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

DATES: The rule is effective 12 a.m. local 

time August 28, 2017, through 11:59 

p.m. local time December 31, 2017. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Celia Barroso, NMFS West Coast Region, 

562–432–1850. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

United States is a member of the IATTC, 

which was established under the 

Convention for the Establishment of an 

Inter-American Tropical Tuna 

Commission signed in 1949 

(Convention). The Convention provides 

an international agreement to ensure the 

effective international conservation and 

management of highly migratory species 

of fish in the IATTC Convention Area. 

The IATTC Convention Area, as 

amended by the Antigua Convention, 

includes the waters of the EPO bounded 

by the coast of the Americas, the 50° N. 

and 50° S. parallels, and the 150° W. 

meridian. 

Fishing for Pacific bluefin tuna in the 

EPO is managed, in part, under the 

Tuna Conventions Act as amended 

(Act), 16 U.S.C. 951–962. Under the Act, 

NMFS must publish regulations to carry 

out recommendations of the IATTC that 

have been approved by the Department 

of State (DOS). Regulations governing 

fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance 

with the Act appear at 50 CFR part 300, 

subpart C. These regulations implement 

IATTC recommendations for the 

conservation and management of highly 

migratory fish resources in the EPO. 

In 2016, the IATTC adopted 

Resolution C–16–08, which establishes 

a 600 metric ton (mt) catch limit of 

Pacific bluefin tuna applicable to U.S. 

commercial fishing vessels in 2017 and 

2018, combined. Additionally, catch is 

not to exceed 425 mt in a single year; 

therefore, the annual limit in 2017 is 

425 mt. With the approval of the DOS, 

NMFS implemented this catch limit by 

notice-and-comment rulemaking under 

the Act (82 FR 18704, April 21, 2017, 

and codified at 50 CFR 300.25). 

NMFS, through monitoring landings 

data and other available information, 

has determined that the 2017 catch limit 

has been exceeded. In accordance with 

50 CFR 300.25(g), this Federal Register 

notice announces that the U.S. fishery 

for Pacific bluefin tuna in the IATTC 

Convention Area will be closed starting 

on August 28, 2017, through the end of 

the 2017 calendar year. The 2018 catch 

limit will be calculated by subtracting 

the amount caught in 2017 from 600 mt. 

During the closure, a U.S. fishing 

vessel may not be used to target, retain 

on board, transship, or land Pacific 

bluefin tuna captured in the IATTC 

Convention Area, except as follows: 

Any Pacific bluefin tuna already on 

board a fishing vessel on August 28, 

2017, may be retained on board, 

transshipped, and/or landed, to the 

extent authorized by applicable laws 

and regulations, provided all Pacific 

bluefin tuna are landed within 14 days 

after the effective date of this rule, that 

is, no later than September 11, 2017. 

Classification 

NMFS has determined there is good 

cause to waive prior notice and 

opportunity for public comment 

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). This 

action is based on the best available 

information and is necessary for the 

conservation and management of Pacific 

bluefin tuna. Compliance with the 

notice and comment requirement would 

be impracticable and contrary to the 

public interest because NMFS would be 

unable to ensure that the 2017 Pacific 

bluefin tuna catch limit is not further 

exceeded, and that biennial limit of 

600mt is also not exceeded. For the 

same reasons, NMFS has also 

determined there is good cause to waive 

the requirement for a 30-day delay in 

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

This action is required by § 300.25(a) 

and is exempt from review under 

Executive Order 12866. 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 951 et seq. 

Dated: August 23, 2017. 

Alan D. Risenhoover, 

Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2017–18157 Filed 8–23–17; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 648 

[Docket No. 161025999–7662–02] 

RIN 0648–BG42 

Fisheries of the Northeastern United 

States; Mid-Atlantic Unmanaged 

Forage Omnibus Amendment 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: NMFS partially approves and 

implements through regulations 

measures included in the Mid-Atlantic 

Unmanaged Forage Omnibus 

Amendment, as adopted by the MidAtlantic Fishery Management Council 

and approved by NMFS on June 13, 

2017. The purpose of this action is to 

prevent the development of new, and 

the expansion of existing, commercial 

fisheries on certain forage species until 

the Council has adequate opportunity 

and information to evaluate the 

potential impacts of forage fish harvest 

on existing fisheries, fishing 

communities, and the marine 

ecosystem. This final rule implements 

an annual landing limit, possession 

limits, and permitting and reporting 

requirements for Atlantic chub mackerel 

and certain previously unmanaged 

forage species and species groups 

caught within Mid-Atlantic Federal 

waters; allows vessels to transit MidAtlantic Federal waters with forage 

species caught in other areas; and 

identifies measures that can be revised 

through a future framework adjustment. 

DATES: This rule is effective September 

27, 2017 

ADDRESSES: The Council prepared an 

environmental assessment (EA) for the 

Mid-Atlantic Unmanaged Forage 

Omnibus Amendment that describes the 

Council’s preferred management 

measures and other alternatives 

considered and provides a thorough 

analysis of the impacts of the all 

alternatives considered. Copies of the 

Mid-Atlantic Unmanaged Forage 

Species Omnibus Amendment, 

including the EA, the Regulatory Impact 

Review, and the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act analysis are available from: 

Christopher Moore, Executive Director, 

Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management 

Council, Suite 201, 800 State Street 

Dover, DE 19901. The supporting 

documents are also accessible via the 

Internet at: 

• https://www.regulations.gov/

docket?D=NOAA-NMFS-2017-0013 

• https://www.greateratlantic.

fisheries.noaa.gov/regs/2017/April/17

ForageOmnibusAmendmentpr.html or 

• http://www.mafmc.org/actions/

unmanaged-forage. 

Copies of the small entity compliance 

guide prepared for this action 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: 

https://www.greateratlantic.

fisheries.noaa.gov/sustainable/species/

forage/index.html. 

Written comments regarding the 

burden-hour estimates or other aspects 

of the collection-of-information 

requirements contained in this final rule 

may be submitted to the Greater Atlantic 

Regional Fisheries Office and by email 

to OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov or 

fax to (202) 395–5806. 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES
40722 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 165 / Monday, August 28, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Douglas Christel, Fishery Policy 

Analyst, (978) 281–9141, fax (978) 281– 

9135. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On August 8, 2016, the Council 

adopted final measures under the MidAtlantic Unmanaged Forage Omnibus 

Amendment. On November 23, 2016, 

the Council submitted the amendment 

and draft EA to NMFS for preliminary 

review, with final submission of the 

draft amendment and EA on March 20, 

2017. NMFS published a Notice of 

Availability in the Federal Register on 

March 28, 2017 (82 FR 15311), 

informing the public that the Council 

had submitted this amendment to the 

Secretary of Commerce for review and 

approval. NMFS published a proposed 

rule that included implementing 

regulations on April 24, 2017 (82 FR 

18882). The public comment period for 

both the Notice of Availability and 

proposed rule ended on May 30, 2017. 

The Council developed the MidAtlantic Unmanaged Forage Omnibus 

Amendment and the measures 

described in the proposed rule under 

the discretionary provision specified in 

section 303(b)(12) of the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens 

Act) (16 U.S.C. 1801, et seq.; 

1853(b)(12)). The objective of this action 

is to prevent the development of new, 

and the expansion of existing, 

commercial fisheries on certain forage 

species until the Council has adequate 

opportunity and information to evaluate 

the potential impacts of forage fish 

harvest on existing fisheries, fishing 

communities, and the marine 

ecosystem. The two primary purposes of 

this action are to: (1) Advance an 

ecosystem approach to fisheries 

management in the Mid-Atlantic 

through consideration of management 

alternatives that would afford protection 

to currently unmanaged forage species 

by regulating landings and/or 

possession of those species; and (2) 

consider management alternatives to 

address data collection and reporting of 

landings of currently unmanaged forage 

species. Details concerning the 

development of these measures are 

contained in the EA prepared for this 

action and summarized in the preamble 

of the proposed rule, and, therefore, are 

not repeated here. 

Disapproved Measures 

Designation of Bullet and Frigate 

Mackerel as Ecosystem Component (EC) 

Species 

The Magnuson-Stevens Act permits 

NMFS to approve, partially approve, or 

disapprove measures proposed by the 

Council based only on whether the 

measures are consistent with the fishery 

management plan, the MagnusonStevens Act and its National Standards, 

and other applicable law. Following the 

consideration of public comment and 

additional review of this action and 

supporting analysis, NMFS concluded 

that the inclusion of bullet and frigate 

mackerel as EC species is inconsistent 

with National Standard 2 of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act regarding the 

use of best available scientific 

information. 

The best available scientific 

information presented for this 

amendment does not support the 

proposed designation of bullet and 

frigate mackerel as forage for species 

managed by the Council. Because this 

action is an amendment to the Council’s 

existing FMPs, the species that are 

included in the amendment must be a 

forage species and also must be linked 

to one or more FMP fisheries, either as 

prey for the managed species or as 

bycatch in the managed fisheries. This 

is consistent with our understanding of 

Council intent, as documented in the 

March 2016 Fishery Management 

Action Team meeting summary. As a 

result, NMFS asserted that this 

amendment needed to establish a logical 

connection between the species 

proposed as forage and at least one 

managed species. During the 

development of this action and in the 

proposed rule, NMFS advised the 

Council and the public that bullet and 

frigate mackerel do not meet the criteria 

used to identify forage for species 

regulated by the Council. 

Although the Council did not rely 

exclusively on the forage criteria 

identified by the Council’s Scientific 

and Statistical Committee (SSC), as 

summarized in Table 5 of the EA, the 

forage criteria served as the initial 

foundation for evaluating species to 

include in this action. These criteria 

establish general parameters, including 

adult size, trophic level, and whether 

the species comprised a considerable 

portion of the diet of other predators, 

among other criteria, to determine 

whether a species is forage for another 

species. The adult sizes of bullet and 

frigate mackerel (20–24 inches (51–61 

cm) total length) are larger than the size 

ranges identified for other forage species 

included in this action, which average 

7 inches (18 cm) in total length. Thus, 

the adult sizes of bullet and frigate 

mackerel are more than double the 

forage fish size range recommended by 

the Council’s SSC (1–10 inches (2–25 

cm) total length). Bullet and frigate 

mackerel feed on most of the other 

forage species included in this 

amendment, confirming their higher 

tropic classification. This is inconsistent 

with the SSC’s classification criteria that 

forage species are typically low to mid 

tropic level species that consume very 

small prey less than 1-inch long (2–2.5 

cm), typically zooplankton and or small 

benthic invertebrates. While the 

amendment includes some information 

suggesting that these species are 

consumed by large pelagic species such 

as tunas, billfish, and sharks, it is not 

clear what portion of the diet of these 

species that bullet and/or frigate 

mackerel represent. As a result, while 

bullet and frigate mackerel may be prey 

for large pelagic species, it is unknown 

whether they constitute forage for large 

pelagic species in the marine ecosystem, 

as defined by the SSC. Finally, even 

applying the lower forage thresholds 

used by the Council (i.e., the presence 

of forage species in at least two stomach 

content samples over a 40-year period of 

NMFS surveys), there is no scientific 

evidence presented in this amendment 

that indicates bullet and frigate 

mackerel are forage for managed 

species. Thus, the best available 

scientific information does not support 

the classification of these species as 

forage for managed species, and NMFS 

determined that including them would 

be inconsistent with National Standard 

2 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. 

Other criteria considered by the 

Council to classify forage species for 

this amendment include the presence of 

such species as bycatch in managed 

fisheries and the potential for 

commercial exploitation. While there is 

evidence that a small amount of bullet 

mackerel was caught with bottom trawl 

gear that resulted in the landings of 

species managed by the Council, the 

information and analysis indicate cooccurrence that is not necessarily 

indicative of systematic bycatch in those 

fisheries. Many unmanaged species cooccur with managed species, but that 

does not make them forage for the 

managed species or susceptible to 

routine bycatch in targeted fisheries for 

managed species. NMFS concluded that 

available information is not sufficient to 

suggest that bullet mackerel are 

systematically caught as bycatch in 

managed fisheries. With no dealer 

reported landings of bullet mackerel, 

and an average of less than 7,500 lb (3.4 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 165 / Monday, August 28, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 40723 

mt) of frigate mackerel reported landed 

each year between 1996–2015, 

including several years when less than 

1,000 lb (0.4 mt) was landed, there is 

limited information to support that 

these species are caught as bycatch in 

managed fisheries or will be subject to 

commercial exploitation at this time. 

Finally, the best available information 

does not support the Council’s 

determination that bullet and frigate 

mackerel should be classified as EC 

species based upon the National 

Standard Guidelines at 50 CFR 600.305. 

As defined in § 600.305(d)(11) and 

noted during the April 2016 Council 

meeting, EC species should not include 

target stocks that are caught for sale or 

personal use. However, the amendment 

includes evidence that bullet and frigate 

mackerel are caught and sold by 

commercial vessels and are retained for 

personal use as bait by recreational 

fisheries in Federal waters, creating 

competing interests and conflicts among 

user groups, both of which are criteria 

that could exclude consideration of 

bullet and frigate mackerel as EC species 

under the National Standard Guidelines. 

The Council could consider alternative 

mechanisms to protect and manage 

these and other similar species, such as 

little tunny/false albacore and bonito, 

for the benefits they provide to the 

marine ecosystem and important 

commercial and recreational fisheries 

within the Mid-Atlantic. This is 

consistent with the May 19, 2017, 

discussion by the Ecosystem and Ocean 

Planning Committee (EOPC). If the 

Council believes that these species 

require conservation and management, a 

small tuna FMP or a broader ecosystem 

based management action may be a 

more effective vehicle to manage these 

species than an amendment predicated 

on protecting forage for managed 

species. This would allow the Council 

to develop a management approach and 

measures that would reflect the unique 

role these species play in the marine 

ecosystem, and to better integrate the 

concerns of and impacts to the 

predominantly recreational fishery for 

these species. Such an approach is 

supported by not only the EOPC, but 

also by members of the public 

commenting on this action. 

Approved Measures 

1. Designation of Certain Mid-Atlantic 

Forage Species as Ecosystem 

Component Species 

This action designates the following 

forage species and species groups as EC 

species in all of the FMPs under the 

Council’s jurisdiction: 

• Anchovies (family Engraulidae) 

• Argentines (family Argentinidae) 

• Greeneyes (family 

Chlorophthalmidae) 

• Halfbeaks (family Hemiramphidae) 

• Herrings and Sardines (family 

Clupeidae) 

• Lanternfishes (family Myctophidae) 

• Pearlsides (family Sternoptychidae) 

• Sand lances (family Ammodytidae) 

• Silversides (family Atherinopsidae) 

• Cusk-eels (order Ophidiiformes) 

• Atlantic Saury-Scomberesox saurus 

• Pelagic Mollusks (except Sharptail 

Shortfin Squid) 

• Copepods, Krill, Amphipods, and 

Other Species Under One Inch as 

Adults 

The Magnuson-Stevens Act contains 

no requirements to designate EC 

species. To minimize confusion and 

reflect the purpose of this action to 

manage forage species, these species 

will be collectively referred to as ‘‘MidAtlantic forage species’’ for the 

remainder of this preamble discussion 

and in the final regulatory text. 

2. Permit and Reporting Requirements 

This action requires any commercial 

vessel, operator, or dealer that lands or 

sells Mid-Atlantic forage species and 

Atlantic chub mackerel to comply with 

existing Federal permit and reporting 

requirements. Any commercial fishing 

vessel that possesses, lands, or sells 

Mid-Atlantic forage species or chub 

mackerel caught in Federal waters from 

New York through Cape Hatteras, North 

Carolina (an area referred to as the 

‘‘Mid-Atlantic Forage Species 

Management Unit’’ below and in the 

regulations), must be issued a valid 

commercial fishing vessel permit issued 

by the Greater Atlantic Regional 

Fisheries Office (GARFO). Any 

commercial vessel operator fishing for 

or possessing these species in or from 

the Mid-Atlantic Forage Species 

Management Unit must obtain and 

retain on board a valid operator permit 

issued by GARFO. Similarly, a seafood 

dealer purchasing and selling these 

species must obtain a valid commercial 

seafood dealer permit issued by GARFO. 

Vessel operators and dealers are 

required to report the catch and sale of 

these species and species groups on 

existing vessel trip reports (logbooks) 

and dealer reports, respectively. NMFS 

and Council staff prepared a species 

identification guide to help vessel 

operators and dealers differentiate 

among these forage species and identify 

the codes needed to accurately report 

these on vessel logbooks and dealer 

reports. We will send this guide to all 

vessels that landed in Mid-Atlantic 

ports during 2016 and make it available 

on both the GARFO and Council Web 

sites (see ADDRESSES) and through your 

local NMFS port agent office (see 

https://

www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/ 

sed/portagents/portagents.html). 

The permit and reporting 

requirements mentioned above for 

vessels, operators, and dealers fishing 

for, possessing, and purchasing chub 

mackerel are effective through 

December 31, 2020, unless overwritten 

by another Council or NMFS action. 

This is because the Council is currently 

developing potential long-term 

measures and assembling the scientific 

information necessary to consider 

formally integrating chub mackerel as a 

stock in the fishery managed under the 

Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish 

FMP. 

3. Annual Landing Limits 

This action sets an annual landing 

limit of 2.86 million lb (1,297 mt) for 

Atlantic chub mackerel. All landings of 

chub mackerel in ports from Maine 

through North Carolina will count 

against the annual landings limit. NMFS 

will close the directed fishery for chub 

mackerel in the Mid-Atlantic Forage 

Species Management Unit once the 

Regional Administrator determines that 

100 percent of the chub mackerel 

annual landing limit has been 

harvested. After the closure of the 

directed fishery, vessels would be 

subject to the chub mackerel incidental 

possession limit described below. As in 

the case for the permit and reporting 

requirements, the chub mackerel annual 

landing limit is effective through 

December 31, 2020, unless overwritten 

by a future Council or NMFS action. 

4. Possession Limits 

This action establishes a 1,700-lb 

(771-kg) combined possession limit for 

all Mid-Atlantic forage species (see the 

list of EC species listed above) caught 

within the Mid-Atlantic Forage Species 

Management Unit. Initially, commercial 

vessels are not subject to a possession 

limit for chub mackerel. However, once 

the chub mackerel annual landing limit 

is harvested, NMFS will implement a 

40,000-lb (18,144-kg) chub mackerel 

possession limit in the Mid-Atlantic 

Forage Species Management Unit. As in 

the case for the annual landing limit, the 

chub mackerel incidental possession 

limit will expire on December 31, 2020, 

unless overwritten by a future Council 

or NMFS action. 

5. Transit Provision 

This action allows a vessel issued a 

Federal commercial fishing permit from 

GARFO that possesses Mid-Atlantic 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES
40724 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 165 / Monday, August 28, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

forage species and chub mackerel in 

excess of the proposed possession limits 

to transit the Mid-Atlantic Forage 

Species Management Unit in certain 

circumstances. The following three 

conditions must be met to transit 

through the management unit: (1) 

Forage species were harvested outside 

of the Mid-Atlantic Forage Species 

Management Unit; (2) the vessel lands 

in a port that is outside of the MidAtlantic Forage Species Management 

Unit (i.e., north of New York or south 

of Cape Hatteras, North Carolina); and 

(3) all gear is stowed and not available 

for immediate use. The transiting 

provision for vessels possessing chub 

mackerel is effective through December 

31, 2020, unless overwritten by a future 

Council or NMFS action. 

6. Administrative Measures 

This action allows the Council to 

modify the list of EC species, annual 

landing limits, and possession limits for 

Mid-Atlantic forage species and chub 

mackerel through a framework 

adjustment to applicable FMPs rather 

than through an amendment to these 

FMPs. Although the preamble of the 

proposed rule did not indicate that the 

list of EC species could be modified 

through a framework action, the 

proposed regulations did indicate that 

the list of Mid-Atlantic forage species 

(the same as the EC species listed above) 

could be modified in a framework 

action. 

Under this action, the Council 

establishes a policy that requires use of 

an experimental fishing permit (EFP) to 

support any new fishery or the 

expansion of existing fisheries for MidAtlantic forage species. The Council 

would consider the results of any 

experimental fishing activity and other 

relevant information before deciding 

how to address future changes to the 

management of fisheries for MidAtlantic forage species. Pursuant to 

existing regulations at § 648.12, the 

Regional Administrator already consults 

with the Council’s Executive Director 

before approving any exemption under 

an EFP request. 

Comments and Responses 

During the public comment periods 

for the Notice of Availability and the 

proposed rule for this amendment, we 

received 11,519 comments from 11,510 

individuals. This included 11,484 form 

letters from Pew Charitable Trusts; 

comments from representatives of three 

commercial fishing entities/groups 

(Seafreeze Ltd., Lund’s Fisheries 

Incorporated, and the Garden State 

Seafood Association (GSSA)); comments 

from three environmental organizations 

(Pew Charitable Trusts, Wild Oceans, 

and the Audubon Society); and 

comments from the Office of 

Management and Budget. Two 

individuals expressed general 

opposition to the rule, while 11,506 

individuals supported the action and 11 

individuals supported some, but not all 

of the proposed measures. The 

following discussion summarizes the 

issues raised in the comments that were 

relevant to this action and associated 

NMFS’s responses. Please note that, 

pursuant to section 304(a)(3) of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act, when NMFS 

considers the responses to comments, 

NMFS may only approve or disapprove 

measures proposed in a particular 

fishery management plan, amendment, 

or framework adjustment, and may not 

change or substitute any measure in a 

substantive way. 

General Comments 

Comment 1: One individual expressed 

disappointment that the Council waited 

six years to protect forage species, 

indicating that the Council should have 

acted sooner. 

Response: We are satisfied with the 

amount of time that the Council took to 

develop this action, and contend that 

the measures implemented by this final 

rule will provide meaningful protection 

to important forage species in the MidAtlantic. The Council identified the 

need to protect forage species as part of 

its strategic planning and visioning 

process in 2011, and initiated this 

action in 2014, shortly after receiving 

guidance about how to manage forage 

species from its SSC. Because this was 

the first management action to 

specifically manage forage species in the 

Atlantic Ocean, the Council conducted 

extensive outreach to solicit public 

input during the development of this 

action. This action represents proactive 

steps by the Council to protect 

previously unmanaged forage species 

and prevent the initiation or further 

development of commercial fisheries on 

these species as it collects information 

on the importance of these species to 

fisheries communities and the 

ecosystem. 

Comment 2: One individual was 

concerned that the proposed measures 

would not become effective until 2020. 

Response: The comment is incorrect; 

all measures approved in this final rule 

are effective on September 27, 2017. As 

noted above, the Atlantic chub mackerel 

measures will expire on December 31, 

2020, three years after implementation, 

to incentivize the Council to develop 

long-term management measures to 

formally integrate this species into the 

Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish 

FMP. 

Comment 3: Two individuals were 

concerned that climate change, 

including ocean acidification, will 

destroy fish habitat and negatively 

impact forage fish, sea birds, and marine 

mammals, with one individual 

suggesting the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) should protect our air and 

water. 

Response: Recent NMFS studies 

recognize that certain species are more 

vulnerable than others to climate change 

and associated effects to habitat. While 

stock assessments and management 

measures can consider the impacts of 

climate change, NMFS is not authorized 

to regulate the sources of air and water 

pollution referenced in these comments. 

The EPA develops regulations and 

policies aimed at reducing air and water 

pollution. 

Comment 4: One individual suggested 

that forage fish should be limited to 

processing as food, not fish meal or fish 

oil. 

Response: Because the Council did 

not impose any restrictions on the use 

or processing of forage species in this 

action, NMFS does not have the 

authority to impose such restrictions 

through this final rule. 

Comment 5: Seven individuals, along 

with 11,484 form letters from Pew, 

expressed general support for this 

action. Three individuals indicated that 

forage fish are a vitally important 

component to the ecology of our oceans 

through their role of energy transferors 

and as the primary food source for larger 

fish, marine mammals, and humans. A 

separate comment from Pew indicated 

that forage fish are the bedrock of 

coastal economies, jobs, recreation, and 

seafood, and that protecting them 

through this action is an important step 

toward ecosystem based fisheries 

management. The Audubon Society 

commented that seabirds depend on 

forage species, especially small, 

schooling fish that are protected by this 

amendment. They provided a list of 15 

seabird species that rely upon forage 

fish for 20 percent or more of their diet. 

The 11,484 Pew form letters indicated 

that, due to reductions in the 

availability and catch rates of other 

stocks, vessels will target unmanaged 

species, which would negatively affect 

those species and predators of those 

species. Similarly, one individual 

indicated that this amendment would 

help prevent the commercial fishing 

industry from fishing down the food 

web. 

Response: We agree that forage 

species are an integral part of the marine 

ecosystem, and that excessive catch of 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 165 / Monday, August 28, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 40725 

forage species will have negative 

impacts not only on predators such as 

fish, sea birds, and marine mammals, 

but also on fishing communities that 

rely upon predators of forage species for 

important commercial and recreational 

fisheries. That is why the Council 

initiated this action as part of its efforts 

to integrate ecosystem approaches to 

fisheries management. We recognize 

that restrictions in targeted fisheries 

potentially could increase fishing effort 

on other unmanaged species, such as 

the forage species listed in this action. 

By preventing the creation of new or 

expansion of existing commercial 

fisheries on previously unmanaged 

forage species, this action minimizes the 

risk of fishing down the food web. 

Comment 6: One individual 

recommended that we use caution when 

allowing additional fishing to occur on 

forage species until we know more 

about the impacts of fishing on these 

species. Another individual indicated 

that NMFS must achieve a sustainable 

balance between species regeneration 

and harvest of forage fish. 

Response: One of the primary 

purposes of this action is to maintain 

recent catch levels until we can collect 

additional data on the catch and 

landings of these previously unmanaged 

forage species. The data collected 

through the vessel logbook and dealer 

reporting requirements implemented by 

this action will help the Council make 

more informed decisions in the future 

regarding the appropriate levels of catch 

for such species. Further, this action 

adopts a policy that requires use of an 

EFP and subsequent Council review 

before considering any new fisheries or 

expansion of existing fisheries for MidAtlantic forage species. 

Comment 7: One individual was 

concerned that by managing these 

species, fishermen would be held 

responsible for declines in abundance. 

This individual suggested that there are 

no plans to examine how environmental 

factors affect forage species or predators, 

and that this action does not assess the 

impacts of factory ships on the 

ecosystem, only impacts of small boats. 

Response: We disagree with this 

commenter. The EA prepared for this 

action includes a cumulative effects 

analysis (Section 7.6 of the EA), as 

required by the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) and the Council on 

Environmental Quality regulations. This 

analysis considers the impacts of nonfishing activities such as climate 

change, point and non-point source 

pollution, shipping, dredging, storm 

events, and other factors on the physical 

and biological dimensions of the 

environment. The impacts of these nonfishing activities are considered in the 

development of all fishery management 

actions. Further, environmental factors 

along with mortality resulting from 

fishing activities are considered when 

developing a stock assessment and 

determining the appropriate levels of 

catch for managed species. Depending 

on the species, fishing may not be the 

primary source of mortality, and this 

will influence the measures necessary to 

sustain that species. This action will 

help collect data to help determine the 

scale of fishing mortality on these forage 

species should the Council determine 

that these species require conservation 

and management in the future. Finally, 

while the EA does not explicitly 

evaluate the impacts of ‘‘factory ships’’ 

on the ecosystem, Section 7 of the EA 

evaluates the impacts of fishery 

operations of all sizes of vessels that fish 

within Federal waters on all aspects of 

the marine environment, including 

target and non-target species, 

endangered species, marine mammals, 

and habitat. 

Comment 8: One individual suggested 

that all fisheries management decisions 

must be guided by peer reviewed 

scientific analysis to drive rational 

decisions. 

Response: Fishery management 

decisions must be based upon the best 

scientific information available, as 

required by National Standard 2 of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act. The best 

available scientific information can take 

many forms and does not always take 

the form of peer reviewed analysis. All 

fishery measures are developed, 

analyzed, and reviewed by Council and 

NMFS staff, external scientists, 

academic researchers, industry 

representatives, and others with 

scientific expertise. 

Comment 9: Seafreeze Ltd. expressed 

concern that measures were not based 

on a scientific threshold for determining 

whether a species is a forage species in 

this amendment. It noted that the 

Council did not use the SSC’s dietary 

threshold in its definition of forage 

species (forage species represent greater 

than five percent of an animal’s diet for 

more than five years), suggesting that a 

lack of a threshold or consistent diet 

data calls into question the purpose of 

this action. 

Response: As noted above, the 

Council did not rely exclusively upon 

the SSC’s forage species criteria to 

inform its decision to include forage 

species for this action, although the 

SSC’s criteria did serve as the starting 

point for Council consideration. Section 

4.2 of the EA prepared for this action 

notes that there were ‘‘no uniform 

quantitative metrics available to 

compare the trophic level of a number 

of forage species, or to assess the 

number of trophic linkages for each 

species.’’ Instead, the Council 

determined how to best evaluate the 

SSC’s and other criteria used to define 

forage species. The Council used 

alternative dietary criteria due to the 

diversity of diet for many species. 

Specifically, the SSC’s dietary criteria 

would have reduced the list of forage 

species to only a few species, many of 

which are not found in Federal waters. 

As a result, any proposed measures to 

protect such a limited list of forage 

species would not likely have been 

effective or offer much benefit to 

managed species important to 

commercial and recreational fisheries 

managed by the Council. Accordingly, 

the Council used a lower threshold to be 

more inclusive of forage species in this 

action, while still prioritizing protection 

for species that had the greatest 

potential to support future large-scale 

commercial fisheries. 

Comment 10: The Garden State 

Seafood Association (GSSA) was critical 

of the amendment’s purpose and goals, 

indicating that there is no biological 

benefit from the proposed measures. 

This group suggested that NMFS should 

delay the implementation of this final 

rule until measurable goals can be 

identified. 

Response: We disagree that there is no 

biological benefit from this action. 

Although this action maintains existing 

catch levels for forage species, in the 

long-term, this action will help maintain 

sustainable populations of several forage 

species for various predators, including 

Council-managed predators, protected 

species predators, and seabirds. The 

purposes of this action are to prevent 

the expansion of existing and the 

development of future commercial 

fisheries for certain forage species while 

the Council collects the information it 

needs to assess the impacts to existing 

fisheries, fishing communities, and the 

marine ecosystem. The measures 

implemented by this action do exactly 

that. Because data have not been 

collected on the catch of these species, 

it is difficult to quantitatively assess the 

impacts of forage species on predators, 

the marine ecosystem, and communities 

at this time. Therefore, implementation 

of reporting requirements through this 

final rule will provide the information 

the Council and NMFS need to assess 

catch of these species and develop more 

effective measures in the future, as 

necessary. 

Comment 11: Seafreeze Ltd. and 

Lund’s Fisheries Incorporated are 

concerned that state permitted vessels 

do not have similar restrictions on the 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES
40726 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 165 / Monday, August 28, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

catch of forage species, with Lund’s 

Fisheries suggesting that this creates 

two classes of fishermen and penalizes 

those with a Federal permit from selling 

forage species. Lund’s Fisheries 

suggested that NMFS and the Council 

should encourage the Atlantic States 

Marine Fisheries Commission to take 

similar action to protect forage species 

in state waters. 

Response: Neither the Council, nor 

NMFS has the authority to require states 

to implement similar measures to 

protect forage species. Because each 

state has a seat on the Council, and the 

Council has already expressed its 

interest in protecting forage species, it is 

incumbent upon each state to decide 

whether it should implement similar 

forage species measures within waters 

under their jurisdiction. We disagree 

that this penalizes Federal permit 

holders from selling catch of these 

species, as it implements possession 

limits that reflect 99 percent of trip-level 

commercial landings of forage species 

over the past 20 years. Therefore, based 

on recent fishing operations, vessels 

issued a Federal permit should not be 

negatively affected by these possession 

limits. 

Comment 12: One individual 

suggested that this action violates 

NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 

216–6A because the Council did not 

examine whether this action would set 

a precedent for future action with 

significant effects or represent a 

decision in principle about future 

consideration. He also stated that the 

use of discretionary authority under 

section 303(b)(12) of the MagnusonStevens Act to manage chub mackerel 

sets a precedent regarding the regulation 

of commercially targeted species outside 

of a FMP and without adequate 

oversight. In contrast, Pew supports the 

use of such discretionary authority until 

the species can be formally integrated as 

a species within the Atlantic Mackerel, 

Squid, and Butterfish FMP. 

Response: The commenter cites text 

related to the determination of 

significance of NOAA’s actions as 

required by the NEPA from an outdated 

version of NAO 216–6A dated May 20, 

1999. The new version of NAO 216–6A 

became effective April 22, 2016, and 

contains no such language. In fact, the 

new version authorizes the development 

of a companion manual to set policy 

and procedures for complying with 

NEPA. That companion manual became 

effective January 13, 2017, and contains 

the text referenced by the commenter, 

but in the context of evaluating the use 

of a categorical exclusion under 

extraordinary circumstances. Since the 

Council developed an EA in support of 

this action, this policy guidance is not 

relevant to this action. The Council will 

evaluate the significance of any future 

action it may develop for chub mackerel 

as it develops measures for that 

particular action. 

We disagree that the use of section 

303(b)(12) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act 

to develop chub mackerel measures 

under this action sets a precedent that 

would allow commercial fishing to 

occur outside of a FMP and without 

oversight. Section 303(b) specifically 

authorizes the development of such 

discretionary measures as part of a FMP. 

Therefore, this section allows for 

increased management and oversight of 

commercial fisheries by the Council, not 

the opposite. We agree with Pew in that 

it represents a viable mechanism to 

proactively implement interim measures 

to manage this species while the 

Council develops the required 

provisions to formally manage chub 

mackerel as a stock in an FMP. 

Comment 13: Two individuals 

recommended that this action should 

include river herring, with one citing 

the millions of taxpayer dollars spent to 

restore habitat and breeding streams that 

would be wasted if these species are not 

protected. He indicated that NMFS 

needs to collect more data and protect 

river herring in the ocean. Three 

individuals suggested that this action 

should also include Atlantic menhaden 

as a forage species. 

Response: Because the Council did 

not consider managing river herring or 

Atlantic menhaden as forage species 

under this action, NMFS does not have 

the authority to add these species 

through this final rule. The Council has 

already considered ways to manage 

river herring as part of Amendment 14 

to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and 

Butterfish FMP and associated 

specifications since 2014. Specifically, 

the Council established a river herring 

and shad catch cap in the mackerel 

fishery and established reporting 

requirements to monitor such catch in 

the mackerel fishery. The Atlantic States 

Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) 

already manages Atlantic menhaden 

because this species is predominantly 

found in nearshore waters and is 

prosecuted by state fisheries. The 

Council could consider management 

measures for these species and other 

species through a future action, as 

appropriate. 

Ecosystem Component Species 

Comment 14: One individual 

indicated that, until there is sufficient 

science on the population dynamics and 

trophic significance of all forage species 

originally listed (presumably by the SSC 

or Fishery Management Action Team), 

none of the species should be omitted 

from this action. Another individual 

indicated that the Council should be 

precautionary and implement catch 

limits for all forage species. 

Response: Section 4.2 of the EA 

describes the background for how the 

Council determined which forage 

species to include in this action. The 

Council did not intend to prohibit the 

harvest of all unmanaged forage species. 

Instead, the Council identified a list of 

prioritized forage species to minimize 

the burden of the proposed new 

regulations on existing managed 

fisheries. In selecting the taxa to include 

in this amendment, the Council 

prioritized some species due to their 

importance as prey for ‘‘socially and 

economically important species’’ and 

their perceived potential to become the 

target of large-scale commercial 

fisheries. The Council could add forage 

species through a future action as more 

information becomes available, or as 

needed to achieve conservation and 

management objectives. 

Comment 15: Seafreeze Ltd. and the 

GSSA oppose the approval of halfbeaks, 

scaled sardine, Atlantic thread herring, 

and Spanish sardine as EC species in 

this action, because there is no link as 

forage or bycatch between these species 

and fisheries managed by the Council. 

They contend that none of these species 

have been found in NMFS observer data 

for trawls, gillnets, or hook gear 

resulting in landings of Council 

managed species; that they have not 

been found in the stomachs of Council 

managed species in NMFS surveys; and 

that they fail to meet all the criteria for 

listing as an EC species and the forage 

species criteria developed by the SSC. 

Response: We disagree that these 

species fail to meet the criteria for 

listing as an EC species, as the 

amendment provides information that 

supports the determination that these 

species are eligible to be listed as EC 

species based on the criteria outlined in 

the National Standard Guidelines at 

§ 600.305. The Council relied in part on 

the SSC’s definition of forage species as 

well as other criteria in its proposed list 

of forage species to manage as EC 

species in this action. Section 6.1 of the 

EA identifies the rationale for the 

inclusion of each species in this action. 

While halfbeaks have not been found in 

the stomach contents of managed 

species in NMFS surveys, they were 

documented as forage for bluefish, a 

Council-managed species, in another 

source. Further, the Council notes that 

halfbeaks are often caught in Florida 

and are commonly used as bait in MidAtlantic recreational fisheries, making 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 165 / Monday, August 28, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 40727 

them vulnerable to potential future 

commercial exploitation. There is 

sufficient evidence that other 

unmanaged herrings and sardines are 

consumed as forage for many Councilmanaged species, are often documented 

as bycatch in managed fisheries, and are 

potentially vulnerable to commercial 

exploitation due to market demand. 

Comment 16: The GSSA, Seafreeze 

Ltd., and Lund’s Fisheries Incorporated 

opposed the inclusion of bullet and 

frigate mackerel as EC species for the 

same reasons we highlighted in the 

proposed rule. However, Pew and Wild 

Oceans, along with 11,496 Pew form 

letters, supported the inclusion of these 

species, highlighting their importance to 

ecosystems and coastal communities 

who directly or indirectly depend upon 

the catch or use of these species. One 

individual disagreed with our assertion 

that the trophic level of these species is 

too high, suggesting that trophic 

linkages are truncated in pelagic 

ecosystems. Pew noted that bullet and 

frigate mackerel are vulnerable to 

commercial exploitation because they 

school in predictable areas, while Wild 

Oceans contended that protecting bullet 

and frigate could reduce predation on 

managed species by providing more 

prey for common predators. Supporters 

also noted that many significant 

keystone predators such as large pelagic 

species (tuna, billfish, swordfish, 

dolphinfish (dorado) and sharks) feed 

on these mackerel, and a failure to 

protect them could cause trophic 

cascading (e.g., effects on species higher 

or lower in the food chain as a result of 

changes in prey or predator abundance) 

and indirect and unpredictable effects 

(presumably reduced abundance) on 

large pelagic species. 

Response: As noted above, we 

maintain our original contention that 

the best available information does not 

support the classification of bullet and 

frigate mackerel as forage species in this 

action and that they are not related to 

species managed by the Council. Public 

comments did not provide additional 

information that would change this 

determination. The SSC did not 

differentiate trophic structure criteria 

based on where organisms were found, 

and the commenter did not provide 

sufficient evidence to warrant such a 

differentiation. Although Wild Oceans 

asserts that these species are vulnerable 

to commercial exploitation because they 

school in predictable areas, Pew notes 

that these species are less vulnerable to 

commercial fishing, particularly trawl 

gear, because of their fast swimming 

speed. This, in conjunction with 

minimal commercial landings of these 

species over the past 20 years, suggests 

that these species are not vulnerable to 

commercial exploitation at this time. 

While we acknowledge that bullet and 

frigate are prey for large pelagic species, 

available information does not confirm 

that bullet and frigate mackerel 

constitute a substantial component of 

the diet of large pelagic species, or that 

they are forage for managed species. 

Therefore, there is insufficient 

information in the amendment to 

conclude that failure to protect these 

species through this action would cause 

trophic cascading or negative impacts 

on managed species or large pelagic 

predators. 

Comment 17: Pew asserts that a nexus 

between forage species and regulated 

species is not required by the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act, noting that the 

discretionary authority provided in 

section 303 can be used to conserve 

target and non-target species 

considering ecological factors that may 

affect fish populations. They also cite 

the National Standard 1 guidelines in 

highlighting that maintaining adequate 

forage may prevent overfishing and 

achieve optimum yield. Wild Oceans 

indicates that these Guidelines allow 

flexibility to achieve ecosystem goals, 

including those in the Council’s 

ecosystem approach to fisheries 

management (EAFM) guidance 

document, and that failure to include 

these species is contrary to NMFS’ 

ecosystem based fishery management 

(EBFM) policy. 

Response: We agree that section 303 

of the Magnuson-Stevens Act provides 

the Council with the discretion to 

implement measures for target and nontarget species for ecosystem 

considerations. As noted in the scoping 

document for this action and Council 

meetings during the development of this 

action, the intent of this action was to 

maintain an adequate biomass of forage 

species to allow for abundant 

populations of Council-managed 

predators, as well as to integrate 

ecosystem considerations into the FMP. 

NMFS determined that forage species 

considered in this action must have an 

ecological or operational (bycatch) 

linkage with Council-managed species 

in order to maintain consistency with 

the Council’s intent to maintain an 

adequate biomass of forage species to 

allow for abundant populations of 

Council-managed predators of the forage 

species. Although the description of the 

purpose and need for this action, as 

included in the EA, indicated that the 

Council was also integrating an 

ecosystem approach to management into 

this action, the Council did so by 

protecting forage species; this action 

was not intended to be a comprehensive 

ecosystem management action. NMFS 

must evaluate this action within the 

context in which it was developed, and 

using the best available information, 

which, as noted above, is not sufficient 

to justify inclusion of bullet and frigate 

mackerel as EC species under this 

action. 

We also agree that the National 

Standard 1 Guidelines allow the 

Council to consider forage and EC 

species when determining optimum 

yield and the greatest benefit to the 

nation. However, it is important to note 

that the National Standard 1 Guidelines 

apply to stocks in the fishery that the 

Council determines require 

conservation and management. By 

proposing to manage bullet and frigate 

mackerel as EC species, the Council has 

implicitly determined that such species 

do not require conservation and 

management measures at this time 

pursuant to the National Standard 

Guidelines at § 600.305(c)(5) and are, 

therefore, not stocks in the fishery. 

Accordingly, the National Standard 1 

Guidelines do not apply to these 

species. That notwithstanding, if the 

Council believes that these species 

require conservation and management 

in the future, a small tuna FMP or a 

broader ecosystem based management 

action may be a more effective vehicle 

to manage these species than an 

amendment predicated on protecting 

forage for managed species. Finally, 

despite the disapproval of bullet and 

frigate mackerel as EC species in this 

action, we contend that the Council’s 

use of discretionary authority to 

designate certain other previously 

unmanaged forage species as EC species 

and to implement measures to protect 

against the further exploitation of these 

species is consistent with both the 

Council’s EAFM guidance document 

and the NMFS EBFM policy. 

Permitting and Reporting Requirements 

Comment 18: Pew, Lund’s Fisheries 

Incorporated, and the GSSA support the 

use of existing permitting requirements 

for this action. They, along with one 

individual and the 11,484 respondents 

to the Pew form letter, also support the 

use of existing reporting requirements to 

collect additional data on these species. 

Another individual indicated that the 

proposed reporting requirements would 

not collect acceptable data, but did not 

suggest why. The Office of Management 

and Budget indicated that this action 

would have no effect on any current 

information collections. 

Response: The existing permitting and 

reporting requirements are necessary to 

collect information to effectively 

monitor and manage the catch of forage 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES
40728 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 165 / Monday, August 28, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

species. The permitting and reporting 

requirements allow us to identify which 

vessels are catching chub mackerel and 

Mid-Atlantic forage species, how much 

they are catching of each species or 

species group, where and when the 

catch occurs, and what gear is used to 

catch these species. This information 

could then be used to monitor catch 

against the chub mackerel annual 

landing limits, enforce possession 

limits, and provide information 

necessary to assess the status of the 

stock and develop potential future 

management measures, as necessary. 

Thus, this final rule implements the 

permitting and reporting requirements 

for Mid-Atlantic forage species. 

Annual Landing and Possession Limits 

Comment 19: One individual 

suggested that NMFS should stop all 

fishing for forage species, stating that, 

without limits, commercial vessels will 

harvest them until endangered and 

overfished. Respondents to the Pew 

form letter and another individual 

suggested that forage fish quotas should 

be set to prevent overfishing. 

Response: We do not agree that it is 

necessary to stop all fishing for forage 

species or impose quotas for all species 

to prevent overfishing or prevent such 

species from becoming endangered. We 

do not know much about the status of 

these species. As noted in the response 

to the previous comment, the 

information collected through measures 

implemented by this final rule will: 

Provide the information the Council 

needs to effectively monitor the catch of 

these species; allow the Council and 

NMFS to evaluate the potential impacts 

of existing catch levels on existing 

fisheries, fishing communities, and the 

marine ecosystem; and allow the 

Council and NMFS to set appropriate 

future landing limits to prevent 

overfishing, as necessary. 

Comment 20: One individual 

recommended that NMFS implement a 

5.25 million-lb (2,381-mt) annual 

landing limit for chub mackerel because 

it reflects the historical fluctuation of 

the chub mackerel market, is more 

consistent with the market’s overall 

direction, avoids implementing artificial 

constraints, allows equal access to the 

market, and facilitates competition in 

the market rather than consolidating 

control by a select group of large 

vessels. He notes that implementing the 

proposed 2.86 million lb (1,297 mt) 

limit artificially caps the market and 

could increase landing price to the 

disproportionate benefit of large vessels. 

Lund’s Incorporated and the GSSA 

support the higher limit, stating there is 

no evidence that the higher limit would 

harm the stock and that it would reduce 

discards until the SSC can set a 

reasonable biologically-based limit in a 

future action. They also suggest the 

ecosystem management approach 

should consider changing species 

distribution, including the increasing 

availability of a species like chub 

mackerel in setting landing limits. In 

contrast, Pew and another individual 

felt that the proposed limit is too high 

and that the limit should be set lower 

as a precaution because NMFS does not 

have adequate data about biological and 

ecological status of stock, what fishing 

level is sustainable, and the impacts of 

recent increased fishing. 

Response: Although chub mackerel 

landings have fluctuated greatly since 

1996, landings since 2013 are 

substantially higher than previous years. 

The Council considered several 

alternative annual landing limits for 

chub mackerel, including the average 

landing amount from 1996–2015 

(900,127 lb (408 mt)), average landings 

from 2011–2015 (1.75 million lb (794 

mt), and the highest landings recorded 

in 2013 (5.25 million lb (2,381 mt)). 

Instead, the Council adopted a 2.86 

million-lb (1,297-mt) annual landing 

limit to reflect more recent average 

landings between 2013–2015. This limit 

accounts for variations in resource 

availability and catch, and is higher 

than the five-year average landings, but 

lower than the highest landings 

recorded in 2013. This compromise is 

not only consistent with the purpose of 

this action to maintain existing catch 

levels, but also with the principles 

advocated by several commenters to 

mirror recent landings trends, reduce 

discards, and set a precautionary catch 

limit while the Council develops longterm measures in a subsequent action. 

We disagree that the chub mackerel 

annual landing limit implemented by 

this final rule implements artificial 

constraints, prevents equal access to the 

resource or markets, or 

disproportionately benefits large 

vessels. Even without constraints, the 

landing price for chub mackerel has 

been highly variable and not necessarily 

correlated with landing amounts since 

1996. The EA suggests that landings 

amounts and associated price is affected 

by several variables, including 

availability of chub mackerel and other 

species. Therefore, the Council and 

NMFS cannot determine how any one 

particular measure affects market prices 

at this time. All vessels of all sizes have 

equal access to available chub mackerel 

under this action. Section 8.11.4.3 of the 

EA describes the economic impact 

analysis required under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (RFA). That analysis 

indicates that between 2006 and 2015, 

63 small businesses and affiliated 

entities reported fishing revenues from 

forage species affected by this action. 

All of these entities had average annual 

sales during 2013–2015 that were less 

than $11 million, which is the level of 

annual fishery revenue used to 

determine small entities under the RFA. 

Thus, all entities affected by this action 

are classified as small businesses. 

Further, this analysis concluded that all 

proposed measures, including the chub 

mackerel annual landing limit, would 

not place a substantial number of small 

entities at a significant competitive 

disadvantage to large entities. 

Comment 21: Seafreeze Ltd., Lund’s 

Fisheries Incorporated, and the GSSA 

support the 40,000-lb (18-mt) chub 

mackerel possession limit once the 

annual landing limit is reached. Pew 

indicated that the limit is not supported 

by the best available science or a 

methodology similar to the limit used to 

derive the possession limit for other EC 

species, suggesting that it should be 

lower to prevent a directed fishery. 

Another individual stated the 

possession limit is higher than annual 

chub mackerel landings before 2003, 

and suggested that it disproportionately 

benefits larger vessels. He recommended 

that if NMFS implements the 2.86 

million-lb (1,297-mt) chub mackerel 

annual landing limit, NMFS should also 

implement the 10,000-lb (4.5-mt) 

possession limit because the annual 

limit and possession limit must be 

similarly restrictive to equitably restrict 

all fisheries regardless of size and better 

align with the amendment’s purpose of 

preventing fishery expansion. He also 

noted that the lower possession limit 

reduces discards, but does not provide 

enough incentive to target the species. 

Response: To be consistent with the 

methodology used by the Council to 

determine the possession limit for EC 

species, the Council would have had to 

adopt a much higher chub mackerel 

possession limit than the proposed 

40,000-lb (18-mt) limit. The limit for EC 

species was based on the 99th percentile 

of dealer-reported landings of these 

species from 1997–2015. That limit was 

meant to maintain existing catch levels 

for those species. In contrast, as noted 

by Pew, the chub mackerel limit was 

intended to prevent directed fishing. 

Accordingly, using a similar 

methodology is not appropriate, as the 

trip limit should reduce incentives to 

target chub mackerel. 

The Council chose a 40,000-lb (18-mt) 

limit because that is the capacity of a 

bait truck, and limiting landings to that 

amount reduces economic incentives to 

target chub mackerel, while allowing 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 165 / Monday, August 28, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 40729 

vessels to land smaller, incidental 

amounts of chub mackerel to minimize 

discards. The Council considered a 

10,000-lb (4.5-mt) possession limit 

based on average trip-level landings 

from 1996–2015, but that would likely 

result in higher discards due to larger 

volumes of chub mackerel caught by 

larger vessels in recent years. The 

possession limit selected is separate and 

distinct from the annual landings limit, 

and does not need to be proportional to 

have the desired effect of reducing 

incentives to target this species once the 

annual landing limit is caught. We 

recognize that the possession limit is 

higher than annual landings before 

2003, but note that landings since 1996 

have been highly variable, ranging from 

479 lb (217 kg) to 5.25 million lb (2,381 

mt). Contrary to what one commenter 

indicated, this possession limit would 

actually benefit smaller capacity vessels 

more than larger capacity vessels 

because it is less likely to constrain 

landings once the annual landing limit 

is reached. Section 5.2.3 of the EA states 

that there is a substantial range in 

landing amounts within the fishery, 

concluding that the amount of chub 

mackerel catch which is truly incidental 

is not well understood and is likely 

different for larger, faster vessels than 

for smaller, slower vessels. 

Comment 22: Pew, Lund’s Fisheries 

Incorporated, and the GSSA support the 

proposed 1,700-lb (771-kg) limit for EC 

species. 

Response: This final rule implements 

this trip limit for approved EC species. 

Comment 23: The Executive Director 

of the New England Fishery 

Management Council highlighted that 

existing regulations for the Northeast 

Multispecies FMP only allow the 

retention of certain species in exempted 

fisheries within the Southern New 

England Regulated Mesh Area, an area 

that overlaps with the proposed MidAtlantic Forage Species Management 

Unit. He suggested that the final rule 

clarify that the most restrictive 

possession limit would apply to vessels 

subject to the Northeast Multispecies 

FMP that are fishing within the MidAtlantic Forage Species Management 

Unit. 

Response: We agree. This was an 

oversight, and we made the appropriate 

changes to the regulatory text at 

§ 648.351(a) in this final rule. 

Transit Measure 

Comment 24: Seafreeze Ltd. 

supported the transit measure, but both 

Lund’s Fisheries Incorporated and the 

GSSA opposed the measure, stating that 

it creates an unfair competitive situation 

by allowing harvesters from other 

jurisdictions to be exempted from 

possession limits imposed on MidAtlantic harvesters. 

Response: The transit measure would 

only apply to catch of Mid-Atlantic 

forage species outside of the MidAtlantic Forage Species Management 

Unit (Mid-Atlantic Federal waters), 

which is outside of the jurisdiction of 

the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management 

Council. In addition, because transiting 

vessels must have their gear stowed 

when transiting the Management Unit, 

this measure is unlikely to negatively 

impact Mid-Atlantic forage species, 

managed species, or other predators. 

Further, this measure was developed 

mostly to address the targeting of chub 

mackerel within the Gulf of Mexico that 

are landed in Rhode Island. Since this 

action counts all chub mackerel landed 

in New England ports against the chub 

mackerel annual landing limit, impacts 

to chub mackerel are minimized. The 

Magnuson-Stevens Act requires the 

Council to manage a stock throughout 

its range. Therefore, when considering 

integrating chub mackerel into the 

Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish 

FMP in a future action under 

development, the Council will need to 

consider the species range as it develops 

measures for that action, including 

potentially reconsidering the need for 

this transiting provision. 

Other Administrative Measures 

Comment 25: Pew Charitable Trusts 

noted that the Mid-Atlantic Fishery 

Management Council manages some 

species to the Virginia/North Carolina 

border and others to the latitude of Cape 

Hatteras. Pew supported extending the 

Mid-Atlantic Forage Species 

Management Unit to Cape Hatteras to 

ensure there is no gap in the 

management of these species within the 

jurisdiction of the Mid-Atlantic Fishery 

Management Council. 

Response: We agree and have 

implemented the Management Unit as 

proposed. 

Comment 26: The GSSA and Lund’s 

Fisheries Incorporated supported the 

ability to revise landing and possession 

limits through a future framework 

adjustment action. 

Response: The framework measures 

have been implemented through this 

action. 

Comment 27: The GSSA, Lund’s 

Fisheries Incorporated, and the Pew 

Charitable Trusts support the use of an 

EFP to support the development of any 

new or expanded fishery for forage 

species. Pew indicated that the Council 

should emulate the more formal EFP 

review process adopted by the Pacific 

Fisheries Management Council as part 

of its Comprehensive Ecosystem Based 

Amendment 1 and documented in its 

Council Operating Procedure 24 before 

opening or expanding any fishery. Pew 

also recommended that NMFS should 

prohibit new or expanded fishing on EC 

species until full Federal management is 

in place that protects their role as prey 

in the ecosystem, and that the Council 

should evaluate whether a species is in 

need of conservation and management 

before allowing new or expanded 

fisheries for these species. 

Response: The Council documented 

its intent to require an EFP and 

subsequent review through the adoption 

of this action. Existing regulations at 

§ 648.12 require the Regional 

Administrator to consult with the 

Council’s Executive Director before 

approving any exemptions to the 

Council’s FMPs. The regulations revised 

by this action have already expanded 

that consultation requirement to 

specifically include exemptions that 

would contribute to the development of 

a new fishery or the expansion of 

existing fisheries for Mid-Atlantic forage 

species and chub mackerel. Therefore, 

the Council has already developed a 

protocol similar to the Pacific Council’s 

Operating Procedure 24. 

At § 648.14(w), this action 

implements a prohibition against 

vessels possessing more Mid-Atlantic 

Forage Species and chub mackerel than 

authorized in § 648.351. As a result, no 

additional prohibition is needed to 

prevent the expansion of existing 

fisheries or the development of new 

fisheries for these species. In addition, 

fisheries for Mid-Atlantic Forage 

Species cannot develop or expand 

without a future Council or NMFS 

action, which must be consistent with 

the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other 

applicable law. Thus, both the Council 

and NMFS will evaluate whether a stock 

requires conservation and management, 

and NMFS will ensure that all measures 

developed for those stocks in the future, 

including measures to achieve optimum 

yield, are consistent with applicable 

law, before approving any new or 

expanded fisheries for EC species. 

Comment 28: Pew Charitable Trusts 

recommended that NMFS update the 

list of authorized fisheries and gear in 

§ 600.725(v) to ensure that no fishery on 

unmanaged forage species emerges 

without the knowledge of NMFS and 

the Council. 

Response: As noted in Section 5.3.2.2 

of the EA for this action, the list of 

authorized fisheries and gear at 

§ 600.725(v) already includes two 

general categories of commercial 

fisheries for which the legal harvest of 

unmanaged forage species would be 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES
40730 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 165 / Monday, August 28, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

allowed without advanced notification 

to the Council. The Council considered 

modifying this list as part of this action, 

but instead implemented more discrete 

possession limits for forage species. As 

a result, NMFS cannot unilaterally 

implement such changes through this 

final rule. It is likely that any fishery for 

other unmanaged forage species would 

be detected through existing data 

collections such as the vessel logbook or 

dealer reports. For example, landings of 

several species of previously 

unmanaged forage species included in 

this action (anchovies, argentines, sand 

lances, silversides, chub mackerel, and 

frigate mackerel) were recorded in 

Federal dealer reports. This prompted 

the Council to develop appropriate 

management measures through this and 

the follow-on chub mackerel 

amendment. Similar action can be taken 

in the future for other species, as 

appropriate. 

Impact Analysis 

Comment 29: One individual 

indicated that the negative 

socioeconomic impacts of this action 

will be offset by the positive 

socioeconomic impacts of maintaining 

healthy populations of forage species. 

He also noted that the amendment 

should consider the recreational and 

professional diving communities in the 

socioeconomic impact analysis, as a 

lack of forage species could negatively 

affect seal and predator populations, 

which are important drivers of demand 

for diving and spearfishing trips. The 

comment included a statement from 

another individual who estimated that 

dive shops in the Greater Boston Area 

cater to up to 1,500 divers each year and 

have yearly revenues of $3–4 million. 

Response: We agree that the benefits 

of maintaining recent catch levels of 

certain forage species through measures 

implemented by this action outweigh 

the potential costs associated with 

annual landing limits and possession 

limits. The EA prepared for this action 

included a description of the affected 

environment in Section 6, and an 

evaluation of the impacts of the 

proposed measures on components of 

the affected environment, including 

marine predators such as fish species, 

marine mammals, and fishing 

communities, in Section 7. The 

socioeconomic impact analysis focused 

on commercial and recreational fishery 

participants because they are the 

entities most likely to be affected by this 

action. That analysis did not evaluate 

impacts to diving operations because 

diving operations are only indirectly 

affected by this action and are not 

subject to these measures. As a result, 

the Regulatory Flexibility Act does not 

require consideration of the impacts to 

non-regulated entities such as the diving 

industry. However, this action should 

provide benefits to the diving 

community similar to the benefits that 

would accrue to the recreational fishery 

in that it will protect forage species from 

further commercial exploitation, which 

will help maintain predator and seal 

populations important to the 

spearfishing and diving communities. 

Changes From the Proposed Rule 

We have made several changes to the 

proposed regulations, including changes 

as a result of public comment and our 

decision to disapprove the inclusion of 

bullet and frigate mackerel as EC 

species. Some of these changes are 

administrative in nature, clarify the new 

or existing management measures, or 

correct inadvertent omissions in the 

proposed rule. All of these changes are 

consistent with section 305(d) of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 

1855(d)), which provides that the 

Secretary of Commerce may promulgate 

regulations necessary to ensure that 

amendments to an FMP are carried out 

in accordance with the FMP and the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act. These changes 

are listed below in the order that they 

appear in the regulations. 

In this final rule’s amendments to 

§ 648.2, paragraph (a)(14) is renumbered 

as (a)(12), and paragraph (a)(15) is 

renumbered as (a)(13), to reflect the 

disapproval of the inclusion of bullet 

and frigate mackerel as Mid-Atlantic 

forage species in this final rule. 

The regulations at §§ 648.4(a)(15), 

648.5(a)(2), 648.6(a)(1), 648.7(a)(1) and 

(b)(1)(i), and 648.351(d) were revised by 

adding language specifying that the 

vessel permit, operator permit, dealer 

permit, reporting requirements, and 

transiting provision for vessels fishing 

for and possessing Atlantic chub 

mackerel and dealers purchasing chub 

mackerel are effective through 

December 31, 2020, as intended. 

In § 648.351(a), the phrase ‘‘Unless 

otherwise prohibited under § 648.80,’’ 

was added to the beginning of this 

paragraph to reference the possession 

restrictions of Northeast multispecies 

exempted fisheries. As noted above in 

Comment 23, the Executive Director of 

the New England Fishery Management 

Council indicated that the proposed 

possession limits for Mid-Atlantic 

forage species would inadvertently 

allow a vessel to possess species that are 

not explicitly authorized for exempted 

fisheries implemented under the 

Northeast Multispecies FMP. 

Classification 

The Administrator, Greater Atlantic 

Region, NMFS, determined that the 

Mid-Atlantic Unmanaged Forage 

Omnibus Amendment is necessary for 

the conservation and management of the 

fisheries managed by the Mid-Atlantic 

Fishery Management Council and that it 

is consistent with the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act and other applicable 

laws. 

This final rule has been determined to 

be not significant for purposes of 

Executive Order 12866. This rule is not 

an E.O. 13771 regulatory action because 

this rule is not significant under E.O. 

12866. 

The Chief Counsel for Regulation of 

the Department of Commerce certified 

to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 

Small Business Administration during 

the proposed rule stage that this action 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. The factual basis for the 

certification was published in the 

proposed rule and is not repeated here. 

NMFS received two comments 

regarding the socioeconomic impacts of 

this action (see Comments 20 and 29 

above). In Comment 20, the commenter 

suggested that this action would 

artificially cap the market that could 

disproportionately benefit large vessels. 

However, as noted above, because all 

entities affected by this action are small 

businesses, this action could not place 

a substantial number of small entities at 

a significant competitive disadvantage 

to large entities. Comment 20 pertained 

to the diving community, a group that 

is not subject to the regulations under 

this action. Accordingly, no comments 

were received that would change the 

certification that this action will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities 

regarding this certification. As a result, 

a regulatory flexibility analysis was not 

required and none was prepared. 

This final rule contains a collectionof-information requirement subject to 

the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) and 

which has been approved by the Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) 

under the OMB control numbers listed 

below. Public reporting burden for these 

collections of information, including the 

time for reviewing instructions, 

searching existing data sources, 

gathering and maintaining the data 

needed, and completing and reviewing 

the collection of information, are 

estimated to average, as follows: 

1. Initial Federal vessel permit 

application, OMB# 0648–0202, (45 

minutes/response); 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 165 / Monday, August 28, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 40731 

2. Initial Federal dealer permit 

application, OMB# 0648–0202, (15 

minutes/response); 

3. Initial Federal operator permit 

application, OMB# 0648–0202, (60 

minutes/response); 

4. Vessel logbook report of catch by 

species, OMB# 0648–0212, (5 minutes/ 

response); and 

5. Dealer report of landings by 

species, OMB# 0648–0229, (4 minutes/ 

response). 

Send comments on these or any other 

aspects of the collection of information 

to the Greater Atlantic Regional 

Fisheries Office at the ADDRESSES above, 

and email to OIRA_Submission@

omb.eop.gov, or fax to (202) 395–5806. 

Notwithstanding any other provision of 

the law, no person is required to 

respond to, and no person shall be 

subject to penalty for failure to comply 

with, a collection of information subject 

to the requirements of the PRA, unless 

that collection of information displays a 

currently valid OMB control number. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648 

Fisheries, Fishing, Recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements. 

Dated: August 21, 2017. 

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, add definitions for 

‘‘Atlantic chub mackerel’’ and ‘‘MidAtlantic forage species’’ in alphabetical 

order to read as follows: 

§ 648.2 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Atlantic chub mackerel means 

Scomber colias. 

* * * * * 

Mid-Atlantic forage species means the 

following species and species groups: 

(1) Anchovies (family Engraulidae), 

including but not limited to the 

following species: 

(i) Striped anchovy-Anchoa hepsetus. 

(ii) Dusky anchovy-Anchoa lyolepis. 

(iii) Bay anchovy-Anchoa mitchilli. 

(iv) Silver anchovy-Engraulis 

eurystole. 

(2) Argentines (family Argentinidae), 

including but not limited to the 

following species: 

(i) Striated argentine-Argentina 

striata. 

(ii) Pygmy argentine-Glossanodon 

pygmaeus. 

(3) Greeneyes (family 

Chlorophthalmidae), including but not 

limited to the following species: 

(i) Shortnose greeneyeChlorophthalmus agassizi. 

(ii) Longnose greeneye-Parasudis 

truculenta. 

(4) Halfbeaks (family 

Hemiramphidae), including but not 

limited to the following species: 

(i) Flying halfbeak-Euleptorhamphus 

velox. 

(ii) Balao-Hemiramphus balao. 

(iii) Ballyhoo-Hemiramphus 

brasiliensis. 

(iv) False silverstripe halfbeak/ 

American halfbeak/Meek’s halfbeakHyporhamphus meeki. 

(5) Herrings and Sardines (family 

Clupeidae). With the exception of other 

herring and sardine species managed 

under this part, including American 

shad, Atlantic herring, blueback herring, 

hickory shad, and river herring/alewife, 

as defined in this section, the following 

herring and sardine species are MidAtlantic forage species: 

(i) Round herring-Etrumeus teres. 

(ii) Scaled sardine-Harengula 

jaguana. 

(iii) Atlantic thread herringOpisthonema oglinum. 

(iv) Spanish sardine-Sardinella aurita. 

(6) Lanternfishes (family 

Myctophidae), including but not limited 

to the following species: 

(i) Horned lanternfish-Ceratoscopelus 

maderensis. 

(ii) Dumril’s headlightfish-Diaphus 

dumerilii. 

(iii) Crocodile lanternfishLampanyctus crocodilus. 

(iv) Doflein’s false headlightfishLobianchia dofleini. 

(v) Spotted lanternfish-Myctophum 

punctatum. 

(7) Pearlsides (family 

Sternoptychidae), including but not 

limited to the following species: 

(i) Atlantic silver hatchetfishArgyropelecus aculeatus. 

(ii) Muller’s pearlside-Maurolicus 

muelleri. 

(iii) Weizman’s pearlside-Maurolicus 

weitzmani. 

(iv) Slope hatchetfish-Polyipnus 

clarus. 

(8) Sand lances (family 

Ammodytidae), including but not 

limited to the following species: 

(i) American/inshore sand lanceAmmodytes americanus. 

(ii) Northern/offshore sand lanceAmmodytes dubius. 

(9) Silversides (family 

Atherinopsidae), including but not 

limited to the following species: 

(i) Rough silverside-Membras 

martinica. 

(ii) Inland silverside-Menidia 

beryllina. 

(iii) Atlantic silverside-Menidia 

menidia. 

(10) Cusk-eels (order Ophidiiformes), 

including but not limited to the 

following species: 

(i) Chain pearlfish-Echiodon dawsoni. 

(ii) Fawn cusk-eel-Lepophidium 

profundorum. 

(iii) Striped cusk-eel-Ophidion 

marginatum. 

(11) Atlantic saury-Scomberesox 

saurus. 

(12) Pelagic mollusks and 

cephalopods, excluding sharptail 

shortfin squid (Illex oxygonius), but 

including the following pelagic mollusc 

species: 

(i) Neon flying squid-Ommastrephes 

bartramii. 

(ii) European flying squid-Todarodes 

sagittatus. 

(iii) Atlantic brief squid-Lolliguncula 

brevis. 

(iv) Bobtail squids (family 

Sepiolidae), including but not limited to 

the following species: 

(A) Odd bobtail squid-Heteroteuthis 

dispar. 

(B) Big fin bobtail squid-Rossia 

megaptera. 

(C) Warty bobtail squid-Rossia 

palpebrosa. 

(D) Lesser bobtail squid-Semirossia 

tenera. 

(E) Butterfly bobtail squidStoloteuthis leucoptera. 

(v) Sea angels and sea butterflies 

(orders Gymnosomata and 

Thecosomata). 

(vi) Tuberculate pelagic octopusOcythoe tuberculata. 

(13) Species under one inch as adults, 

including but not limited to the 

following species groups: 

(i) Copepods (subclass Copepoda). 

(ii) Krill (order Euphausiacea). 

(iii) Amphipods (order Amphipoda). 

(iv) Ostracods (class Ostracoda). 

(v) Isopods (order Isopoda). 

(vi) Mysid shrimp (order Mysidacea). 

* * * * * 

■ 3. In § 648.4, add paragraph (a)(15) to 

read as follows: 

§ 648.4 Vessel permits. 

(a) * * * 

(15) Mid-Atlantic forage species and 

Atlantic chub mackerel. Any 

commercial fishing vessel must have 

been issued and have on board a valid 

commercial vessel permit issued in 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES
40732 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 165 / Monday, August 28, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

accordance with this paragraph (a)(15) 

to fish for, possess, transport, sell, or 

land Mid-Atlantic forage species or 

Atlantic chub mackerel in or from the 

EEZ portion of the Mid-Atlantic Forage 

Species Management Unit, as defined at 

§ 648.351(c). The vessel permit 

requirements specified in this paragraph 

(a)(15) for a commercial fishing vessel 

fishing for, possessing, transporting, 

selling, or landing Atlantic chub 

mackerel are effective through 

December 31, 2020. A vessel that fishes 

for such species exclusively in state 

waters is not required to be issued a 

Federal permit. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. In § 648.5, revise paragraph (a) to 

read as follows: 

§ 648.5 Operator permits. 

(a) General. (1) Any operator of a 

vessel issued a permit, carrier permit, or 

processing permit for, and that fishes for 

or possesses, the species listed in 

paragraph (a)(2) of this section, must 

have been issued, and carry on board, a 

valid operator permit for these species. 

An operator’s permit issued pursuant to 

part 622 or part 697 of this chapter, 

satisfies the permitting requirement of 

this section. This requirement does not 

apply to operators of recreational 

vessels. 

(2) Following are the applicable 

species: Atlantic sea scallops, NE 

multispecies, spiny dogfish, monkfish, 

Atlantic herring, Atlantic surfclam, 

ocean quahog, Atlantic mackerel, squid, 

butterfish, scup, black sea bass, or 

Atlantic bluefish, harvested in or from 

the EEZ; tilefish harvested in or from 

the EEZ portion of the Tilefish 

Management Unit; skates harvested in 

or from the EEZ portion of the Skate 

Management Unit; Atlantic deep-sea red 

crab harvested in or from the EEZ 

portion of the Red Crab Management 

Unit; or Atlantic chub mackerel and 

Mid-Atlantic forage species, as defined 

at § 648.2, harvested in or from the EEZ 

portion of the Mid-Atlantic Forage 

Species Management Unit, as defined at 

§ 648.351(c). The operator permit 

requirements specified in this paragraph 

(a)(2) for an operator of a vessel fishing 

for and possessing Atlantic chub 

mackerel are effective through 

December 31, 2020. 

* * * * * 

■ 5. In § 648.6, revise paragraph (a)(1) to 

read as follows: 

§ 648.6 Dealer/processor permits. 

(a) * * * 

(1) All dealers of NE multispecies, 

monkfish, skates, Atlantic herring, 

Atlantic sea scallop, Atlantic deep-sea 

red crab, spiny dogfish, summer 

flounder, Atlantic surfclam, ocean 

quahog, Atlantic mackerel, squid, 

butterfish, scup, bluefish, tilefish, and 

black sea bass; Atlantic surfclam and 

ocean quahog processors; Atlantic 

hagfish dealers and/or processors, and 

Atlantic herring processors or dealers, 

as described in § 648.2; must have been 

issued under this section, and have in 

their possession, a valid permit or 

permits for these species. A dealer of 

Atlantic chub mackerel or Mid-Atlantic 

forage species, as defined in § 648.2, 

harvested in or from the EEZ portion of 

the Mid-Atlantic Forage Species 

Management Unit, as defined at 

§ 648.351(c), must have been issued and 

have in their possession, a valid dealer 

permit for any species issued in 

accordance with this paragraph. The 

dealer permit requirements specified in 

this paragraph (a)(1) for dealers 

purchasing Atlantic chub mackerel are 

effective through December 31, 2020. 

* * * * * 

■ 6. In § 648.7, revise paragraphs (a)(1) 

and (b)(1)(i) to read as follows: 

§ 648.7 Recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements. 

(a)(1) Detailed report. Federally 

permitted dealers, and any individual 

acting in the capacity of a dealer, must 

submit to the Regional Administrator or 

to the official designee a detailed report 

of all fish purchased or received for a 

commercial purpose, other than solely 

for transport on land, within the time 

period specified in paragraph (f) of this 

section, by one of the available 

electronic reporting mechanisms 

approved by NMFS, unless otherwise 

directed by the Regional Administrator. 

The dealer reporting requirements 

specified in this paragraph (a)(1) for 

dealers purchasing or receiving for a 

commercial purpose Atlantic chub 

mackerel are effective through 

December 31, 2020. The following 

information, and any other information 

required by the Regional Administrator, 

must be provided in each report: 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(i) The owner or operator of any 

vessel issued a valid permit or eligible 

to renew a limited access permit under 

this part must maintain on board the 

vessel, and submit, an accurate fishing 

log report for each fishing trip, 

regardless of species fished for or taken, 

on forms supplied by or approved by 

the Regional Administrator. The 

reporting requirements specified in this 

paragraph (b)(1)(i) for an owner or 

operator of a vessels fishing for, 

possessing, or landing Atlantic chub 

mackerel are effective through 

December 31, 2020. If authorized in 

writing by the Regional Administrator, a 

vessel owner or operator may submit 

reports electronically, for example by 

using a VMS or other media. With the 

exception of those vessel owners or 

operators fishing under a surfclam or 

ocean quahog permit, at least the 

following information and any other 

information required by the Regional 

Administrator must be provided: Vessel 

name; USCG documentation number (or 

state registration number, if 

undocumented); permit number; date/ 

time sailed; date/time landed; trip type; 

number of crew; number of anglers (if a 

charter or party boat); gear fished; 

quantity and size of gear; mesh/ring 

size; chart area fished; average depth; 

latitude/longitude (or loran station and 

bearings); total hauls per area fished; 

average tow time duration; hail weight, 

in pounds (or count of individual fish, 

if a party or charter vessel), by species, 

of all species, or parts of species, such 

as monkfish livers, landed or discarded; 

and, in the case of skate discards, 

‘‘small’’ (i.e., less than 23 inches (58.42 

cm), total length) or ‘‘large’’ (i.e., 23 

inches (58.42 cm) or greater, total 

length) skates; dealer permit number; 

dealer name; date sold, port and state 

landed; and vessel operator’s name, 

signature, and operator’s permit number 

(if applicable). 

* * * * * 

■ 7. In § 648.12, revise the introductory 

text to read as follows: 

§ 648.12 Experimental fishing. 

The Regional Administrator may 

exempt any person or vessel from the 

requirements of subparts A (General 

provisions), B (Atlantic mackerel, squid, 

and butterfish), D (Atlantic sea scallop), 

E (Atlantic surfclam and ocean quahog), 

F (NE multispecies and monkfish), G 

(summer flounder), H (scup), I (black 

sea bass), J (Atlantic bluefish), K 

(Atlantic herring), L (spiny dogfish), M 

(Atlantic deep-sea red crab), N (tilefish), 

O (skates), and P (Mid-Atlantic forage 

species and Atlantic chub mackerel) of 

this part for the conduct of experimental 

fishing beneficial to the management of 

the resources or fishery managed under 

that subpart. The Regional 

Administrator shall consult with the 

Executive Director of the MAFMC 

before approving any exemptions for the 

Atlantic mackerel, squid, butterfish, 

summer flounder, scup, black sea bass, 

spiny dogfish, bluefish, and tilefish 

fisheries, including exemptions for 

experimental fishing contributing to the 

development of new or expansion of 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 165 / Monday, August 28, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 40733 

existing fisheries for Mid-Atlantic forage 

species and Atlantic chub mackerel. 

* * * * * 

■ 8. In § 648.14, add paragraph (w) to 

read as follows: 

§ 648.14 Prohibitions. 

* * * * * 

(w) Mid-Atlantic forage species and 

Atlantic chub mackerel. It is unlawful 

for any person owning or operating a 

vessel issued a valid commercial permit 

under this part to do any of the 

following: 

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

or land; or attempt to fish for, possess, 

transfer, receive, or land; more than 

1,700 lb (771.11 kg) of all Mid-Atlantic 

forage species combined per trip in or 

from the Mid-Atlantic Forage Species 

Management Unit, as defined at 

§ 648.351(c). A vessel not issued a 

commercial permit in accordance with 

§ 648.4 that fished exclusively in state 

waters or a vessel that fished Federal 

waters outside of the Mid-Atlantic 

Forage Species Management Unit that is 

transiting the area with gear that is 

stowed and not available for immediate 

use is exempt from this prohibition. 

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

or land; or attempt to fish for, possess, 

transfer, receive, or land; more than 

40,000 lb (18.14 mt) of Atlantic chub 

mackerel per trip in or from the MidAtlantic Forage Species Management 

Unit, as defined at § 648.351(c), after the 

annual Atlantic chub mackerel landing 

limit has been harvested and notice has 

been provided to the public consistent 

with the Administrative Procedure Act. 

A vessel not issued a commercial permit 

in accordance with § 648.4 that fished 

exclusively in state waters or a vessel 

that fished in Federal waters outside of 

the Mid-Atlantic Forage Species 

Management Unit that is transiting the 

area with gear that is stowed and not 

available for immediate use is exempt 

from this prohibition. 

■ 9. Add subpart P to read as follows: 

Subpart P—Mid-Atlantic Forage Species 

and Atlantic Chub Mackerel 

Sec. 

648.350 Mid-Atlantic forage species and 

Atlantic chub mackerel annual landing 

limits. 

648.351 Mid-Atlantic forage species and 

Atlantic chub mackerel possession 

limits. 

648.352 Mid-Atlantic forage species and 

Atlantic chub mackerel framework 

measures. 

§ 648.350 Mid-Atlantic forage species and 

Atlantic chub mackerel annual landing 

limits. 

(a) Mid-Atlantic forage species. There 

is no annual landing limit for MidAtlantic forage species, as defined at 

§ 648.2. 

(b) Atlantic chub mackerel. Effective 

through December 31, 2020, the annual 

landings limit for Atlantic chub 

mackerel is set at 2.86 million lb (1,297 

mt). All landings of Atlantic chub 

mackerel by vessels issued a Federal 

commercial permit in accordance with 

§ 648.4 in ports from Maine through 

North Carolina shall count against the 

annual landings limit. NMFS shall close 

the directed fishery for Atlantic chub 

mackerel in the EEZ portion of the MidAtlantic Forage Species Management 

Unit in a manner consistent with the 

Administrative Procedure Act when the 

Regional Administrator determines that 

100 percent of the Atlantic chub 

mackerel annual landings limit has been 

harvested. Following closure of the 

directed Atlantic chub mackerel fishery, 

a vessel must adhere to the possession 

limit specified in § 648.351(b). 

§ 648.351 Mid-Atlantic forage species and 

Atlantic chub mackerel possession limits. 

(a) Mid-Atlantic forage species. Unless 

otherwise prohibited in § 648.80, a 

vessel issued a valid commercial permit 

in accordance with § 648.4 may fish for, 

possess, and land up to 1,700 lb (771.11 

kg) of all Mid-Atlantic forage species 

combined per trip in or from the EEZ 

portion of the Mid-Atlantic Forage 

Species Management Unit, as defined in 

paragraph (c) of this section. A vessel 

not issued a permit in accordance with 

§ 648.4 that is fishing exclusively in 

state waters is exempt from the 

possession limits specified in this 

section. 

(b) Atlantic chub mackerel. Effective 

through December 31, 2020, a vessel 

issued a valid commercial permit in 

accordance with § 648.4 may fish for, 

possess, and land an unlimited amount 

of Atlantic chub mackerel from the MidAtlantic Forage Species Management 

Unit, as defined in paragraph (c) of this 

section, provided the Atlantic chub 

mackerel annual landing limit has not 

been harvested. Once the Atlantic chub 

mackerel annual landing limit has been 

harvested, as specified in § 648.350, a 

vessel may fish for, possess, and land up 

to 40,000 lb (18.14 mt) of Atlantic chub 

mackerel per trip in or from the MidAtlantic Forage Species Management 

Unit for the remainder of the fishing 

year (until December 31). A vessel not 

issued a permit in accordance with 

§ 648.4 that is fishing exclusively in 

state waters is exempt from the 

possession limits specified in this 

section. 

(c) Mid-Atlantic Forage Species 

Management Unit. The Mid-Atlantic 

Forage Species Management Unit is the 

area of the Atlantic Ocean that is 

bounded on the southeast by the outer 

limit of the U.S. EEZ; bounded on the 

south by 35°15.3′ N. lat. (the 

approximate latitude of Cape Hatteras, 

NC); bounded on the west and north by 

the coastline of the United States; and 

bounded on the northeast by the 

following points, connected in the order 

listed by straight lines: 

Point Latitude Longitude 

1 ................ 40°59.32′ N. 73°39.62′ W. 

2 ................ 40°59.02′ N. 73°39.41′ W. 

3 ................ 40°57.05′ N. 73°36.78′ W. 

4 ................ 40°57.87′ N. 73°32.85′ W. 

5 ................ 40°59.78′ N. 73°23.70′ W. 

6 ................ 41°1.57′ N. 73°15.00′ W. 

7 ................ 41°3.40′ N. 73°6.10′ W. 

8 ................ 41°4.65′ N. 73°0.00′ W. 

9 ................ 41°6.67′ N. 72°50.00′ W. 

10 .............. 41°8.69′ N. 72°40.00′ W. 

11 .............. 41°10.79′ N. 72°29.45′ W. 

12 .............. 41°12.22′ N. 72°22.25′ W. 

13 .............. 41°13.57′ N. 72°15.38′ W. 

14 .............. 41°14.94′ N. 72°8.35′ W. 

15 .............. 41°15.52′ N. 72°5.41′ W. 

16 .............. 41°17.43′ N. 72°1.18′ W. 

17 .............. 41°18.62′ N. 71°55.80′ W. 

18 .............. 41°18.27′ N. 71°54.47′ W. 

19 .............. 41°10.31′ N. 71°46.44′ W. 

20 .............. 41°2.35′ N. 71°38.43′ W. 

21 .............. 40°54.37′ N. 71°30.45′ W. 

22 .............. 40°46.39′ N. 71°22.51′ W. 

23 .............. 40°38.39′ N. 71°14.60′ W. 

24 .............. 40°30.39′ N. 71°6.72′ W. 

25 .............. 40°22.38′ N. 70°58.87′ W. 

26 .............. 40°14.36′ N. 70°51.05′ W. 

27 .............. 40°6.33′ N. 70°43.27′ W. 

28 .............. 39°58.29′ N. 70°35.51′ W. 

29 .............. 39°50.24′ N. 70°27.78′ W. 

30 .............. 39°42.18′ N. 70°20.09′ W. 

31 .............. 39°34.11′ N. 70°12.42′ W. 

32 .............. 39°26.04′ N. 70°4.78′ W. 

33 .............. 39°17.96′ N. 69°57.18′ W. 

34 .............. 39°9.86′ N. 69°49.6′ W. 

35 .............. 39°1.77′ N. 69°42.05′ W. 

36 .............. 38°53.66′ N. 69°34.53′ W. 

37 .............. 38°45.54′ N. 69°27.03′ W. 

38 .............. 38°37.42′ N. 69°19.57′ W. 

39 .............. 38°29.29′ N. 69°12.13′ W. 

40 .............. 38°21.15′ N. 69°4.73′ W. 

41 .............. 38°13.00′ N. 68°57.35′ W. 

42 .............. 38°4.84′ N. 68°49.99′ W. 

43* ............. 38°2.21′ N. 68°47.62′ W. 

* Point 43 falls on the U.S. EEZ. 

(d) Transiting. Any vessel issued a 

valid permit in accordance with § 648.4 

may transit the Mid-Atlantic Forage 

Species Management Unit, as defined in 

paragraph (c) of this section, with an 

amount of Mid-Atlantic forage species 

or Atlantic chub mackerel on board that 

exceeds the possession limits specified 

in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, 

respectively, to land in a port in a state 

that is outside of the Mid-Atlantic 

Forage Species Management Unit, 

provided that those species were 

harvested outside of the Mid-Atlantic 

Forage Species Management Unit and 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES
40734 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 165 / Monday, August 28, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

that all gear is stowed and not available 

for immediate use as defined in § 648.2. 

The transitting provisions specified in 

this paragraph (d) for a vessel 

possessing Atlantic chub mackerel are 

effective through December 31, 2020. 

§ 648.352 Mid-Atlantic forage species and 

Atlantic chub mackerel framework 

measures. 

(a) General. The MAFMC may, at any 

time, initiate action to add or revise 

management measures if it finds that 

action is necessary to meet or be 

consistent with the goals and objectives 

of the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and 

Butterfish FMP; the Atlantic Surfclam 

and Ocean Quahog FMP; the Summer 

Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass 

FMP; the Atlantic Bluefish FMP; the 

Spiny Dogfish FMP; and Tilefish FMPs. 

(b) Adjustment process. The MAFMC 

shall develop and analyze appropriate 

management actions over the span of at 

least two MAFMC meetings. The 

MAFMC must provide the public with 

advance notice of the availability of the 

recommendation(s), appropriate 

justification(s) and economic and 

biological analyses, and the opportunity 

to comment on the proposed 

adjustment(s) at its first meeting, prior 

to its second meeting, and at its second 

meeting. The MAFMC’s 

recommendations on adjustments or 

additions to management measures 

must come from one or more of the 

following categories: The list of MidAtlantic forage species, possession 

limits, annual landing limits, and any 

other measure currently included in the 

applicable FMPs specified in paragraph 

(a) of this section. Issues that require 

significant departures from previously 

contemplated measures or that are 

otherwise introducing new concepts 

may require an amendment of the FMPs 

instead of a framework adjustment. 

(c) MAFMC recommendation. See 

§ 648.110(a)(2). 

(d) NMFS action. See § 648.110(a)(3). 

(e) Emergency actions. See 

§ 648.110(a)(4). 

[FR Doc. 2017–18034 Filed 8–25–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES