory) catch caps for the herring 

fishery. This action also sets these catch 

caps for the 2014 and 2015 fishing 

years. The river herring and shad caps 

in the herring fishery will limit how 

much of these species will be caught in 

the herring fishery. This action will 

allow the New England Fishery 

Management Council to set river herring 

and shad catch caps and associated 

measures in future years through 

specifications or frameworks, whichever 

is appropriate. The measures in this 

action are a positive step in 

conservation efforts for river herring and 

shad. 

DATES: Effective December 4, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: The New England Fishery 

Management Council developed an 

environmental assessment (EA) for this 

action that describes the action and 

other considered alternatives and 

provides a thorough analysis of the 

impacts of these final measures and 

alternatives. Copies of the framework, 

the EA, and the Regulatory Impact 

Review (RIR)/Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), are 

available upon request from Thomas A. 

Nies, Executive Director, New England 

Fishery Management Council, 50 Water 

Street, Newburyport, MA 01950. The 

EA/RIR/IRFA is accessible via the 

Internet at http://www.greateratlantic.

fisheries.noaa.gov/sustainable/species/

atlherring/index.html. 

Copies of the small entity compliance 

guide are available from John K. 

Bullard, Regional Administrator, NMFS, 

Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries 

Office, 55 Great Republic Drive, 

Gloucester, MA 01930–2298, or 

available on the Internet at http://www.

greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/

sustainable/species/atlherring/

index.html. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Carrie Nordeen, Fishery Policy Analyst, 

978–281–9272, fax 978–281–9135. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The New England Fishery 

Management Council adopted 

Framework Adjustment 3 to the Atlantic 

Herring Fishery Management Plan 

(FMP) at its September 24, 2013, 

meeting. The Council submitted 

Framework 3 to NMFS for review on 

January 3, 2014, and resubmitted it to 

NMFS on March 26, 2014. The Council 

reviewed the Framework 3 proposed 

rule regulations as drafted by NMFS, 

and deemed them to be necessary and 

appropriate as specified in section 

303(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act. The 

proposed rule for Framework 3 

published in the Federal Register on 

June 13, 2014 (79 FR 33879), with a 30- 

day public comment period that ended 

July 14, 2014. NMFS received four 

comments on the proposed measures. 

Framework 3 establishes a process for 

setting and modifying catch caps for 

river herring (alewife and blueback) and 

shad (American and hickory) catch caps 

in the Atlantic herring fishery (herring 

fishery), and sets specific river herring 

and shad catch caps for the 2014 and 

2015 fishing years. Catch of river 

herring and shad for 2014 will count 

against the cap in 2014 after the 

effective date of this final rule. 

River herring and shad are 

anadromous species that may co-occur 

seasonally with Atlantic herring and are 

harvested as a non-target species in the 

fishery. When river herring are 

encountered in the herring fishery, they 

are either discarded at sea (bycatch) or, 

because they closely resemble herring, 

they are retained and sold as part of the 

herring catch (incidental catch). 

According to the most recent river 

herring stock assessment (May 2012) 

conducted by the Atlantic States Marine 

Fisheries Commission (ASMFC), river 

herring populations have declined from 

historic levels and many factors will 

need to be addressed to allow their 

recovery, including: Fishing in both 

state and Federal waters; improvement 

of river passageways and water quality; 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 233 / Thursday, December 4, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 71961 

reduced predation; and understanding 

the effects of climate change. The 

Council has been working on addressing 

river herring and shad catch issues in 

the herring fishery, most recently in 

Amendment 5 to the FMP (79 FR 8786; 

February 13, 2014) (Amendment 5). 

Amendment 5 allowed for river herring 

and shad catch caps to be implemented 

through a framework adjustment. 

Framework 3 allows the Council to set 

river herring and shad catch caps and 

associated measures in future years 

through specifications or frameworks, 

whichever is appropriate. 

Framework 3 outlines a process for 

setting and modifying the river herring 

and shad catch caps that includes: 

Identification of gears, areas, and trips 

that would be subject to the catch caps; 

changes to reporting requirements for 

vessels issued limited access and 

Herring Management Areas 2/3 open 

access herring permits; criteria that 

would trigger the closure of an area to 

directed herring fishing for a particular 

gear type; and a list of management 

measures related to setting catch caps 

that can be modified through the herring 

specifications process and/or framework 

adjustment process. 

Area and Gear Provisions of the River 

Herring and Shad Catch Caps 

Framework 3 establishes four distinct 

Catch Cap Areas that could have 

associated catch caps: Gulf of Maine 

(GOM); Cape Cod (CC); Southern New 

England/Mid-Atlantic (SNE/MA); and 

Georges Bank (GB) (Table 1). During a 

given fishing year, catch of river herring 

and shad from all herring trips landing 

more than 6,600 lb (3 mt) of herring will 

apply against the catch caps for specific 

fishing gears and areas. The Council 

considered alternatives for catch caps 

for all gear types used in the herring 

fishery, but ultimately decided to adopt 

catch caps for midwater trawl gear in 

the GOM, CC, and SNE/MA, as well as 

bottom trawl gear in SNE/MA. The 

selection of these gear types in these 

areas is based on recent fishery data that 

indicate where river herring and shad 

interactions are occurring, and to what 

extent they may be occurring by each 

gear type used in the herring fishery. 

Because current catch data indicate that 

river herring and shad are not caught by 

the herring fishery in GB, the Council 

did not specify catch caps for GB during 

2014–2015. The Council may consider 

adjustments to the selected gears and 

areas that have associated catch caps in 

a future management action. 

TABLE 1—RIVER HERRING AND SHAD

CATCH CAP AREAS

Catch cap 

areas Statistical areas 

GOM .............. 464, 465, 467, 511–515. 

CC .................. 521. 

GB .................. 522, 525–526, 541–543, 

561–562, 640. 

SNE/MA ......... 533–534, 537–539, 611– 

616, 621–629, 631–639, 

700–705, 707–711. 

Reporting Requirements and Monitoring 

the River Herring and Shad Catch Caps 

This action adjusts current Vessel 

Monitoring System (VMS) trip 

notification requirements in order for 

NMFS to monitor the catch caps. Vessel 

operators will have to report kept catch 

of all species by statistical area daily via 

VMS catch reports. The Council may 

consider adjustments to trip notification 

requirements in the future as necessary 

to ensure the effectiveness of the catch 

caps. 

The Greater Atlantic Regional 

Fisheries Office will monitor the catch 

cap by estimating the total river herring 

and shad catch in the herring fishery 

using data from observed hauls on 

herring trips and extrapolating this data 

to unobserved herring trips. The rate of 

river herring and shad catch will be 

estimated as the ratio of observed river 

herring and shad catch (including 

discards) to the kept catch of all species 

on observed trips that land greater than 

6,600 lb (3 mt) of herring. Total river 

herring and shad catch (in weight) will 

then be derived by multiplying the 

catch rate by total pounds of all kept 

species on all trips that land greater 

than 6,600 lb (3 mt) of herring. This 

methodology is identical to that used for 

catch cap accounting in the mackerel 

fishery. More information about our 

monitoring methodology for the river 

herring and shad catch can be found at 

http://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.

noaa.gov/aps/monitoring/riverherrings

had.html. 

River Herring and Shad Catch Triggers 

and Closure Areas 

This action specifies that when 95 

percent of the river herring and shad 

catch for a gear-specific catch cap is 

projected to be reached in a Catch Cap 

Area, all vessels fishing with that gear 

type in the respective closure area will 

be subject to a reduced herring 

possession limit of 2,000 lb (0.9 mt) per 

trip, per calendar day, in or from that 

area for the remainder of the fishing 

year. Vessels using other gear types in 

the closure area will not be affected in 

that those vessels will not be subject to 

the 2,000-lb (0.9-mt) possession limit 

and could continue directed fishing for 

herring in those areas with other gear 

types. Vessels participating in the 

herring fishery outside of the catch cap 

closure area(s) will be able to use any 

gear type (consistent with other 

regulations) until the applicable herring 

annual catch limits/sub-annual catch 

limits are harvested. This 95-percent 

catch trigger is consistent with the 

trigger implemented for the river herring 

and shad catch cap in the mackerel 

fishery (79 FR 18834; April 4, 2014). 

The Catch Cap Closure Areas are 

identical to the Catch Cap Areas for GB, 

GOM, and CC. For SNE/MA, the catch 

cap closure area is the inshore portion 

of the SNE/MA Catch Cap Area (Table 

2). 

TABLE 2—RIVER HERRING AND SHAD

CATCH CAP CLOSURE AREAS

Catch cap 

closure areas Statistical areas 

GOM .............. 464, 465, 467, 511–515. 

CC .................. 521. 

GB .................. 522, 525–526, 541–543, 

561–562, 640. 

SNE/MA ......... 537–539, 611–616, 621– 

623, 625–627, 631–632, 

635–636. 

Modifying Future River Herring and 

Shad Catch Cap Management Measures 

This action specifies the mechanisms 

to modify measures related to the catch 

caps. Measures related to the catch cap 

process that could be established in this 

framework may be modified in the 

future through the specifications or 

framework adjustment process, 

depending on whether the modification 

is suitable for either specifications or 

framework adjustment. New or 

additional measures (e.g., new 

accountability measures to become 

effective when a catch cap is reached), 

or measures outside the scope already 

analyzed, could be implemented 

through another framework action or an 

amendment. 

River Herring and Shad Catch Caps for 

Fishing Years 2014–2015 

This action sets river herring and shad 

catch caps for the 2014–2015 fishing 

years (January 1–December 31) (Table 

3). Catch of river herring and shad for 

2014 will only be counted from the 

effective date of this action until 

December 31, 2014. All the catch caps 

in the GOM, CC, and SNE/MA Catch 

Cap Areas are based on the median 

value of estimated river herring and 

shad catch from 2008–2012. Current 

data are not sufficient to definitively 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

71962 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 233 / Thursday, December 4, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

determine the magnitude of potential 

biological effects of such a cap on river 

herring and shad stocks. Using the 

median values is expected to provide an 

incentive for the industry to continue to 

avoid river herring and shad and help 

to minimize overall river herring and 

shad catch to the extent practicable, 

while still providing the opportunity to 

fully utilize the herring annual catch 

limit if the fleet can avoid river herring 

and shad. 

TABLE 3—RIVER HERRING AND SHAD CATCH CAPS BY AREA AND GEAR TYPE FOR 2014 AND 2015 

Catch cap area Gear type Catch cap 

(mt) 

GOM .................................................................................. Midwater Trawl .................................................................................... 86 

CC ...................................................................................... Midwater Trawl .................................................................................... 13 

SNE/MA ............................................................................. Midwater Trawl .................................................................................... 124 

Bottom Trawl ....................................................................................... 89 

GB ...................................................................................... N/A ....................................................................................................... N/A 

Due to very low observed river 

herring and shad catch in GB, the 

Council did not recommend a catch cap 

in the GB Catch Cap Area for the 2014– 

2015 fishing years. If the catch of river 

herring and shad increases in this area, 

the Council could consider setting a cap 

for this area in a future herring 

specifications. 

Corrections 

This rule also contains minor 

corrections to existing regulations. 

NMFS makes these adjustments under 

the authority of section 305(d) to the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act, which provides 

that the Secretary of Commerce may 

promulgate regulations necessary to 

ensure that amendments to a fishery 

management plan are carried out in 

accordance with the FMP and the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act. These 

adjustments, which are identified and 

described below, are necessary to clarify 

current regulations or the intent of the 

FMP and would not change the intent 

of any regulations. 

NMFS clarifies the coordinates for the 

herring management areas, modified 

haddock stock areas, and river herring 

monitoring/avoidance areas at 

§ 648.200(f) to more accurately define 

various areas. For example, some areas 

were intended to be based on statistical 

areas, but the previous coordinates were 

unintentionally misaligned with those 

statistical areas. This action updates 

those coordinates to correctly align 

them with the statistical areas upon 

which they were based. In addition, 

some area boundaries are being revised 

to correctly incorporate coastal bodies of 

water, as well as the legally defined U.S. 

Canada Maritime boundary. This action 

also moves the coordinates for the GOM 

and GB modified haddock stock areas in 

the regulations from § 648.10 to 

§ 648.200(f) so that all the herringrelated management areas are in a single 

location for easy reference. Finally, this 

action adds a possession limit 

regulation to § 648.204(a) to describe the 

possession limit requirements of the 

Herring Management Areas 2/3 Open 

Access Permit. This regulation was 

overlooked during rulemaking for 

Herring Amendment 5 and is consistent 

with the intent of that action. 

Comments and Responses 

NMFS received four comment letters 

in response to the proposed rule from 

The Herring Alliance; Wild Oceans; the 

Coalition for the Atlantic Herring 

Fishery’s Orderly, Informed and 

Responsible Long Term Development 

(CHOIR); and an individual. The 

following summarizes the comments 

and provides our responses. 

Comment 1: An individual 

commented that depleted runs of 

blueback herring and alewife in rivers 

and streams of Massachusetts suggest 

that conservation and management 

measures have not achieved sustainable 

levels of these fish. He urged NMFS to 

use precautionary management 

measures for the herring fishery to allow 

us to evaluate the benefits that 

restrictive and conservative measures 

would have on populations of river 

herring. The Herring Alliance noted that 

river herring and shad populations are 

near historic lows and that without 

sufficient federal management to 

complement state conservation 

measures, river herring and shad 

populations will not recover and 

fisheries for these species are unlikely to 

reopen. 

Response: River herring are managed 

by the ASMFC and the individual 

Atlantic coastal states. According to the 

most recent ASMFC river herring stock 

assessment (May 2012), river herring 

populations have declined from historic 

levels and many factors will need to be 

addressed to allow their recovery, 

including fishing (in both state and 

Federal waters), river passageways, 

water quality, predation, and climate 

change. In an effort to aid in the 

recovery of depleted or declining stocks, 

the ASMFC, in cooperation with 

individual states, prohibited state 

waters commercial and recreational 

fisheries that did not have approved 

sustainable fisheries management plans, 

effective January 1, 2012. NMFS 

considers river herring to be a species of 

concern, but recently (78 FR 48944, 

August 12, 2013) determined that listing 

river herring, as either threatened or 

endangered, under the Endangered 

Species Act was not warranted. NMFS 

established a technical working group 

and will continue to work closely with 

the ASMFC and others to develop a 

long-term, dynamic conservation plan 

for river herring from Canada to Florida. 

The working group will evaluate the 

impact of ongoing restoration and 

conservation efforts, as well as new 

fisheries management measures, which 

should benefit the species. It will also 

review new information produced from 

ongoing research, including genetic 

analyses, ocean migration pattern 

research, and climate change impact 

studies, to assess whether recent 

reports, showing higher river herring 

counts in the last 2 years, represent 

sustained trends. NMFS intends to 

revisit its river herring status 

determination within the next 5 years. 

In addition to the these actions, 

Amendment 5 to the FMP established 

river herring monitoring and avoidance 

areas for the herring fishery. NMFS 

asserts that setting river herring and 

shad catch caps in the herring fishery is 

an additional positive step toward 

reducing the impacts of herring fishing 

on river herring and shad. The caps 

should further help minimize river 

herring and shad catch in the herring 

fishery to the extent practicable and 

increase the incentive for the herring 

fishery to avoid river herring and shad 

catch when possible. 

Comment 2: Wild Oceans, CHOIR, 

and the Herring Alliance urged NMFS to 

approve and implement Framework 3, 

including the process for setting river 

herring and shad caps, applicable areas 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 233 / Thursday, December 4, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 71963 

and gears, and the caps and for 2014 

and 2015. 

Response: NMFS is implementing the 

measures as recommended by the 

Council. 

Comment 3: Wild Oceans, CHOIR, 

and the Herring Alliance urged NMFS to 

quickly implement the measures in 

Framework 3. Wild Oceans commented 

that swift implementation is necessary 

in part because it believes that the 

measures to limit river herring and shad 

catch in the herring fishery are overdue. 

The Herring Alliance, Wild Oceans, and 

CHOIR urged NMFS to waive the 30-day 

delay in effectiveness required by the 

Administrative Procedure Act. CHOIR 

and the Herring Alliance requested that 

NMFS retroactively apply the river 

herring and shad catch caps to catch of 

herring, river herring, and shad, 

beginning January 1, 2014. The Herring 

Alliance believes that the herring 

fishing fleets had sufficient notice that 

this rule would take effect in 2014, and 

that the rule will not result in costs 

related to on-board changes to fishing 

vessels or changes to bycatch estimation 

methodologies. 

Response: NMFS has determined that 

good cause exists to waive the 30-day 

delay in effectiveness for this action on 

the basis that it is important to 

implement the catch caps for the 

remainder of 2014 and it is in the 

public’s interest to do so. The Council 

submitted its final version of 

Framework 3 for NMFS review in March 

2014, meaning that final NMFS action 

would occur well after the herring 

fishery was underway. As a result, 

NMFS intended from the outset to 

implement these measures upon 

publication due to the need and the 

public interest. Even though it is near 

the end of 2014 and only one area 

remains open (Area 2) to the herring 

fishery, NMFS believes that it is still 

important to implement the measures 

upon publication. To further delay 

implementation would reduce the 

benefits of the caps as the herring 

fishery will likely have harvested the 

vast majority of its catch allocated for 

2014. The Council intended that the 

caps apply to as much as the 2014 

herring fishery as possible, but it did not 

recommend a retroactive application of 

the cap. The analysis to support this 

action does not describe retroactive 

catch caps nor does it analyze 

retroactive catch caps. Therefore, NMFS 

cannot retroactively apply the catch 

caps to the beginning of 2014. NMFS 

did retroactively apply catch against the 

river herring and shad cap for the 

mackerel fishery implemented in April 

2014 because the Mid-Atlantic Council 

recomended and analyzed applying 

river herring and shad catch against the 

cap for all of 2014. The Council’s 

timeline for submission provided for 

implementation late in the 2014 fishing 

year. Although the herring fishing fleets 

likely knew that the Council 

recommended this action, it also likely 

knew that implementation is dependent 

upon NMFS review and approval. 

Counting all river herring and shad 

catch since January 1, 2014, would 

unfairly penalize the herring fleet for 

measures that were not effective for the 

majority of their fishing year in 2014. 

Comment 4: The Herring Alliance, 

Wild Oceans, and CHOIR all expressed 

concern that NMFS could have 

difficulty monitoring the catch caps 

with a 95-percent closure threshold. 

They commented that difficulty in 

monitoring the herring fishery could 

result in late closure, causing the 

herring fishery to exceed the applicable 

river herring and shad caps. The Herring 

Alliance commented that it is concerned 

that the measures in Framework 3 are 

not enough to account for scientific and 

management uncertainty surrounding 

river herring and shad. The Herring 

Alliance commented that the 95-percent 

closure threshold is not conservative 

enough in light of a recent catch overage 

in Herring Management Area 1B and 

frequent historical overages of the areabased quotas in the herring fishery. 

CHOIR urged NMFS to be highly 

vigilant in monitoring the caps, and the 

Herring Alliance commented that a 

lower cap is warranted until NMFS is 

able to provide observer coverage 

necessary to accurately monitor these 

catch caps. 

Response: NMFS has a monitoring 

program in place for the herring fishery 

that enables it to project a closure date 

based on daily catch and weekly dealer 

data. NMFS is vigilant in monitoring 

this fishery and has effectively closed 

herring management areas before the 

area allocations the majority of the time. 

NMFS asserts that the 95-percent 

threshold is sufficient, but will advise 

the Council to reassess this threshold if 

it does not provide a sufficient buffer in 

the event the herring fishery has a very 

rapid harvest rate. NMFS cannot 

implement a lower closure threshold 

because one was not recommended by 

the Council. NMFS cannot implement 

different measures than what the 

Council recommended; it can only 

approve or disapprove the measures 

recommended by the Council. 

Comment 5: CHOIR commented that 

NMFS should pay close attention to 

new data from herring fishing activity 

on Georges Bank and should support the 

development and implementation of a 

cap on Georges Bank. The Herring 

Alliance commented that NMFS should 

approve the cap designated for George 

Bank, ensure sufficient observer 

coverage in that area to accurately 

monitor catch, and establish a limit in 

the next appropriate action. 

Response: NMFS and the Council will 

work together to examine catch on 

Georges Bank and all other herring 

management areas to determine whether 

to establish caps on Georges Bank or 

adjust the caps through the herring 

fishery specifications process. 

Comment 6: The Herring Alliance, 

Wild Oceans, and CHOIR all stressed 

the importance of coordinating river 

herring and shad catch caps between the 

Mid-Atlantic and New England 

Councils. Commenters suggest that this 

would ensure that the Councils and 

NMFS sufficiently address river herring 

and shad catch in areas where the 

herring and mackerel fisheries overlap, 

and where vessels catch substantial 

amounts of both herring and mackerel 

on the same trip. Comments urged the 

creation of a single river herring and 

shad cap to address herring and 

mackerel fishery overlap. Comments 

recognized that the Councils and NMFS 

could develop joint caps for the 2016 

fishing year, but not for 2014 and 2015. 

Response: NMFS agrees that the New 

England and Mid-Atlantic Councils 

should work cooperatively to establish 

river herring and shad caps for the 

herring and mackerel fisheries that do 

not cause management inconsistency in 

the two fisheries, in particular where 

they overlap. The Council has indicated 

its intent in the Framework 3 document 

to work with the Mid-Atlantic Council 

in establishing a joint cap. 

Comment 7: The Herring Alliance 

commented that the river herring and 

shad caps are a first step in management 

of river herring and shad, but ultimately 

insufficient, to prevent further 

population declines and rebuild these 

species. It commented that the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act requires all 

stocks in need of conservation and 

management to be added to an FMP, 

and therefore believes that river herring 

and shad must be added to the FMP as 

a federally managed species, as well as 

any other fishery FMP that manage 

fisheries that catch river herring and 

shad. 

Response: Measures to help minimize 

the catch of any species may be added 

to a Federal FMP without also including 

that species in that FMP’s stock in the 

fishery definition. Many measures have 

been implemented in the FMP to 

minimize bycatch to the extent 

practicable, most recently in 

Amendment 5 to the FMP. In addition 

to those measures, implementing river 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

71964 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 233 / Thursday, December 4, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

herring and shad catch caps in the FMP 

is an additional way to minimize river 

herring and shad catch to the extent 

practicable in Federal waters while the 

effects of various threats (e.g., water 

quality, fish passage, predation, habitat 

loss, fishing mortality, and climate 

change) on river herring and shad 

continue to be evaluated. NMFS and the 

Council continue to monitor and 

evaluate whether further management 

measures to address river herring and 

shad catch are necessary, including 

whether to include river herring and 

shad as stocks in the fishery. 

There are many factors that must be 

considered when determining whether a 

species will be included as a stock in a 

fishery in a fishery management plan. 

Each Fishery Management Council is 

required by the Magnuson-Stevens Act 

to develop FMPs ‘‘for each fishery under 

its authority that requires conservation 

and management’’ (16 U.S.C. 

1852(h)(1)). If a stock in a fishery is 

determined to be overfished or subject 

to overfishing, it must be included in an 

FMP. Section 303(a)(2) of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that 

each FMP contain, among other things, 

a description of the species of fish 

involved in the fishery, and a ‘‘fishery’’ 

is defined as ‘‘one or more stocks of fish 

that can be treated as a unit for purposes 

of conservation and management and 

that are identified on the basis of 

geographic, scientific, technical, 

recreational, or economic 

characteristics’’ (16 U.S.C. 1802(13)). 

The National Standard 1 Guidelines 

provide further guidance that Councils 

should determine ‘‘which specific target 

stocks and/or non-target stocks to 

include in the fishery,’’ as well as 

whether it would be appropriate to 

designate any ‘‘ecosystem component 

species’’ (50 CFR 600.310(d)(l)). When 

considering which stocks ‘‘can be 

treated as a unit for purposes of 

conservation and management,’’ and 

therefore constitute a ‘‘fishery,’’ 

National Standard 3 requires that, ‘‘[t]o 

the extent practicable, an individual 

stock of fish shall be managed as a unit 

throughout its range, and interrelated 

stocks of fish shall be managed as a unit 

or in close coordination’’ (16 U.S.C. 

1851(a)(3)). The National Standard 3 

Guidelines further instruct that the 

choice of a management unit ‘‘depends 

on the focus of the FMP’s objectives, 

and may be organized around biological, 

geographic, economic, technical, social, 

or ecological perspectives’’ (50 CFR 

600.320(d)(l)). Additionally, 

conservation and management measures 

shall, where practicable, minimize costs 

and avoid unnecessary duplication (16 

U.S.C. 1851(a)(7)). Stocks in the fishery 

classifications must be monitored ‘‘on a 

regular basis’’ to determine whether 

reclassification through and 

Amendment to the FMP is necessary (50 

CFR 600.310(d)(6)). 

We considered whether the FMP’s 

definition of stocks in the fishery 

complied with the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act in relation to Amendment 4 to the 

FMP in response to a court order in 

Flaherty v. Pritzker, 2014 WL 642658 

(D.D.C. Feb. 19, 2014), and we found 

that it complied with the MagnusonStevens Act. The best available 

information at that time supported a 

conclusion that: It is impracticable to 

treat river herring and shad throughout 

their range in federal waters as a unit; 

there is insufficient information to 

support a finding that they are in need 

of conservation and management under 

the Magnuson-Stevens Act; and it 

would be impracticable and 

unnecessarily duplicative to undertake 

management and conservation of them 

in Federal waters at that time. 

The states have historically managed 

shad and river herring in state waters 

under the ASMFC’s Interstate Fishery 

Management Plan (ISFMP) for Shad and 

River Herring. In 1998, Amendment 1 to 

the ASMFC’s ISFMP for Shad and River 

Herring prohibited a commercial ocean 

fishery for American shad, established 

fishing mortality targets for specific 

American shad river fisheries, and 

established a daily fish limit in 

recreational fisheries for American shad 

and hickory shad. In 2009, Amendment 

2 to the ISFMP for Shad and River 

Herring required each state to close its 

rivers to river herring fishing unless that 

state could develop a plan that ensured 

that such fishing could be maintained at 

sustainable levels. Any such plans had 

to first be submitted to the ASMFC’s 

Shad and River Herring Management 

Board for approval before a state could 

open the river to fishing. State river 

herring fisheries without such plans 

were required to close by January 1, 

2012. In 2010, Amendment 3 to the 

ISFMP for Shad and River Herring 

established requirements for states to 

develop sustainable fishery plans in 

order to maintain a commercial 

American shad fishery. American shad 

fisheries without such plans were 

required to close by January 1, 2013. 

The ASMFC’s Shad and River Herring 

Management Board recommends river 

herring and shad management 

measures. At no time has the Shad and 

River Herring Management Board 

recommended that we create an FMP for 

river herring and shad in federal waters 

or designate river herring and/or shad as 

a stock in any Federal fishery. In the 

past, when the ASMFC believed that 

management in Federal waters was 

warranted, it requested the development 

of a Federal FMP, as in the case of 

lobster, striped bass, weakfish, and 

horseshoe crab. 

Information currently available 

supports a conclusion that it is 

impracticable to treat shad and river 

herring as a ‘‘unit’’ on a regional or 

coast-wide scale as contemplated by 

National Standard 3. ASMFC stock 

assessments evaluated individual rivers. 

The best available information suggests 

that river herring and shad from 

different natal rivers co-occur in the 

ocean, but the full extent and rate of 

mixing are uncertain. Catch data do not 

always differentiate between river 

herring and shad species and have not 

been determined to sufficiently link fish 

caught in the ocean with individual 

source rivers or stocks. 

The best available science is 

insufficient to support a finding that 

conservation and management of these 

stocks in Federal waters is necessary. 

The best available science for river 

herring was a 2012 benchmark 

assessment. This assessment found that 

of the 52 stocks of alewife and blueback 

herring for which data were available 

for use in the assessment, 23 were 

depleted from historic levels, 1 stock 

was increasing, and the status of 28 

other stocks could not be determined 

because of insufficient data. The 

assessment was insufficient to conclude 

overfishing was occurring or that the 

stocks were overfished. Depletion was 

used instead of overfished because of 

the many factors (e.g., water quality, fish 

passage, predation, habitat loss, and 

climate change) contributing to river 

herring’s declining abundance. Also, the 

river herring assessment provided only 

river-by-river information, and did not 

include information about stocks 

regionally or coast-wide. Likewise, the 

2007 shad stock assessment addressed 

stocks in 32 rivers. Of the 32 rivers, over 

half (19) were either stable or could not 

be determined. The assessments are 

available at: http://www.asmfc.org. The 

lack of adequate data prevented the 

ASMFC from developing estimates of 

abundance and fishing mortality in 

either assessment. The best scientific 

information currently available shows 

that encounters between the herring 

fishery in Federal waters and river 

herring are relatively rare (75 percent of 

sampled trips had no encounters), and 

that estimates about river herring catch 

in the herring fishery in Federal waters 

are highly variable and depend on gear, 

area, and season. Additionally, data 

suggest that vessels using small-mesh 

bottom trawl, and targeting species 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 233 / Thursday, December 4, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 71965 

other than Atlantic herring, are also 

encountering river herring. Because of 

the variability in encounters with river 

herring, there is a need for adequate 

sampling of the herring fishery by 

observers before any conclusions could 

be made based on the available 

information. In light of these significant 

data limitations, there is insufficient 

information to support a finding that 

river herring and shad are overfished or 

subject to overfishing. Further, given the 

scale and uncertainty associated with 

this information, including interactions 

between the herring fishery and river 

herring, there is insufficient information 

to support a finding that the river 

herring or shad stocks coast-wide 

otherwise require conservation and 

management. 

Information currently available 

demonstrates that conservation and 

management of river herring and/or 

shad in Federal waters would be 

impracticable and unnecessarily 

duplicative. The limited available stock 

status information is primarily related to 

state waters. Data on the incidental 

catch of river herring and shad in 

Federal waters are uncertain. Given 

these limitations, relying on the 

ASMFC’s management of river herring 

and shad is reasonable. As more 

information is gathered about the 

incidental catch of river herring and 

shad in Federal waters, and as stock 

status information is generated on a 

regional and/or coast-wide scale, the 

potential benefits of Federal 

management to these stocks, the 

regional economy, and competing 

stakeholder groups may outweigh the 

costs and duplication with ASMFC 

management. 

While this comment reflects public 

interest in river herring and shad, it is 

not objective, science-based information 

that would satisfy NMFS’s obligation to 

rely on the best available science. 

Typically, when new science is 

considered, it takes the form of a peerreviewed journal article or a peerreviewed stock assessment. Currently, 

the best available science on river 

herring and shad is the ASMFC’s stock 

assessments. Amendment 5 to the FMP 

implemented bycatch measures to 

address the FMP’s impact on river 

herring and shad and minimize bycatch 

of these species to the extent 

practicable. Those measures included 

increased at-sea sampling, bycatch 

accounting, promoting cooperative 

efforts with the industry to minimize 

bycatch, and set the foundation for 

implementing river herring and shad 

catch caps in this action. Data are not 

robust enough at this time to determine 

biologically-based river herring and 

shad catch caps and/or the potential 

impacts of such catch caps on the river 

herring and shad stocks. Setting a cap 

on the catch of these species in the 

herring fishery is a proactive action 

intended to manage and minimize catch 

to the extent practicable while allowing 

the herring fishery to continue to 

operate and fully utilize optimum yield 

in the upcoming fishing years, if river 

herring and shad can be avoided. The 

catch of river herring and shad in the 

herring fishery would likely be less 

under a catch cap. Additionally, there 

would be further incentive for the fleet 

to avoid river herring and shad to avoid 

triggering area closures resulting from 

the catch caps being fully harvested. 

Establishing river herring and shad as 

stocks in FMP and implementing all of 

the MSA required provisions would 

require an amendment and is not 

appropriate for this framework 

adjustment. The river herring and shad 

catch caps implemented in this action 

provide further incentive for the herring 

industry to avoid river herring and shad 

catch and minimize the FMP’s impact to 

the extent practicable. In light of the 

existing management of directed 

fisheries for river herring and shad in 

state waters through the ASMFC’s 

ISFMP, and the information currently 

available, we conclude that the 

Council’s decision to implement these 

catch caps while continuing the FMP’s 

designation of Atlantic herring as the 

only stock in the fishery is reasonable 

and complies with the MagnusonStevens Act. Further, the Council has 

added the consideration of whether it 

should include river herring and shad as 

stocks in the fishery in the FMP as one 

of several management priorities that it 

expects to address in the upcoming 

year. We have urged the Council to 

consider this issue and plan to 

encourage them to make this a priority 

action. If the Council finds that river 

herring and shad should be included as 

stocks in the FMP, it will initiate an 

amendment to do so. 

Comment 8: The Herring Alliance 

commented that NMFS must ensure that 

the methodology to set catch caps 

adheres to National Standard 2, 

National Standard 9, and the goals and 

objectives of Framework 3 (which the 

Herring Alliance stated is to reduce all 

catch—bycatch and incidental catch—of 

river herring and shad from recent 

levels). 

Response: NMFS has determined that 

the measures in Framework 3 are 

consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act, the FMP, and applicable laws. Part 

of this decision includes NMFS’s 

determination that the action is based 

on the best available science as required 

by National Standard 2, and helps the 

FMP minimize bycatch and bycatch 

mortality to the extent practicable, as 

required by National Standard 9. 

The Council considered the most 

recent assessments for river herring and 

shad when developing these catch caps. 

These assessments are the best available 

science for river herring and shad. Data 

do not appear to be robust enough to 

determine a biologically based catch cap 

for these species or the potential effects 

on these populations of a coastwide 

catch cap. Nevertheless, the Council 

determined that capping the allowed 

level of river herring and shad in the 

herring fishery should provide a further 

incentive for the industry to avoid river 

herring and shad and will help 

minimize encounters with these species. 

National Standard 9 Guidelines 

advise taking into account the net 

benefits to the nation of any proposed 

conservation and management measure, 

including: Negative impacts on affected 

stocks; incomes to fishery participants 

in directed fisheries; incomes accruing 

to those targeting the bycatch species; 

environmental consequences; nonmarket values of bycatch species (e.g., 

recreational values); and impacts on 

other marine organisms. River herring 

and shad are caught incidentally in the 

herring fishery. River herring and shad 

are forage species that play an important 

role in the ecosystem, providing a 

benefit to recreational fishermen, and 

are of great interest to numerous 

stakeholders. While they do occur in 

Federal waters and are encountered in 

the herring fishery, river herring and 

shad are not target species in the 

fishery, and their rate of bycatch is very 

low overall. Even the rate of incidental 

catch of river herring and shad is 

relatively low. Available information 

and analysis have not shown a strong 

connection between the effects of 

bycatch—either in the herring fishery or 

in other fisheries subject to Federal 

management—and the stocks of these 

species. 

Because discarding of river herring, 

shad, and other species does not 

generally occur after the fish is brought 

on board a vessel, the FMP and related 

measures in the Northeast Multispecies 

FMP use measures aimed at directly 

avoiding incidental catch of these 

species, thereby avoiding any possibility 

of bycatch or bycatch mortality. The 

Herring FMP also seeks to gather further 

information that may help design future 

avoidance measures while taking into 

account the net benefits to the nation of 

the herring fishery and its effect on 

other species, consistent with the 

National Standard Guidelines. A catch 

cap falls under the concept of reducing 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

71966 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 233 / Thursday, December 4, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

bycatch by providing an incentive to 

avoid the incidental catch of river 

herring and shad by triggering a low 

herring possession limit once the cap is 

reached. Amendment 5 included the 

measure to allow implementing a river 

herring catch cap through a framework 

or the specifications process as well as 

improvements in monitoring and 

avoidance measures. Monitoring and 

avoidance are critical steps to a better 

understanding of the nature and extent 

of incidental catch and bycatch in the 

herring fishery in order to sufficiently 

analyze and, if necessary, address 

bycatch issues. Because the seasonal 

and inter-annual distribution of river 

herring and shad is highly variable in 

time and space, the most effective 

measures to address river herring and 

shad bycatch and bycatch mortality are 

those that increase catch monitoring and 

incidental catch and bycatch 

accounting, promote cooperative efforts 

with the industry, and reduce economic 

impacts to minimize incidental catch, 

bycatch, and bycatch mortality to the 

extent practicable. We have concluded 

that these catch caps, in addition to 

other measures in the FMP, reduce 

bycatch and bycatch mortality to the 

extent practicable. 

Comment 9: The Herring Alliance 

commented that the best available 

science demonstrates that there are a 

number of approaches used to set catch 

limits in data poor species that are more 

appropriate than the methodology 

implemented in Framework 3, which is 

scaled up to achieve maximum herring 

catch. The Herring Alliance, Wild 

Oceans, and CHOIR commented that the 

cap should be biologically based, should 

be focused on the conservation of river 

herring and shad, and should reduce 

river herring and shad mortality. The 

Herring Alliance, Wild Oceans, and 

CHOIR recommended that the New 

England Council should request that the 

SSC review cap limits and the 

methodology used to set them. 

Response: Data do not appear robust 

enough to determine a biologicallybased cap at this time. Based on the best 

scientific information available, the 

Council determined, and NMFS agrees, 

that caps based on past performance of 

the herring fishery, scaled to the herring 

annual catch limit of 107,800 mt for 

2013–2015, is an acceptable limit on the 

amount of catch in the herring fishery. 

As the Council considers additional 

information on the biology of river 

herring and shad, it can use that 

information to try to establish catch 

caps directly tied to river herring and 

shad biology. 

Comment 10: The Herring Alliance, 

CHOIR, and Wild Oceans commented 

on various aspects of the FMP that are 

related to this action but are not within 

the scope of measures considered and 

approved as part of Framework 3. These 

include improvements to fishery 

observer provisions for the FMP, 

consideration of adding river herring 

and shad as stocks in the herring 

fishery, development of more robust 

catch monitoring provisions (not 

specific to river herring and shad), and 

development of consequences for 

vessels that dump catch at sea before it 

can be sampled by at-sea observers on 

herring vessels. Specifically, the 

commenters stated or implied that the 

measures that NMFS disapproved as 

part of Amendment 5 are integral to the 

effective monitoring and management of 

river herring and shad catch in the 

herring fishery. 

Response: NMFS is working with the 

Council to develop measures related to 

these issues. Some of these issues are 

currently being considered in 

Framework 4 to the FMP. Other issues, 

such as considering whether to add 

river herring and shad as stocks in the 

fishery may be addressed in future 

actions. Although NMFS understands 

the connection between these measures 

and the river herring and shad catch 

caps, these additional issues and 

measures are not within the scope of 

this action. 

Changes From Proposed Rule to Final 

Rule 

In § 648.2, NMFS is clarifying the 

definitions for herring and blueback 

herring by including a definition for 

blueback herring and removing 

blueback herring from the definition of 

‘‘Herring.’’ The proposed rule only 

included a definition for ‘‘river herring 

and shad’’ to include the four species of 

river herring and shad and their genus 

and species names. 

In § 648.7(b)(3)(i), NMFS clarifies that 

the requirement for herring vessels to 

report total catch retained by statistical 

area only applies to herring vessels that 

are fishing with midwater trawl or 

bottom trawl gear. The proposed rule 

would have required all herring vessels 

issued a limited access herring permit or 

an Areas 2/3 open access herring permit 

to report total catch retained regardless 

of the gear type they use. NMFS will use 

the ‘‘total catch retained’’ portion of the 

report to monitor catch caps for river 

herring and shad, and haddock, which 

only apply to vessels using midwater 

trawl or bottom trawl gear. NMFS does 

not need the total catch retained 

information for other gear types and is 

therefore not requiring them to report it. 

NMFS has also made some changes to 

the regulatory text in paragraphs as 

clarifications to the proposed rule. 

These changes do not modify the intent 

or the substance of the regulations. 

Clarifications are in sections and 

paragraphs: 648.7(b)(3)(i); 

648.14(r)(1)(ii)(B); 648.200(f)(6) and 

(f)(7)(ii); 648.201(a)(2), (a)(4)(i) and (ii); 

and 648.204(a)(1) through (5). 

Classification 

The Assistant Administrator for 

Fisheries, NOAA, has determined that 

this rule is consistent with the national 

standards and other provisions of the 

MSA and other applicable laws. 

The Assistant Administrator also 

finds that the need to immediately limit 

the amount of river herring and shad 

catch in the herring fishery constitutes 

good cause under authority contained in 

5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to waive the 30-day 

delay in effective date. There is good 

cause to implement the river herring 

and shad catch caps upon publication of 

this final rule The Council intended for 

the caps to be in place for as much of 

the 2014 herring fishing year as 

possible. Delaying the effectiveness of 

the river herring and shad catch caps 

may cause the caps to be implemented 

after the herring fishery has already 

harvested the herring catch allocated to 

it for 2014, thereby undermining the 

benefits of implementing the catch caps 

that were specified by the Council to 

take effect in 2014. The herring fishery 

opened for the 2014 fishing year on 

January 1, 2014, and the herring fishery 

has already harvested more than 80 

percent of the allocated catch for the 

year. The cap must be in place upon 

publication of this final rule in order to 

constrain river herring and shad catch 

on as much of the herring fishery in 

2014 as possible. If the herring fishery 

continues to operate without a cap 

through the rest of 2014 in Area 2 

primarily, the benefit of the caps in 

2014 will be forgone altogether if the 

herring fishery catches its remaining 

allocation before the final rule makes 

the river herring and shad caps 

effective. The Council submitted its 

final version of Framework 3 for NMFS 

review in March 2014, meaning that 

final NMFS action would occur well 

after the herring fishery was underway. 

As a result, NMFS intended from the 

outset to implement these measures 

upon publication due to the need and 

the public interest. Even though it is 

near the end of 2014 and only one area 

remains open (Area 2) to the herring 

fishery, NMFS believes that it is still 

important to implement the measures 

upon publication. These species have a 

high level of importance in the 

ecosytems, the public is extremely 

interested in measures to protect them, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 233 / Thursday, December 4, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 71967 

and this final rule implements measures 

that provide possible protection of these 

species from excessive catch in the 

herring fishery. 

The Office of Management and Budget 

has determined that this rule is not 

significant according to Executive Order 

12866. 

This final rule does not contain 

policies with federalism or ‘‘takings’’ 

implications, as those terms are defined 

in E.O. 13132 and E.O. 12630, 

respectively. 

NMFS, pursuant to section 604 of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), has 

completed a final regulatory flexibility 

analysis (FRFA) in support of 

Framework 3 in this final rule. The 

FRFA incorporates the IRFA, a summary 

of the significant issues raised by the 

public comments in response to the 

IRFA, NMFS responses to those 

comments, a summary of the analyses 

completed in the Framework 3 EA, and 

this portion of the preamble. A 

summary of the IRFA was published in 

the proposed rule for this action and is 

not repeated here. A description of why 

this action was considered, the 

objectives of, and the legal basis for this 

rule is contained in Framework 3 and in 

the preamble to the proposed and this 

final rule, and is not repeated here. All 

of the documents that constitute the 

FRFA are available from NMFS and a 

copy of the IRFA, the RIR, and the EA 

are available upon request (see 

ADDRESSES). 

Summary of the Significant Issues 

Raised by the Public Comments in 

Response to the IRFA, a Summary of the 

Assessment of the Agency of Such 

Issues, and a Statement of Any Changes 

Made in the Proposed Rule as a Result 

of Such Comments 

NMFS received no comments in 

response to the IRFA. 

Description and Estimate of Number of 

Small Entities To Which the Final Rule 

Will Apply 

On June 20, 2013, the Small Business 

Administration (SBA) issued a final rule 

revising the small business size 

standards for several industries effective 

July 22, 2013 (78 FR 37398). The rule 

increased the size standard for finfish 

fishing from $4.0 to $19.0 million, 

shellfish fishing from $4.0 to $5.0 

million, and other marine fishing from 

$4.0 to $7.0 million. The IRFA that the 

Council and NMFS developed for this 

action used the SBA size standards that 

became effective in July 2013. On June 

12, 2014, SBA issued an interim final 

rule revising the small business size 

standards for several industries effective 

July 14, 2014 (79 FR 33467). The rule 

increased the size standard from $19.0 

to $20.5 million for finfish fishing, from 

$5 to $5.5 million for shellfish fishing, 

and from $7.0 million to $7.5 million for 

other marine fishing, for-hire 

businesses, and marinas. 

This action will affect all limited 

access herring vessels (i.e., category A, 

B, or C permit). In 2012, there were 94 

fishing vessels that had a limited access 

herring permit. Vessels and/or permits 

may be owned by entities affiliated by 

stock ownership, common management, 

identity of interest, contractual 

relationships, or economic dependency. 

For the purposes of this analysis, 

affiliated ownership entities are 

determined by those entities with 

common ownership personnel as listed 

on permit application documentation. 

Only permits with identical ownership 

personnel are categorized as an 

ownership entity. For example, if five 

permits have the same seven personnel 

listed as co-owners on their application 

paperwork, those seven personnel form 

one ownership entity, covering those 

five permits. If one or several of the 

seven owners also own additional 

vessels, with different co-owners (i.e., 

either sub-sets of the original seven 

personnel or new co-owners), those 

ownership arrangements are deemed to 

be separate ownership entities for the 

purpose of this analysis. 

Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act, and prior to SBA’s June 12, 2014, 

interim final rule, NMFS prepared an 

IRFA for this action using SBA’s former 

size standards. Based on ownership 

criterion explained above and NMFS 

dealer-reported landings data for 3 years 

ending in 2012, and the July 2013 size 

standards for finfish and shellfish firms, 

the Council and NMFS determined that 

there are 72 directly regulated small 

entities and 6 large entities, as defined 

in section 601 of the RFA. Not all of 

these permitted firms were active: Only 

25 directly regulated small entities and 

4 large entities were actively fishing for 

herring during the last 3 years. NMFS 

has reviewed the analyses prepared for 

this action in light of the new size 

standards effective July 14, 2014. The 

new standards could result in no more 

than six additional entities being 

considered small. 

Taking this change into consideration, 

NMFS has identified no additional 

significant alternatives that accomplish 

statutory objectives and minimize any 

significant economic impacts of this 

action on small entities. Further, the 

new size standards do not affect the 

decision to prepare a FRFA for this 

action. The IRFA described that the 

alternatives to the proposed action 

would have no economic benefits, and 

in some cases may be more costly for all 

entities regardless of whether they are 

classified as small or large under SBA 

standards. Therefore, the addition of no 

more than six small entities would not 

change the assessment of impacts 

described in the IRFA and supported in 

this FRFA. 

Description of the Steps the Agency Has 

Taken To Minimize the Significant 

Economic Impact on Small Entities 

Consistent With the Stated Objectives of 

Applicable Statutes, Including a 

Statement of the Factual, Policy, and 

Legal Reasons for Selecting the 

Alternative Adopted in the Final Rule 

and Why Each One of the Other 

Significant Alternatives to the Rule 

Considered by the Agency Which Affect 

the Impact on Small Entities Was 

Rejected 

During the development of 

Framework 3, NMFS and the Council 

considered ways to reduce the 

regulatory burden on, and provide 

flexibility for, the regulated entities in 

this action. Proposed actions and 

alternatives are described in detail in 

Framework 3, which includes an EA, 

RIR, and IRFA (available at ADDRESSES). 

The measures implemented by this final 

rule minimize the economic impacts on 

small entities to the extent practicable. 

Overall, this rule minimizes economic 

impacts (i.e., directed fishery closures) 

by dividing catch caps across various 

areas. If a catch cap in a given area for 

a specific gear is reached, the measures 

implemented by this action will close 

only that area to that gear type. Thus, 

the catch cap measures avoid closing 

the directed herring fishery in all areas 

due to a single catch cap overage. This 

seeks to minimize negative impacts on 

fishing businesses reliant on gear types 

subject to directed herring fishery 

closures in terms of forgone profits. The 

extent of these impacts depends on 

when an area is closed to directed 

fishing relative to nearby areas available 

for directed herring fishing. Further, the 

catch caps are not likely to preclude 

herring fishing in all areas and will 

provide midwater trawl vessels an 

opportunity to fish in Herring 

Management Area 3 (Georges Bank) 

without a catch cap, thereby potentially 

mitigating some of the negative impacts. 

Small Entity Compliance Guide 

Section 212 of the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 

1996 states that, for each rule or group 

of related rules for which an agency is 

required to prepare a FRFA, the agency 

will publish one or more guides to assist 

small entities in complying with the 

rule, and will designate such 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

71968 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 233 / Thursday, December 4, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

publications as ‘‘small entity 

compliance guides.’’ The agency will 

explain the actions a small entity is 

required to take to comply with a rule 

or group of rules. As part of this 

rulemaking process, a letter to permit 

holders that also serves as a small entity 

compliance guide (the guide) was 

prepared. Copies of this final rule are 

available from the Greater Atlantic 

Regional Fisheries Office, and the guide 

(i.e., permit holder letter) will be sent to 

all holders of permits for the herring 

fishery. The guide and this final rule 

will be available upon request. 

Description of Projected Reporting, 

Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 

Requirements 

This action does not contain any new 

collection-of-information, reporting, 

recordkeeping, or other compliance 

requirements. This action does not 

duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any 

other Federal rules. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648 

Fisheries, Fishing, Recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements. 

Dated: November 21, 2014. 

Samuel D. Rauch III, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Regulatory Programs, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is amended 

as follows: 

PART 648—FISHERIES OF THE 

NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 648 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. 

■ 2. In § 648.2, the definition for 

‘‘herring’’ is removed and the 

definitions for ‘‘Blueback herring,’’ 

‘‘River herring,’’ and ‘‘Shad,’’ are added 

in alphabetical order to read as follows: 

§ 648.2 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Blueback herring means Alosa 

aestivalis. 

* * * * * 

River herring means alewife (Alosa 

pseudoharengus) and blueback herring 

(Alosa aestivalis). 

* * * * * 

Shad means American shad (Alosa 

sapidissima) and hickory shad (Alosa 

mediocris). 

* * * * * 

■ 3. In § 648.7, paragraph (b)(3)(i) 

introductory text is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 648.7 Recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(3) * * * 

(i) Atlantic herring owners or 

operators issued a limited access permit 

or Areas 2/3 open access permit. The 

owner or operator of a vessel issued a 

limited access permit or Areas 2/3 open 

access permit to fish for herring must 

report catch (retained and discarded) of 

herring daily via VMS, unless exempted 

by the Regional Administrator. The 

report shall include at least the 

following information, and any other 

information required by the Regional 

Administrator: Fishing Vessel Trip 

Report serial number; month and day 

herring was caught; pounds retained for 

each herring management area; and 

pounds discarded for each herring 

management area. Additionally, the 

owner or operator of a vessel issued a 

limited access permit or Areas 2/3 open 

access permit to fish for herring using 

midwater trawl or bottom trawl gear 

must report daily via VMS the estimated 

total amount of all species retained (in 

pounds, landed weight) by statistical 

area for use in tracking catch against 

catch caps (haddock, river herring and 

shad) in the herring fishery. Daily 

Atlantic herring VMS catch reports must 

be submitted in 24-hr intervals for each 

day and must be submitted by 0900 hr 

(9:00 a.m.) of the following day. Reports 

are required even if herring caught that 

day has not yet been landed. This report 

does not exempt the owner or operator 

from other applicable reporting 

requirements of this section. 

* * * * * 

§ 648.10 [Amended] 

■ 4. In § 648.10, paragraph (l) is 

removed and reserved. 

■ 5. In § 648.14, paragraph (r)(1)(ii)(B) is 

revised to read as follows: 

§ 648.14 Prohibitions. 

* * * * * 

(r) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(ii) * * * 

(B) Fish for, possess, transfer, receive, 

or sell; or attempt to fish for, possess, 

transfer, receive, or sell; more than 

2,000 lb (907.2 kg) of herring per trip; 

or land, or attempt to land more than 

2,000 lb (907.2 kg) of herring per day in 

or from a management area closed 

pursuant to § 648.201(a), or from a river 

herring and shad catch cap closure area 

that has been closed to specified gear 

pursuant to § 648.201(a)(4)(ii), if the 

vessel has been issued and holds a valid 

herring permit. 

* * * * * 

■ 6. In § 648.200, paragraph (a) 

introductory text is revised, paragraph 

(b)(6) is added, and paragraphs (f) and 

(g) are revised to read as follows: 

§ 648.200 Specifications. 

(a) The Atlantic Herring Plan 

Development Team (PDT) shall meet at 

least every 3 years, but no later than July 

of the year before new specifications are 

implemented, with the Atlantic States 

Marine Fisheries Commission’s 

(Commission) Atlantic Herring Plan 

Review Team (PRT) to develop and 

recommend the following specifications 

for a period of 3 years for consideration 

by the New England Fishery 

Management Council’s Atlantic Herring 

Oversight Committee: Overfishing Limit 

(OFL), Acceptable Biological Catch 

(ABC), Annual Catch Limit (ACL), 

Optimum yield (OY), domestic annual 

harvest (DAH), domestic annual 

processing (DAP), U.S. at-sea processing 

(USAP), border transfer (BT), the subACL for each management area, 

including seasonal periods as specified 

at § 648.201(d) and modifications to 

sub-ACLs as specified at § 648.201(f), 

the amount to be set aside for the RSA 

(from 0 to 3 percent of the sub-ACL from 

any management area), and river herring 

and shad catch caps, as specified in 

§ 648.201(a)(4). Recommended 

specifications shall be presented to the 

New England Fishery Management 

Council. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(6) River herring and shad catch caps 

may be allocated to the herring fishery 

by the following: Species, as defined in 

§ 648.2, either separately or combined; 

area as specified in paragraph (f)(7) of 

this section; vessel permit; gear type; or 

any combination of these. 

* * * * * 

(f) Management areas. The 

specifications process establishes subACLs and other management measures 

for the three management areas, which 

may have different management 

measures. Management Area 1 is 

subdivided into inshore and offshore 

sub-areas. The management areas are 

defined as follows: 

(1) Management Area 1 (Gulf of 

Maine): All U.S. waters of the Gulf of 

Maine (GOM) north of a line extending 

from a point at 41°39′ N. lat, 70°00′ W. 

long. to 42°53′ 14.32125′′ N. lat., 67° 44′ 

33.01613′′ W. long., thence northerly 

along the U.S.-Canada Maritime 

Boundary to the U.S.-Canadian border, 

to include state and Federal waters 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 233 / Thursday, December 4, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 71969 

adjacent to the states of Maine, New 

Hampshire, and Massachusetts. 

Management Area 1 is divided into Area 

1A (inshore) and Area 1B (offshore). The 

line dividing these areas is described by 

the following coordinates: 

Point Latitude Longitude Note 

1 ........ 41°58′ N 70° 00′ W 

2 ........ 42°38′ N 70° 00′ W 

3 ........ 42°53′ N 69° 40′ W 

4 ........ 43°12′ N 69° 00′ W 

5 ........ 43°40′ N 68° 00′ W 

6 ........ 43°58′16.0314′′ 

N 

67° 21′26.157′′ 

W 

(1) 

1Point 6 falls on the U.S.-Canada Maritime 

Boundary. 

(2) Management Area 2 (South 

Coastal Area): All state and Federal 

waters inclusive of sounds and bays, 

bounded on the east by 70°00′ W. long. 

and the outer limit of the U.S. Exclusive 

Economic Zone; bounded on the north 

and west by the southern coastline of 

Cape Cod, Massachusetts, and the 

coastlines of Rhode Island, Connecticut, 

New York, New Jersey, Delaware, 

Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina; 

and bounded on the south by a line 

following the lateral seaward boundary 

between North Carolina and South 

Carolina from the coast to the 

Submerged Lands Act line, 

approximately 33°48′46.37′′ N. lat, 

78°29′46.46′′ W. long., and then heading 

due east along 38°48′46.37′′ N. lat. to the 

outer limit of the US Exclusive 

Economic Zone. 

(3) Management Area 3 (Georges 

Bank): All U.S. waters east of 70°00′ W. 

long. and southeast of the line that runs 

from a point at 41°39′ N. lat. and 70°00′ 

W. long., northeasterly to U.S.-Canada 

Maritime Boundary at 42°53′14.32125′′ 

N. lat., 67°44′33.01613′′ W. long. 

(4) River Herring Monitoring/ 

Avoidance Areas—(i) January–February 

River Herring Monitoring/Avoidance 

Areas. The January–February River 

Herring Monitoring/Avoidance Areas 

include four sub-areas. Each sub-area 

includes the waters bounded by the 

coordinates below, connected in the 

order listed by straight lines unless 

otherwise noted. 

(A) January–February River Herring 

Monitoring/Avoidance Sub-Area 1. 

Point Latitude Longitude 

JF1A .... 43°00′ N 71°00′ W 

JF1B .... 43°00′ N 70°30′ W 

JF1C .... 42°30′ N 70°30′ W 

JF1D .... 42°30′ N 71°00′ W 

JF1A .... 43°00′ N 71°00′ W 

(B) January–February River Herring 

Monitoring/Avoidance Sub-Area 2. 

Point Latitude Longitude 

JF2A .... 42°00′ N 70°00′ W 

JF2B .... 42°00′ N 69°30′ W 

JF2C .... 41°30′ N 69°30′ W 

JF2D .... 41°30′ N 70°00′ W 

JF2A .... 42°00′ N 70°00′ W 

(C) January–February River Herring 

Monitoring/Avoidance Sub-Area 3. 

Point Latitude Longitude Note 

JF3A .... 41°30′ N 72°00′ W 

JF3B .... 41°30′ N 71°00′ W 

JF3C .... 40°30′ N 71°00′ W 

JF3D .... 40°30′ N 72°30′ W 

JF3E .... (1) 72°30′ W (3) 

JF3F .... (2) 72°00′ W (3) 

JF3A .... 41°30′ N 72°00′ W 

1The southernmost shoreline of Long Island, New York. 2The north-facing shoreline of Long Island, 

New York. 3Points JF3E and JF3F are connected following the coastline of the south fork of eastern Long Island, New York. 

(D) January–February River Herring 

Monitoring/Avoidance Sub-Area 4. 

Point Latitude Longitude Note 

JF4A .... 40°30′ N 74°00′ W 

JF4B .... 40°30′ N 72°30′ W 

JF4C .... 40°00′ N 72°30′ W 

JF4D .... 40°00′ N 72°00′ W 

JF4E .... 39°30′ N 72°00′ W 

JF4F .... 39°30′ N 73°30′ W 

JF4G .... 40°00′ N 73°30′ W 

JF4H .... 40°00′ N 74°00′ W (1) 

JF4A .... 40°30′ N 74°00′ W (1) 

1Points JF4H and JF4A are connected following 74 °W longitude and the easternmost 

shoreline of New Jersey, whichever is furthest 

east. 

(ii) March–April River Herring 

Monitoring/Avoidance Areas. The 

March–April River Herring Monitoring/ 

Avoidance Areas include five sub-areas. 

Each sub-area includes the waters 

bounded by the coordinates below, 

connected in the order listed by straight 

lines unless otherwise noted. 

(A) March–April River Herring 

Monitoring/Avoidance Sub-Area 1. 

Point Latitude Longitude 

MA1A ... 43°00′ N 71°00′ W 

MA1B ... 43°00′ N 70°30′ W 

MA1C ... 42°30′ N 70°30′ W 

MA1D ... 42°30′ N 71°00′ W 

MA1A ... 43°00′ N 71°00′ W 

(B) March–April River Herring 

Monitoring/Avoidance Sub-Area 2. 

Point Latitude Longitude 

MA2A ... 42°00′ N 70°00′ W 

MA2B ... 42°00′ N 69°30′ W 

MA2C ... 41°30′ N 69°30′ W 

MA2D ... 41°30′ N 70°00′ W 

Point Latitude Longitude 

MA2A ... 42°00′ N 70°00′ W 

(C) March–April River Herring 

Monitoring/Avoidance Sub-Area 3. 

Point Latitude Longitude Note 

MA3A ... 41°00′ N (1) 

MA3B ... 41°00′ N 71°00′ W 

MA3C .. 40°30′ N 71°00′ W 

MA3D .. 40°30′ N 71°30′ W 

MA3E ... 40°00′ N 71°30′ W 

MA3F ... 40°00′ N 72°30′ W 

MA3G .. (2) 72°30′ W (3) 

MA3A ... 41°00′ N (1) (3) 

1The easternmost shoreline of Long Island, 

New York. 2The southernmost shoreline of Long Island, New York. 3Points MA3G and MA3A are connected 

following the southern shoreline of Long Island, New York. 

(D) March–April River Herring 

Monitoring/Avoidance Sub-Area 4. 

Point Latitude Longitude 

MA4A ... 40°00′ N 73°30′ W 

MA4B ... 40°00′ N 72°30′ W 

MA4C ... 39°00′ N 72°30′ W 

MA4D ... 39°00′ N 73°30′ W 

MA4A ... 40°00′ N 73°30′ W 

(E) March–April River Herring 

Monitoring/Avoidance Sub-Area 5. 

Point Latitude Longitude Note 

MA5A ... 40°30′ N 74°00′ W 

MA5B ... 40°30′ N 73°30′ W 

MA5C .. 40°00′ N 73°30′ W 

MA5D .. 40°00′ N 74°00′ W (1) 

MA5A ... 40°30′ N 74°00′ W (1) 

1Points MA5D and MA5A are connected following 74 °W longitude and the easternmost 

shoreline of New Jersey, whichever is furthest 

east. 

(iii) May–June River Herring 

Monitoring/Avoidance Areas. The May– 

June River Herring Monitoring/ 

Avoidance Areas include two sub-areas. 

Each sub-area includes the waters 

bounded by the coordinates below, 

connected in the order listed by straight 

lines unless otherwise noted. 

(A) May–June River Herring 

Monitoring/Avoidance Sub-Area 1. 

Point Latitude Longitude 

MJ1A ... 44°00′ N 69°30′ W 

MJ1B ... 44°00′ N 69°00′ W 

MJ1C ... 43°30′ N 69°00′ W 

MJ1D ... 43°30′ N 69°30′ W 

MJ1A ... 44°00′ N 69°30′ W 

(B) May–June River Herring 

Monitoring/Avoidance Sub-Area 2. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

71970 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 233 / Thursday, December 4, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

Point Latitude Longitude 

MJ2A ... 42°00′ N 70°00′ W 

MJ2B ... 42°00′ N 69°30′ W 

MJ2C ... 41°30′ N 69°30′ W 

MJ2D ... 41°30′ N 70°00′ W 

MJ2A ... 42°00′ N 70°00′ W 

(iv) July–August River Herring 

Monitoring/Avoidance Areas. The July– 

August River Herring Monitoring/ 

Avoidance Areas include two sub-areas. 

Each sub-area includes the waters 

bounded by the coordinates below, 

connected in the order listed by straight 

lines unless otherwise noted. 

(A) July–August River Herring 

Monitoring/Avoidance Sub-Area 1. 

Point Latitude Longitude Note 

JA1A .... 44°00′ N 70°00′ W 

JA1B .... 44°00′ N 69°30′ W 

JA1C .... 43°00′ N 69°30′ W 

JA1D .... 43°00′ N 70°00′ W (1) 

JA1A .... 44°00′ N 70°00′ W (1) 

1The boundary from Points JA1D to JA1A 

excludes the portions Maquoit Bay and Middle 

Bay (Brunswick, ME) east of 70°00′ W. 

(B) July–August River Herring 

Monitoring/Avoidance Sub-Area 2. 

Point Latitude Longitude 

JA2A .... 44°00′ N 69°00′ W 

JA2B .... 44°00′ N 68°30′ W 

JA2C .... 43°30′ N 68°30′ W 

JA2D .... 43°30′ N 69°00′ W 

JA2A .... 44°00′ N 69°00′ W 

(v) September–October River Herring 

Monitoring/Avoidance Areas. The 

September–October River Herring 

Monitoring/Avoidance Areas include 

two sub-areas. Each sub-area includes 

the waters bounded by the coordinates 

below, connected in the order listed by 

straight lines unless otherwise noted. 

(A) September–October River Herring 

Monitoring/Avoidance Sub-Area 1. 

Point Latitude Longitude Note 

SO1A ... 44°30′ N 68°00′ W 

SO1B ... 44°30′ N (1) (2) 

SO1C ... 44°00′ N (3) (2) 

SO1D ... 44°00′ N 68°00′ W 

SO1A ... 44°30′ N 68°00′ W 

1The intersection of 44°30′ N and the U.S.- 

Canada Maritime Boundary. 2Point SO1B and Point SO1C are connected along the U.S.-Canada Maritime 

Boundary. 3The intersection of 44°00′ N and the U.S.- 

Canada Maritime Boundary. 

(B) September–October River Herring 

Monitoring/Avoidance Sub-Area 2. 

Point Latitude Longitude 

SO2A ... 43°00′ N 71°00′ W 

SO2B ... 43°00′ N 70°30′ W 

Point Latitude Longitude 

SO2C ... 42°30′ N 70°30′ W 

SO2D ... 42°30′ N 71°00′ W 

SO2A ... 43°00′ N 71°00′ W 

(vi) November–December River 

Herring Monitoring/Avoidance Areas. 

The November–December River Herring 

Monitoring/Avoidance Areas include 

two sub-areas. Each sub-area includes 

the waters bounded by the coordinates 

below, connected in the order listed by 

straight lines unless otherwise noted. 

(A) November–December River 

Herring Monitoring/Avoidance SubArea 1. 

Point Latitude Longitude Note 

ND1A ... 43°00′ N 71°00′ W 

ND1B ... 43°00′ N 70°00′ W 

ND1C ... 42°00′ N 70°00′ W 

ND1D ... 42°00′ N 69°30′ W 

ND1E ... 41°30′ N 69°30′ W 

ND1F ... 41°30′ N 70°00′ W 

ND1G .. (1) 70°00′ W (3) 

ND1H ... 42°00′ N (2) (3) 

ND1I .... 42°00′ N 70°30′ W 

ND1J ... 42°30′ N 70°30′ W 

ND1K ... 42°30′ N 71°00′ W 

ND1A ... 43°00′ N 71°00′ W 

1The south-facing shoreline of Cape Cod, 

Massachusetts. 2The west-facing shoreline of Cape Cod, 

Massachusetts. 3Point ND1G and ND1H are connected following the coastline of Cape Cod, 

Massachusetts. 

(B) November–December River 

Herring Monitoring/Avoidance SubArea 2. 

Point Latitude Longitude 

ND2A ... 41°30′ N 72°00′ W 

ND2B ... 41°30′ N 70°00′ W 

ND2C ... 40°30′ N 70°00′ W 

ND2D ... 40°30′ N 70°30′ W 

ND2E ... 41°00′ N 70°30′ W 

ND2F ... 41°00′ N 72°00′ W 

ND2A ... 41°30′ N 72°00′ W 

(5) Gulf of Maine Modified Haddock 

Stock Area. The Gulf of Maine Modified 

Haddock Stock Area is composed of the 

portions of Greater Atlantic Region 

Statistical Areas #464, #465, #511, #512, 

#513, #514, and #515 in U.S. waters, 

and is defined by the following points 

connected in the order listed by straight 

lines unless otherwise noted: 

Point Latitude Longitude Note 

A .......... (1) 67°00′ W 

B .......... (2) 67°00′ W (3) 

C .......... 42°20′ N (4) (3) 

D .......... 42°20′ N 70°00′ W 

E .......... (5) 70°00′ W (6) 

Point Latitude Longitude Note 

A .......... (1) 67°00′ W (6) 

1The intersection of 67°00′ W longitude and 

the southern coast of Maine. 2The intersection of 67°00′ W longitude and 

the U.S.-Canada Maritime Boundary. 3From POINT B to POINT C along the 

U.S.-Canada Maritime Boundary. 4The intersection of 42°20′ N latitude and 

the U.S.-Canada Maritime Boundary. 5The intersection of 70°00′ W longitude and 

the northeast-facing shoreline of Cape Cod, 

Massachusetts. 6From POINT E back to POINT A along the 

coastline of the United States. 

(6) Georges Bank Modified Haddock 

Stock Area. The Georges Bank Modified 

Haddock Stock Area is composed of 

Greater Atlantic Region Statistical Areas 

#521, #522, #525, #526, #561, and #562, 

and is defined by the following points 

connected in the order listed by straight 

lines unless otherwise noted: 

Point Latitude Longitude Note 

A .......... 42°20′ N 70°00′ W 

B .......... 42°20′ N (1) (2) 

C .......... 40°30′ N (3) (2) 

D .......... 40°30′ N 66°40′ W 

E .......... 39°50′ N 66°40′ W 

F .......... 39°50′ N 70°00′ W (4) 

A .......... 42°20′ N 70°00′ W (4) 

1The intersection of 42°20′ N latitude and 

the U.S.-Canada Maritime Boundary. 2From POINT B to POINT C following the 

U.S.-Canada Maritime Boundary. 3The intersection of 40°30′ N latitude and 

the U.S.-Canada Maritime Boundary. 4From POINT F back to POINT A along 

70°00′ W longitude and the coastlines of Nantucket Island and mainland Cape Cod, Massachusetts, whichever is further east. 

(7) River herring and shad catch cap 

areas—(i) Gulf of Maine Catch Cap 

Area. The Gulf of Maine Catch Cap Area 

is composed of the portions of Greater 

Atlantic Region Statistical Areas #464, 

#465, #467, #511, #512, #513, #514, and 

#515 in U.S. waters. The Gulf of Maine 

Catch Cap Area is bounded on the west 

by the coastline of the United States, 

bounded on the east by the U.S.-Canada 

Maritime Boundary, and bounded on 

the south by the following coordinates 

connected by straight lines in the order 

listed: 

Point Latitude Longitude 

A .......... (1) 70°00′ W 

B .......... 42°20′ N 70°00′ W 

C .......... 42°20′ N (2) 

1The intersection of 70°00′ W longitude and 

the northwest facing shoreline of Cape Cod, 

Massachusetts 2The intersection of 42°00′ N latitude and 

the U.S.-Canada Maritime Boundary. 

(ii) Cape Cod Catch Cap Area. The 

Cape Cod Catch Cap Area is composed 

of Greater Atlantic Region Statistical 

Area #521, and is defined by the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 233 / Thursday, December 4, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 71971 

following points connected in the order 

listed by straight lines unless otherwise 

noted: 

Point Latitude Longitude Note 

A .......... (1) 70°00′ W 

B .......... 42°20′ N 70°00′ W 

C .......... 42°20′ N 68°50′ W 

D .......... 41°00′ N 68°50′ W 

E .......... 41°00′ N 69°30′ W 

F .......... 41°10′ N 69°30′ W 

G .......... 41°10′ N 69°50′ W 

H .......... 41°20′ N 69°50′ W 

I ........... 41°20′ N (2) (3) 

J ........... (4) 70°00′ W (3) 

K .......... (5) 70°00′ W (6) 

A .......... (1) 70°00′ W (6) 

1The intersection of 70°00′ W longitude and 

the northeast-facing shoreline of Cape Cod, 

Massachusetts 2The intersection of 41°20′ N latitude and 

the northeast-facing shoreline of Nantucket Island. 3From Point I to Point J along the northeast-facing shoreline of Nantucket Island. 4The intersection of 70°00′ W longitude and 

the northeast-facing shoreline of Nantucket Island. 5The intersection of 70°00′ W longitude and 

the south-facing shoreline of mainland Cape 

Cod, Massachusetts. 6From Point K back to Point A along the 

east-facing shoreline of Cape Cod, 

Massachusetts. 

(iii) Georges Bank Catch Cap Area. 

The Georges Bank Catch Cap Area is 

composed of the portions of Greater 

Atlantic Region Statistical Areas #522, 

#525, #526, #541, #542, #543, #561, 

#562, and #640 in U.S. waters, and is 

defined by the following points, 

connected in the order listed by straight 

lines unless otherwise noted: 

Point Latitude Longitude Note 

A .......... (1) 70°00′ W 

B .......... (2) 70°00′ W (3) 

C .......... 41°20′ N (4) (3) 

D .......... 41°20′ N 69°50′ W 

E .......... 41°10′ N 69°50′ W 

F .......... 41°10′ N 69°30′ W 

G .......... 41°00′ N 69°30′ W 

H .......... 41°00′ N 68°50′ W 

I ........... 42°20′ N 68°50′ W 

J ........... 42°20′ N (5) (6) 

A .......... (1) 70°00′ W (6) 

1The intersection of 70°00′ W longitude and 

the outer limit of the U.S. Exclusive Economic 

Zone. 2The intersection of 70°00′ W longitude and 

the south-facing shoreline of Nantucket Island. 3From Point B to Point C along the southand east-facing shorelines of Nantucket Island. 4The intersection of 41°20′ N latitude and 

the northeast-facing shoreline of Nantucket Island. 5The intersection of 42°20′ N latitude and 

the U.S.-Canada Maritime Boundary. 6From Point J back to Point A along the 

U.S.-Canada Maritime Boundary and the outer 

limit of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone. 

(iv) Southern New England/MidAtlantic Catch Cap Area. The 

coordinates of this area are the same as 

Management Area 2 (South Coastal 

Area), as specified in paragraph (f)(2) of 

this section. 

(8) River herring and shad catch cap 

closure areas—(i) Gulf of Maine Catch 

Cap Closure Area. The coordinates of 

this area are the same as the Gulf of 

Maine Catch Cap Area, as specified in 

paragraph (f)(7)(i) of this section. 

(ii) Cape Cod Catch Cap Closure Area. 

The coordinates of this area are the 

same as the Cape Cod Catch Cap Area, 

as specified in paragraph (f)(7)(ii) of this 

section. 

(iii) Georges Bank Catch Cap Closure 

Area. The coordinates of this area are 

the same as the Georges Bank Catch Cap 

Area, as specified in paragraph (f)(7)(iii) 

of this section. 

(iv) Southern New England/MidAtlantic Catch Cap Closure Area. The 

Southern New England/Mid-Atlantic 

Catch Cap Closure Area is composed of 

the portions of Greater Atlantic Region 

Statistical Areas #537, #538, #539, #611, 

#612, #613, #614, #615, #616, #621, 

#622, #623, #625, #626, #627, #631, 

#632, #635, and #636 in US waters, and 

is defined by the following coordinates, 

connected by straight lines in the order 

listed unless otherwise noted: 

Point Latitude Longitude Note 

A .......... 35°00′ N (1) 

B .......... 35°00′ N 74°00′ W 

C .......... 37°00′ N 74°00′ W 

D .......... 37°00′ N 73°00′ W 

E .......... 38°00′ N 73°00′ W 

F .......... 38°00′ N 72°00′ W 

G .......... 39°00′ N 72°00′ W 

H .......... 39°00′ N 71°40′ W 

I ........... 39°50′ N 71°40′ W 

J ........... 39°50′ N 70°00′ W 

K .......... (2) 70°00′ W (3) 

A .......... 35°00′ N (1) (3) 

1The intersection of 35°00′ N latitude and 

the mainland shoreline of North Carolina. 2The intersection of 70°00′ W longitude and 

the south-facing shoreline of mainland Cape 

Cod, Massachusetts. 3From Point K back to Point A along the 

mainland shoreline of the United States. 

(g) All aspects of the following 

measures can be modified through the 

specifications process: 

(1) AMs; 

(2) Possession limits; 

(3) River Herring Monitoring/

Avoidance Areas; and 

(4) River herring and shad catch caps. 

■ 7. In § 648.201, paragraphs (a)(2) is 

revised, paragraph (a)(4) is added, and 

paragraph (e) is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 648.201 AMs and harvest controls. 

(a) * * * 

(2) When the Regional Administrator 

has determined that the GOM and/or GB 

incidental catch cap for haddock in 

§ 648.85(d) has been caught, no vessel 

issued a Federal Atlantic herring permit 

and fishing with midwater trawl gear in 

the applicable Accountability Measure 

(AM) Area, i.e., the Herring GOM 

Haddock AM Area or Herring GB 

Haddock AM Area, as defined in 

§ 648.86(a)(3)(ii)(A)(2) and (3) of this 

part, may fish for, possess, or land 

herring in excess of 2,000 lb (907.2 kg) 

per trip in or from the applicable AM 

Area, and from landing herring more 

than once per calendar day, unless all 

herring possessed and landed by a 

vessel were caught outside the 

applicable AM Area and the vessel’s 

gear is not available for immediate use 

as defined in § 648.2 while transiting 

the applicable AM Area. Upon this 

determination, the haddock possession 

limit is reduced to 0 lb (0 kg) in the 

applicable AM area for a vessel issued 

a Federal Atlantic herring permit and 

fishing with midwater trawl gear or for 

a vessel issued an All Areas Limited 

Access Herring Permit and/or an Areas 

2 and 3 Limited Access Herring Permit 

fishing on a declared herring trip, 

regardless of area fished or gear used, in 

the applicable AM area, unless the 

vessel also possesses a Northeast 

multispecies permit and is operating on 

a declared (consistent with § 648.10(g)) 

Northeast multispecies trip. 

* * * * * 

(4) River herring and shad catch cap. 

(i) The catch from all trips that land 

more than 6,600 lb (3 mt) of herring 

shall apply to the river herring and shad 

catch cap in the herring fishery. Caps by 

gear and by area shall be established 

through the specifications process 

described in § 648.201. 

(ii) Beginning on the date that NMFS 

projects that river herring and shad 

catch will reach 95 percent of a catch 

cap for specified gear applicable to an 

area specified in § 648.200(f)(7) for the 

remainder of the fishing year, NMFS 

shall prohibit vessels from fishing for, 

possessing, catching, transferring, or 

landing more than 2,000 lb (907.2 kg) of 

Atlantic herring per trip using the 

applicable gear in the applicable catch 

cap closure area, specified in 

§ 648.200(f)(8), and from landing herring 

more than once per calendar day, except 

as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of 

this section. NMFS shall implement 

these restrictions in accordance with the 

APA. 

* * * * * 

(e) Up to 500 mt of the Area 1A subACL shall be allocated for the fixed gear 

fisheries in Area 1A (weirs and stop 

seines) that occur west of 67°16.8′ W. 

long (Cutler, Maine). This set-aside shall 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

71972 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 233 / Thursday, December 4, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

be available for harvest by fixed gear 

within the specified area until 

November 1 of each fishing year. Any 

portion of this allocation that has not 

been utilized by November 1 shall be 

restored to the sub-ACL allocation for 

Area 1A. 

* * * * * 

■ 8. In § 648.204, paragraph (a) is 

revised to read as follows: 

§ 648.204 Possession restrictions. 

(a) A vessel must be issued and 

possess a valid limited access herring 

permit to fish for, possess, or land more 

than 6,600 lb (3 mt) of Atlantic herring 

from any herring management area in 

the EEZ, provided none of the harvest 

restrictions specified in § 648.201 has 

been implemented. 

(1) A vessel issued an All Areas 

Limited Access Herring Permit may fish 

for, possess, or land Atlantic herring 

with no possession restriction from any 

of the herring management areas 

defined in § 648.200(f), provided none 

of the accountability measures or 

harvest restrictions specified in 

§ 648.201 have been implemented. 

(2) A vessel issued only an Areas 2 

and 3 Limited Access Herring Permit 

may fish for, possess, or land Atlantic 

herring with no possession restriction 

only from Area 2 or Area 3, as defined 

in § 648.200(f), provided none of the 

accountability measures or harvest 

restrictions specified in § 648.201 have 

been implemented. Such a vessel may 

fish in Area 1 only if issued an open 

access herring permit or a Limited 

Access Incidental Catch Herring Permit, 

and only as authorized by the respective 

permit. 

(3) A vessel issued a Limited Access 

Incidental Catch Herring Permit may 

fish for, possess, or land up to, but no 

more than, 55,000 lb (25 mt) of Atlantic 

herring in any calendar day, and is 

limited to one landing of herring per 

calendar day, from any management 

area defined in § 648.200(f), provided 

none of the accountability measures or 

harvest restrictions specified in 

§ 648.201 have been implemented. 

(4) A vessel issued an All Areas Open 

Access Permit may fish for, possess, or 

land up to, but no more than, 6,600 lb 

(3 mt) of Atlantic herring from any 

herring management area per trip, and 

is limited to one landing of herring per 

calendar day, provided none of the 

accountability measures or harvest 

restrictions specified in § 648.201 have 

been implemented. 

(5) A vessel issued an Areas 2/3 Open 

Access Permit may fish for, possess, or 

land up to, but no more than, 20,000 lb 

(9 mt) of Atlantic herring from only 

Area 2 or Area 3, as defined in 

§ 648.200(f), per trip, and is limited to 

one landing of herring per calendar day, 

provided none of the accountability 

measures or harvest restrictions 

specified in § 648.201 have been 

implemented. 

(6) A vessel issued a herring permit 

may possess herring roe provided that 

the carcasses of the herring from which 

it came are not discarded at sea. 

* * * * * 

■ 9. In § 648.206, paragraphs (b)(36) and 

(37) are revised and (b)(38) is added to 

read as follows: 

§ 648.206 Framework provisions. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(36) River herring and shad catch 

caps, including species-specific caps, 

and vessels, permits, trips, gears, and 

areas to which caps apply; 

(37) River herring and shad Catch Cap 

Areas and Catch Cap Closure Areas; and 

(38) Any other measure currently 

included in the FMP. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2014–28131 Filed 12–2–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES