        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Parts 223 and 224
        [Docket No. 190130032-9324-01]
        RIN 0648-XG758
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List Summer-Run Steelhead in Northern California as Threatened or Endangered Under the Endangered Species Act

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

          ACTION:
          90-day petition finding, request for information, and initiation of status review.

          SUMMARY:

          We, NMFS, announce a 90-day finding on a petition to list Northern California (NC) summer-run steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) as an Endangered distinct population segment (DPS) under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). We find that the petition presents substantial scientific information indicating the petitioned action may be warranted. We will conduct a status review of NC summer-run steelhead to determine if the petitioned action is warranted. To ensure that the status review is comprehensive, we are soliciting scientific and commercial information pertaining to this species from any interested party.

          DATES:
          Scientific and commercial information pertinent to the petitioned action must be received by June 21, 2019.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on this document, identified by “Northern California summer-run steelhead Petition (NOAA-NMFS-2019-0003),” by either of the following methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2019-0003, click the “Comment Now” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail or hand-delivery: Protected Resources Division, West Coast Region, NMFS, 1201 NE Lloyd Blvd., Suite #1100, Portland, OR 97232. Attn: Gary Rule.

            Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on http://www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. We will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).

          Electronic copies of the petition and other materials are available on the NMFS West Coast Region website at www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Gary Rule, NMFS West Coast Region, at gary.rule@noaa.gov, (503) 230-5424; or Heather Austin, NMFS Office of Protected Resources, at heather.austin@noaa.gov, (301) 427-8422.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background

        On November 15, 2018, the Secretary of Commerce received a petition from the Friends of the Eel River (hereafter, the Petitioner) to list NC summer-run steelhead as an endangered DPS under the ESA. Currently, NC summer-run steelhead are part of the NC steelhead DPS that combines winter-run and summer-run steelhead and is listed as threatened under the ESA (71 FR 833; January 5, 2006). The Petitioner is requesting that NC summer-run steelhead be considered as a separate DPS and listed as endangered. Copies of the petition are available as described above (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
        ESA Statutory, Regulatory, Policy Provisions, and Evaluation Framework

        Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires, to the maximum extent practicable, that within 90 days of receipt of a petition to list a species as threatened or endangered, the Secretary of Commerce make a finding on whether that petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted, and to promptly publish such finding in the Federal Register (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)). When it is found that substantial scientific or commercial information in a petition indicates the petitioned action may be warranted (a “positive 90-day finding”), we are required to promptly commence a review of the status of the species concerned during which we will conduct a comprehensive review of the best available scientific and commercial information. In such cases, we conclude the review with a finding as to whether, in fact, the petitioned action is warranted within 12 months of receipt of the petition. Because the finding at the 12-month stage is based on a more thorough review of the available information, as compared to the narrow scope of review at the 90-day stage, a positive 90-day finding does not prejudge the outcome of the status review.
        Under the ESA, a listing determination may address a species, which is defined to also include subspecies and, for any vertebrate species, any DPS that interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). A joint NMFS-U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (jointly, “the Services”) policy clarifies the Services' interpretation of the phrase “distinct population segment” for the purposes of listing, delisting, and reclassifying a species under the ESA (DPS Policy; 61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996). A species, subspecies, or DPS is “endangered” if it is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and “threatened” if it is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range (ESA sections 3(6) and 3(20), respectively, 16 U.S.C. 1532(6) and (20)). Pursuant to the ESA and our implementing regulations, we determine whether species are threatened or endangered based on any one or a combination of the following five ESA section 4(a)(1) factors: The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of the species' habitat or range; overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; disease or predation; the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or other natural or manmade factors affecting the species' continued existence (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1)(A)-(E), 50 CFR 424.11(c)(1)-(5)).
        ESA-implementing regulations issued jointly by NMFS and USFWS (50 CFR 424.14(h)(1)(i)) define “substantial scientific or commercial information” in the context of reviewing a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species as “credible scientific or commercial information in support of the petition's claims such that a reasonable person conducting an impartial scientific review would conclude that the action proposed in the petition may be warranted.” Conclusions drawn in the petition without the support of credible scientific or commercial information will not be considered “substantial information.” In reaching the initial 90-day finding on the petition, we consider the information described in sections 50 CFR 424.14(c), (d), and (g) (if applicable).

        Our determination as to whether the petition provides substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted depends in part on the degree to which the petition includes the following types of information: (1) Information on current population status and trends and estimates of current population sizes and distributions, both in captivity and the wild, if available; (2) identification of the factors under section 4(a)(1) of the ESA that may affect the species and where these factors are acting upon the species; (3) whether and to what extent any or all of the factors alone or in combination identified in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA may cause the species to be an endangered species or threatened species (i.e., the species is currently in danger of extinction or is likely to become so within the foreseeable future), and, if so, how high in magnitude and how imminent the threats to the species and its habitat are; (4) information on the adequacy of regulatory protections and effectiveness of conservation activities by States as well as other parties, that have been initiated or that are ongoing, that may protect the species or its habitat; and (5) a complete, balanced representation of the relevant facts, including information that may contradict claims in the petition. See 50 CFR 424.14(d).
        If the petitioner provides supplemental information before the initial finding is made and states that it is part of the petition, the new information, along with the previously submitted information, is treated as a new petition that supersedes the original petition, and the statutory timeframes will begin when such supplemental information is received. See 50 CFR 424.14(g).

        We also consider information readily available at the time the determination is made. We are not required to consider any supporting materials cited by the petitioner if the petitioner does not provide electronic or hard copies, to the extent permitted by U.S. copyright law, or appropriate excerpts or quotations from those materials (e.g., publications, maps, reports, and letters from authorities). See 50 CFR 424.14(h)(1)(ii).

        The “substantial scientific or commercial information” standard must be applied in light of any prior reviews or findings we have made on the listing status of the species that is the subject of the petition. Where we have already conducted a finding on, or review of, the listing status of that species (whether in response to a petition or on our own initiative), we will evaluate any petition received thereafter seeking to list, delist, or reclassify that species to determine whether a reasonable person conducting an impartial scientific review would conclude that the action proposed in the petition may be warranted despite the previous review or finding. Where the prior review resulted in a final agency action—such as a final listing determination, 90-day not-substantial finding, or 12-month not-warranted finding—a petitioned action will generally not be considered to present substantial scientific and commercial information indicating that the action may be warranted unless the petition provides new information or analyses not previously considered.
        At the 90-day finding stage, we do not conduct additional research, and we do not solicit information from parties outside the agency to help us in evaluating the petition. We will accept the petitioner's sources and characterizations of the information presented if they appear to be based on accepted scientific principles, unless we have specific information in our files that indicates the petition's information is incorrect, unreliable, obsolete, or otherwise irrelevant to the requested action. Information that is susceptible to more than one interpretation or that is contradicted by other available information will not be dismissed at the 90-day finding stage, so long as it is reliable and a reasonable person conducting an impartial scientific review would conclude it supports the petitioner's assertions. In other words, conclusive information indicating the species may meet the ESA's requirements for listing is not required to make a positive 90- day finding. We will not conclude that a lack of specific information alone necessitates a negative 90-day finding if a reasonable person conducting an impartial scientific review would conclude that the unknown information itself suggests the species may be at risk of extinction presently or within the foreseeable future.

        To make a 90-day finding on a petition to list a species, we evaluate whether the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating the subject species may be either threatened or endangered, as defined by the ESA. First, we evaluate whether the information presented in the petition, in light of the information readily available in our files, indicates that the petitioned entity constitutes a “species” eligible for listing under the ESA. Next, we evaluate whether the information indicates that the species faces an extinction risk such that listing, delisting, or reclassification may be warranted; this may be indicated in information expressly discussing the species' status and trends, or in information describing impacts and threats to the species. We evaluate any information on specific demographic factors pertinent to evaluating extinction risk for the species (e.g., population abundance and trends, productivity, spatial structure, age structure, sex ratio, diversity, current and historical range, habitat integrity or fragmentation), and the potential contribution of identified demographic risks to extinction risk for the species. We then evaluate the potential links between these demographic risks and the causative impacts and threats identified in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA.
        Information presented on impacts or threats should be specific to the species and should reasonably suggest that one or more of these factors may be operative threats that act or have acted on the species to the point that it may warrant protection under the ESA. Broad statements about generalized threats to the species, or identification of factors that could negatively impact a species, do not constitute substantial information indicating that listing may be warranted. We look for information indicating that not only is the particular species exposed to a factor, but that the species may be responding in a negative fashion; then we assess the potential significance of that negative response.
        Northern California Steelhead

        Following completion of a comprehensive status review of West Coast steelhead (O. mykiss) populations in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California, NMFS published a proposed rule to list 10 Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs) as threatened or endangered under the ESA on August 9, 1996 (61 FR 41541). One of these steelhead ESUs, the NC ESU, was proposed for listing as a threatened species. Because of scientific disagreements, NMFS deferred its final listing determination for five of these steelhead ESUs, including the NC ESU, on August 18, 1997 (62 FR 43937). After soliciting and reviewing additional information to resolve these disagreements, NMFS published a final determination on March 19, 1998 (63 FR 13347), that the NC ESU did not warrant listing under the ESA because available scientific information and conservation measures indicated the ESU was at a lower risk of extinction than at the time of the proposed rule. Because the State of California did not implement conservation measures that NMFS considered critically important in its decision to not list the NC steelhead ESU, NMFS completed an updated status review for the ESU and reassessed the State and Federal conservation measures that were in place to protect the ESU. Based on this reconsideration, NMFS proposed to list the NC steelhead ESU as a threatened species under the ESA on February 11, 2000 (65 FR 6960). After considering public comments on the proposed determination, NMFS issued a final rule to list the NC ESU of steelhead as a threatened species on June 7, 2000 (65 FR 36074). Within the NC ESU, only naturally spawned anadromous populations of steelhead (and their progeny) residing below naturally occurring and man-made impassable barriers (e.g., impassable waterfalls and dams) were listed.
        A court ruling in 2001 (Alsea Valley Alliance v. Evans, 161 F. Supp. 2d 1154 (D. Or. 2001)) determined that listing only a subset of a species or ESU/DPS, such as the anadromous portion of O. mykiss, was not allowed under the ESA. Because of this court ruling, NMFS conducted updated status reviews for all West Coast steelhead ESUs that took into account those non-anadromous populations below dams and other major migration barriers that were considered to be part of the steelhead ESUs (Good et al. 2005). Subsequently, NMFS used the joint USFWS-NMFS DPS Policy to delineate steelhead-only DPSs rather than ESUs that included both steelhead and the related non-anadromous forms. Using this DPS Policy, NMFS redefined the NC steelhead ESU as a steelhead-only DPS and reaffirmed that the NC steelhead DPS was a threatened species under the ESA (71 FR 834; January 5, 2006). The DPS includes both summer-run and winter-run steelhead. Since 2006, NMFS has conducted two status reviews (76 FR 50447; August 15, 2011 and 81 FR 33468; May 26, 2016) to evaluate whether the listing classification of NC steelhead remains accurate or should be changed. In both instances, after reviewing the best available scientific and commercial data, we concluded that no change in ESA-listing status for NC steelhead was warranted.

        Section 4(d) of the ESA directs NMFS to issue regulations deemed necessary and advisable to conserve species listed as threatened. Under section 4(d), NMFS may prohibit “take,” which would include any act that kills or injures fish, and could include habitat modification. NMFS originally promulgated 4(d) protective regulations for NC steelhead in 2002 (67 FR 1116) and then subsequently modified those regulations in 2005 (70 FR 37160).

        The ESA requires NMFS to designate critical habitat for any species it lists under the ESA. Critical habitat is defined as: (i) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species, at the time it is listed . . . , on which are found those physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation of the species, and (II) which may require special management considerations or protection; and (ii) specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed . . . that . . . are essential for the conservation of the species. 16 U.S.C. 1532(5)(A)(i)-(ii). NMFS designated critical habitat for NC steelhead DPS in 2005 (70 FR 52488).
        Evaluation of Petition and Information Readily Available in NMFS Files

        The petition contains information and arguments in support of listing NC summer-run steelhead as an endangered DPS under the ESA. Based on biological, genetic, and ecological information compiled and reviewed as part of previous NC steelhead status reviews (Busby et al. 1996; NMFS 1997; Adams 2000), we included all summer-run and winter-run steelhead populations in river basins from Redwood Creek in Humboldt County, California, south to the Gualala River, inclusive, in the NC steelhead DPS (65 FR 36074; June 7, 2000). Busby et al. (1996) found that the few genetic analyses that had considered this issue indicated that summer-run and winter-run steelhead from the same river basin are more genetically similar to each other than to the same run type in another river basin. In our 1997 status review update (NMFS 1997), we examined additional genetic data and reconfirmed that summer-run and winter-run steelhead from the same geographic area typically are more genetically similar to one another compared to populations with similar run timing in different geographic areas.

        The Petitioner presents new genetic evidence to suggest the summer-run steelhead populations may qualify as a separate DPS from the winter-run populations. The Petitioner contends the findings from recently published articles on the evolutionary basis of premature migration in Pacific salmon (Prince et al. 2017; Thompson et al. 2018) indicate that summer-run steelhead in the NC steelhead DPS should be considered a separate DPS. Prince et al. (2017) reported on a survey of genetic variation between mature- and premature-migrating populations of steelhead and Chinook salmon from California, Oregon, and Washington. Thompson et al. (2018) provide additional information about genetic differentiation between mature- and premature-migrating Chinook salmon in the Rogue River, Oregon. The authors of these studies suggest that their results indicate that premature migration (e.g., summer-run steelhead) arose from a single evolutionary event within the species and, if lost, are not likely to re-evolve in time frames relevant to conservation planning. The Petitioner also asserts that Moyle et al. (2017) provides arguments in support of delineating NC summer-run steelhead as a DPS. Moyle et al. (2017) maintains that winter-run and summer-run are genetically discrete and separate units of migrating populations. Moyle et al. (2017) further asserts that NC summer-run steelhead are distinctive in their genetic makeup, behavior, and reproductive biology and require different conservation frameworks than winter-run steelhead. Therefore, the Petitioner contends that the new genetic information indicates that summer-run steelhead in the NC steelhead DPS satisfy the criteria for a species to be considered a DPS because it is: (1) Discrete in relation to the remainder of the species to which it belongs; and (2) significant to the species to which it belongs.

        The Petitioner asserts that all five ESA section 4(a)(1) factors contribute to the need to list the NC summer-run steelhead as an endangered DPS. In support of this assertion, the Petitioner presents information from three sources: (1) The 2016 5-Year Review: Summary & Evaluation of California Coastal Chinook Salmon and Northern California Steelhead (NMFS 2016b); (2) the Coastal Multispecies Recovery Plan (CMP) (NMFS 2016a); and (3) State of Salmonids: Status of California's Emblematic Fishes (Moyle et al. 2017). Our status review and recovery plan describe the current status and threats facing the NC steelhead DPS. Moyle et al. (2017) presents additional scientific and technical information about the status of the NC summer-run steelhead populations.
        Petition Finding
        After reviewing the information contained in the petition, as well as information readily available in our files, we conclude the petition presents substantial scientific information indicating that the petitioned action to delineate a NC summer-run steelhead DPS may be warranted. Therefore, in accordance with section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA and NMFS' implementing regulations (50 CFR 424.14(h)(2)), we will commence a status review to determine whether the summer-run populations of steelhead constitute a DPS, and, if so, whether the NC summer-run steelhead DPS is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, or likely to become so within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. After the conclusion of the status review, we will make a finding as to whether listing the NC summer-run steelhead DPS as endangered or threatened is warranted as required by section 4(b)(3)(B) of the ESA.
        Information Solicited
        To ensure that our status review is informed by the best available scientific and commercial information, we are opening a 60-day public comment period to solicit information on summer- and winter-run steelhead in the NC steelhead DPS. We request information from the public, concerned governmental agencies, Native American tribes, the scientific community, agricultural and forestry groups, conservation groups, fishing groups, industry, or any other interested parties concerning the current and/or historical status of summer- and winter-run steelhead in the NC steelhead DPS. Specifically, we request information regarding: (1) Species abundance; (2) species productivity; (3) species distribution or population spatial structure; (4) patterns of phenotypic, genotypic, and life history diversity; (5) habitat conditions and associated limiting factors and threats; (6) ongoing or planned efforts to protect and restore the species and their habitats; (7) information on the adequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms, whether protections are being implemented, and whether they are proving effective in conserving the species; (8) data concerning the status and trends of identified limiting factors or threats; (9) information on targeted harvest (commercial and recreational) and bycatch of the species; (10) other new information, data, or corrections including, but not limited to, taxonomic or nomenclatural changes; and (11) information concerning the impacts of environmental variability and climate change on survival, recruitment, distribution, and/or extinction risk.

        We request that all information be accompanied by: (1) Supporting documentation such as maps, bibliographic references, or reprints of pertinent publications; and (2) the submitter's name, address, and any association, institution, or business that the person represents.

        References Cited

        The complete citations for the references used in this document can be obtained by contacting NMFS (See FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) or on our web page at: www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov.

          Authority:

           The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

          Dated: April 17, 2019.
          Patricia A. Montanio,
          Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2019-07995 Filed 4-19-19; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Parts 112 and 412
        [FRL-6936-2]
        National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Regulation and Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations—Proposed Revisions; Public Meetings

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Notice of public meetings.

          SUMMARY:

          The Environmental Protection Agency hereby gives notice that it will conduct eight public meetings on new proposed regulations under the Clean Water Act for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs). EPA Administrator Carol Browner signed these proposed regulations on December 15, 2000, and the Agency published the proposed regulations in the Federal Register on January 12, 2001, under the title National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Regulation and Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations.
          The purpose of the meetings is to enhance public understanding of the proposed regulations for CAFOs. The meetings are not a mechanism for submitting formal comments on the proposal. The meetings will consist of a brief presentation by EPA officials on the proposed regulations followed by a question and answer session. Participants are encouraged to familiarize themselves with the basic aspects of the proposed regulations prior to the public meetings; each speaker's time will be limited so that all interested parties may have the opportunity to pose questions. Advance registration is not required.

          DATES:
          See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for meeting dates.

          ADDRESSES:
          See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for meeting addresses. Formal comments on the proposal should be submitted by mail to: Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation Proposed Rule Comment Clerk OW-00-27, Water Docket (MC4101), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington DC 20460. Comments may also be submitted electronically to ow-docket@epa.gov. For more specifics about how to submit comments, please refer to the January 12 Federal Register announcement, available at http://www.epa.gov/owm/afos/rule.htm.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          To obtain additional information about the meetings, please contact Nina Bonnelycke, U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 4203M, Washington, DC 20460. Questions may also be directed to Ms. Bonnelycke at 202-564-0764 or bonnelycke.nina@epa.gov. Information on the CAFO proposal public meetings and on the CAFO proposal in general is also available at http://www.epa.gov/owm/afos/rule.htm. The website has the text of the Federal Register announcement with the CAFO proposed rule and accompanying preamble, a factsheet describing the proposal, and other pertinent information. Key documents are also available through EPA's Water Resources Center (202-260-7786).

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Dates, Cities, Times and Addresses for Public Meetings
        EPA is conducting eight public meetings on the CAFO proposed regulations as described in the following table:

            Date
            City
            Time
            Meeting address

            March 1, 2001
            Baltimore, MD
            1 p.m.-5 p.m.
            Baltimore Marriott, Inner Harbor, 110 South Eutaw Street.

            March 7, 2001
            Ames, IA
            1:30 p.m.-5:30 p.m.
            Benton Auditorium, Scheman Building, Iowa State Center, Elwood Drive.

            March 13, 2001
            Riverside, CA
            1 p.m.-5 p.m.
            Riverside Convention Center, Holiday Inn Select, 3400 Market Street.

            March 15, 2001
            Ft. Wayne, IN
            1 p.m.-5 p.m.
            Fort Wayne Hilton at the Convention Center, 120 South Calhoun Street.

            March 20, 2001
            Dallas, TX
            1 p.m.-5 p.m.
            Hotel Adolphus, 1321 Commerce Street.

            March 22, 2001
            Chattanooga, TN
            1 p.m.-5 p.m.
            Chattanooga Clarion Hotel, 47 Chestnut Street.

            March 27, 2001
            Denver, CO
            1 p.m.-5 p.m.
            Executive Tower Hotel, 1405 Curtis Street.

            March 29, 2001
            Boise, ID
            1 p.m.-5 p.m.
            The Grove Hotel, 245 South Capitol Blvd.

        Prior to attending any of these public meetings, please confirm location information with EPA as indicated under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

        Please note that the purpose of these meetings is to enhance public understanding of the proposed regulations for CAFOs. The meetings are not a mechanism for submitting formal comments on the proposal, and formal comments should be submitted to the address provided in the ADDRESSES section above.
        Background on CAFO Proposed Regulations
        On December 15, 2000, EPA Administrator Browner signed the Agency's proposal to revise and update two regulations under the Clean Water Act (40 CFR parts 112 and 412) that address the water quality impacts of manure, wastewater, and other process waters generated by concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs). These two regulations are the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) provisions that define which operations are CAFOs and establish permit requirements, and the Effluent Limitations Guidelines for feedlots (beef, dairy, swine and poultry subcategories), which establish the technology-based effluent discharge standards for CAFOs. EPA is proposing revisions to these regulations to address changes that have occurred in the animal industry sectors over the last 25 years, to clarify and improve implementation of CAFO permit requirements, and to improve the environmental protection achieved under these rules.

        Environmental concerns being addressed by this rule include both ecological and human health effects. Manure from stockpiles, lagoons, or excessive land application can reach waterways through runoff, erosion, spills, or via groundwater. These discharges can result in excessive nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium), oxygen-depleting substances, and other pollutants in the water. This pollution can kill fish and shellfish, cause excess algae growth, harm marine mammals, and contaminate drinking water.
        EPA is proposing to revise effluent guidelines applicable to beef, dairy, swine, and poultry operations that are defined as CAFOs, pursuant to the NPDES revisions. The proposed effluent guidelines include regulations for both new and existing animal feeding operations that meet the definition of a CAFO. The proposed effluent guidelines revisions do not alter the requirements for horses, ducks, sheep or lambs.
        EPA published the proposed regulations in the Federal Register on January 12, 2001, at 66 FR 2959. The full text of the Federal Register announcement as well as a factsheet describing the proposed regulations are available as outlined above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

          Dated: January 17, 2001.
          Michael B. Cook,
          Director, Office of Wastewater Management, Office of Water.

      [FR Doc. 01-1976 Filed 1-29-01; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-5-U


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        [Docket No.: 151215999-6488-01]
        RIN 0648-BF64
        Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Herring Fishery; Specification of Management Measures for Atlantic Herring for the 2016-2018 Fishing Years

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule, request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes regulations to implement the 2016-2018 fishery specifications and management measures for the Atlantic herring fishery. The specifications would set harvest specifications and river herring/shad catch caps for the herring fishery for the 2016-2018 fishing years as recommended to NMFS by the New England Fishery Management Council. The river herring/shad catch caps are area and gear-specific catch caps for river herring and shad for trips landing more than 6,600 lb (3 mt) of herring. The specifications and management measures are set in order to meet conservation objectives while providing sustainable levels of access to the fishery.

          DATES:
          Public comments must be received by July 21, 2016.

          ADDRESSES:

          Copies of supporting documents used by the New England Fishery Management Council (Council), including the Environmental Assessment (EA) and Regulatory Impact Review (RIR)/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), are available from: Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950, telephone (978) 465-0492. The EA/RIR/IRFA is also accessible via the Internet at http://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/.

          You may submit comments, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2016-0050, by any one of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2016-0050, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments;
          • Mail: Submit written comments to NMFS, Greater Atlantic Regional Office, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope “Comments on 2016-2018 Herring Specifications;”
          • Fax: (978) 281-9135, Attn: Shannah Jaburek.

            Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Shannah Jaburek, Fishery Management Specialist, (978) 282-8456, fax (978) 281-9135.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background

        Regulations implementing the Atlantic Herring Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for herring appear at 50 CFR part 648, subpart K. The regulations at § 648.200 require the Council to recommend herring specifications for NMFS' review and proposal in the Federal Register, including: The overfishing limit (OFL); acceptable biological catch (ABC); annual catch limit (ACL); optimum yield (OY); domestic annual harvest (DAH); domestic annual processing (DAP); U.S. at-sea processing (USAP); border transfer (BT); the sub-ACL for each management area, including seasonal periods as allowed by § 648.201(d) and modifications to sub-ACLs as allowed by § 648.201(f); and the amount to be set aside for the research set aside (RSA) (3 percent of the sub-ACL from any management area) for up to 3 years. These regulations also provide the Council with the discretion to recommend river herring and shad catch caps as part of the specifications.
        Under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), NMFS is required to publish proposed rules for comment after preliminarily determining whether they are consistent with applicable law. 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, plan amendment, the Magnuson-Stevens Act and its National Standards, and other applicable law. Otherwise, NMFS must defer to the Council's policy choices. Under the Atlantic herring regulations guiding the specifications process, NMFS must review the Council's recommended specifications and publish notice of the proposed specifications, clearly noting any differences from the Council's recommendations. NMFS is proposing and seeking comment on the Council's recommended herring specifications and river herring and shad catch caps and whether they are consistent with the Herring FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act and its National Standards, and other applicable law.

        The proposed 2016-2018 herring specifications are based on the provisions currently in the Herring FMP, and provide the necessary elements to comply with the ACL and accountability measure (AM) requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA). At its September 29, 2015, meeting, the Council recommended the 2016-2018 specifications for the herring fishery, including river herring/shad catch caps. NMFS proposes to implement the herring specifications as recommended by the Council and detailed in Table 1 below. For 2016-2018 fishing years, the Council may annually review these specifications and recommend adjustments if necessary.

          Table 1—Proposed Atlantic Herring Specifications

            Status Quo and Proposed Atlantic Herring Specifications (mt)

            2013-2015
            2016-2018

            Overfishing Limit
            169,000-2013136,000-2014
              114,000-2015

            138,000-2016117,000-2017
              111,000-2018.

            Acceptable Biological Catch
            114,000
            111,000.

            Management Uncertainty
            6,200
            6,200.

            Optimum Yield/ACL
            107,800
            104,800.*

            Domestic Annual Harvest
            107,800
            104,800.

            Border Transfer
            4,000
            4,000.

            Domestic Annual Processing
            103,800
            100,800.

            U.S. At-Sea Processing
            0
            0.

            Area 1A Sub-ACL (28.9%)
            31,200
            30,300.*

            Area 1B Sub-ACL (4.3%)
            4,600
            4,500.

            Area 2 Sub-ACL (27.8%)
            30,000
            29,100.

            Area 3 Sub-ACL (39%)
            42,000
            40,900.

            Fixed Gear Set-Aside
            295
            295.

            Research Set-Aside
            3 percent of each sub-ACL
            3 percent of each sub-ACL.

          * If New Brunswick weir fishery catch through October 1 is less than 4,000 mt, then 1,000 mt will be subtracted from the management uncertainty buffer and added to the ACL and Area 1A Sub-ACL.

        An operational update to the herring stock assessment, completed in May 2015, indicated that herring was not overfished and overfishing was not occurring. However, the assessment contained a retrospective pattern suggesting that spawning stock biomass (SSB) is likely overestimated and fishing mortality (F) is likely underestimated. Following an adjustment for the retrospective pattern, the assessment estimated the herring stock at approximately double its target biomass (SSBMSY) and F is approximately half the fishing mortality threshold (FMSY).

        At its June 2015 meeting, the Council recommended a herring ABC of 111,000 mt (a 3-mt decrease from status quo) for 2016-2018 based on the current control rule (constant catch with 50-percent probability that F > FMSY in last year). The resulting overfishing limit was calculated to be 138,000 mt in 2016, 117,000 mt in 2017, and 111,000 mt in 2018. This ABC recommendation is consistent with the Scientific and Statistical Committee's (SSC) advice. After considering herring's role as forage, the Council found that, while the ABC control rule does not explicitly adjust for herring's role in the ecosystem, herring's high biomass (approximately 74 percent of unfished biomass) and low fishing mortality (ratio of catch to consumption by predators is 1:4) likely achieves ecosystem goals.
        Several other factors contributed to the SSC's and Council's recommendation to continue using the current constant catch ABC control rule for 2016-2018. First, the Council recently initiated Amendment 8 to the Herring FMP to consider herring ABC control rules that may explicitly adjust for herring's role as forage in the ecosystem. Second, key attributes of the stock (SSB, recruitment, F, and survey indices) have not significantly changed since the constant catch control rule for herring was used in the 2013-2015 herring specifications. Third, the realized catch in the fishery is generally well below ABC, reducing the likelihood of overfishing. Fourth, the probability of the stock becoming overfished in 2016-2018 is close to zero. Lastly, the constant catch control rule provides the herring industry with economic stability, which was one of the considerations in the Council's harvest risk policy.
        The herring ABC is reduced from the OFL to account for scientific uncertainty. The Council's recommendation to continue using the current constant catch control rule means that the ABC would equal the OFL in 2018. This is consistent with the status quo specifications when ABC was set equal to OFL in 2015, which were successful in preventing overfishing. Some stakeholders (environmental advocacy groups, groundfish industry, and recreational fishing community) are concerned with the potential implications of the assessment's retrospective pattern on herring biomass, including its availability as forage, and the lack of a scientific uncertainty buffer in 2018. Subject to review and consideration of public comment, NMFS preliminarily supports the Council's ABC recommendation. The recent herring operational assessment indicates that the herring biomass is robust, despite an adjustment in the assessment for the retrospective pattern. The realized catch in the fishery is expected to be much less than the ABC, reducing the likelihood of overfishing. Additionally, NMFS anticipates that Amendment 8 will be adopted prior to the development of the 2019-2021 herring fishery specifications, and will consider herring's role in the ecosystem.

        Under the Herring FMP, the herring ACL is reduced from ABC to account for management uncertainty, and the primary source of management uncertainty is catch in the New Brunswick (NB) weir fishery. Catch in the weir fishery is variable, but has declined in recent years. After considering a range of management uncertainty buffers, the Council recommended a buffer of 6,200 mt, which is equivalent to the value of the buffer in 2015. The recommended buffer is greater than the most recent 3-year and 5-year average catch in the NB weir fishery. This would be a more conservative buffer than the buffer used in the most recent specifications that was based on the most recent 3-year average from the NB weir fishery. The resulting stockwide ACL would be 104,800 mt. Given the variability of the NB weir catch and the likelihood that weir catch may be less than 6,200 mt, the Council also recommended a payback provision related to the management uncertainty buffer. Specifically, the Council recommended subtracting 1,000 mt from the buffer and adding it to the ACL if the weir fishery harvests less than 4,000 mt by October 1. The Council recommended October 1 because the fishery primarily occurs during the late summer and fall months (June-October), and catch from the fishery occurring after October averaged less than four percent of total reported landings. If NB catch is less than 4,000 mt by October 1, the buffer would be reduced to 5,200 mt, the ACL would be increased to 105,800 mt, and the Herring Management Area 1A sub-ACL would be increased to 31,300 mt. The NB weir fishery payback provision was last in effect during fishing years 2010-2012. Council recommendations for all other herring specifications, including the sub-ACL's percentages allocated to the herring management areas, were status quo.
        BT is a processing allocation available to Canadian dealers. The MSA provides for the issuance of permits to Canadian vessels transporting U.S. harvested herring to Canada for sardine processing. The Council recommended a 4,000 mt specification for BT. The amount specified for BT has equaled 4,000 mt since 2000. As there continues to be Canadian interest in transporting herring for sardine processing, the Council recommended and NMFS is proposing that the specification for BT would remain unchanged at 4,000 mt.
        The Herring FMP specifies that DAH will be set less than or equal to OY and be comprised of DAP and BT. Consistent with the proposed specifications for OY and ACL, the Council recommended that DAH be 104,800 mt for 2016-2018. DAH should reflect the actual and potential harvesting capacity of the U.S. herring fleet. Since 2001, total landings in the U.S. fishery have decreased, but herring catch has remained somewhat consistent from 2003-2014, averaging 91,925 mt. When previously considering the DAH specification, the Council evaluated the harvesting capacity of the directed herring fleet and determined that the herring fleet is capable of fully utilizing the available yield from the fishery. This determination is still true. Therefore, NMFS is proposing that DAH for the 2016-2018 fishing years be set at 104,800 mt, equal to the OY and ACL.

        DAP is the amount of U.S. harvest that is processed domestically, as well as herring that is sold fresh (i.e., bait). DAP is calculated by subtracting BT from DAH. Using this formula, the Council recommended and NMFS is proposing that DAP be set at 100,800 mt for 2016-2018.
        A portion of DAP may be specified for the at-sea processing of herring in Federal waters. When determining the USAP specification, the Council considers availability of shore-side processing, status of the resource, and opportunities for vessels to participate in the herring fishery. During the 2007-2009 fishing years, the Council maintained a USAP specification of 20,000 mt (Herring Management Areas 2/3 only) based on information received about a new at-sea processing vessel that intended to utilize a substantial amount of the USAP specification. At that time, landings from Areas 2 and 3—where USAP was authorized—were considerably lower than allocated sub-ACLs for each of the past several years. Moreover, the specification of 20,000 mt for USAP did not restrict either the operation or the expansion of the shoreside processing facilities during the 2007-2009 fishing years. However, this operation never materialized, and none of the USAP specification was used during the 2007-2009 fishing years. Consequently, the Council recommended and NMFS set USAP at zero for the 2010-2015 fishing years. The Council did not receive any information that would suggest changing this specification for fishing years 2016-2018, thus the Council recommended and NMFS is proposing that the specification of USAP would remain unchanged at zero.
        The herring ABC specification recommended by the SSC for 2016-2018 is not substantially different from the 2013-2015 ABC specification; therefore, the Council, based on a recommendation from the Herring Committee, has determined that there is no need to consider modifying the distribution of the total ACL between the herring management areas. Additionally, information for the recent herring operational assessment report does not suggest there is a biological need to consider modifying the distribution of stockwide ACL. This approach would maintain status quo for the herring sub-ACLs for the 2016-2018 specifications.
        During 2013-2015, the herring research set-aside (RSA) for each management area was three percent of the area's sub-ACL. The research set-aside was established in Amendment 1 (0-3 percent for any management area). The herring RSA set-aside is removed from each sub-ACL prior to allocating the remaining sub-ACL to the fishery. If a proposal is approved, but a final award is not made by NMFS, or if NMFS determines that the allocated RSA cannot be utilized by a project, NMFS shall reallocate the unallocated or unused amount of the RSA to the respective sub-ACL, in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) requirements, provided that the additional catch can be available for harvest before the end of the fishing year for which that RSA is specified. Any unallocated or unused RSA would be re-allocated to the sub-ACL and made available to the fleet before the end of the fishing year in accordance with the APA, provided that the RSA can be available for harvest before the end of the fishing year for which the RSA is specified. The Council did not receive any information that would suggest changing this specification for fishing years 2016-2018, thus the Council recommended and NMFS is proposing that the specification of RSA would remain unchanged at 3 percent of each sub-ACL. On February 29, 2016, NMFS fully awarded the herring RSA allocations for fishing years 2016-2018.
        Herring regulations at § 648.201(e) specify that up to 500 mt of the Area 1A sub-ACL shall be allocated for the fixed gear fisheries in Area 1A (weirs and stop seines) that occur west 67°16.8′ W. Long. This set-aside shall be available for harvest by the fixed gear fisheries within the specified area until November 1 of each year; any unused portion of the allocation will be restored to the Area 1A sub-ACL after November 1. During 2013-2015, the fixed gear fisheries set-aside was specified at 295 mt. Because the proposed Area 1A sub-ACL for 2016-2018 is not substantially different from the Area 1A sub-ACL in 2015, the Council recommended that the fixed gear fisheries set-aside remain the same. Therefore, the Council recommended, and NMFS is proposing, that the fixed gear fisheries set-aside remain unchanged at 295 mt for 2016-2018.
        Framework 3 to the Herring FMP established gear and area-specific river herring/shad catch caps for the herring fishery in 2014. These included catch caps for midwater trawl vessels fishing in the Gulf of Maine, off Cape Cod, and in Southern New England, as well as for small-mesh bottom trawl vessels fishing in Southern New England. Herring regulations at § 648.201(a)(4)(ii) state that once 95 percent of a catch cap is reached, the herring possession limit for vessels using that gear type and fishing in that area is reduced to 2,000 lb (907 kg) for the remainder of the fishing year. To date, the value of the caps has been specified using the median catch of river herring and shad catch over the previous 5 years (2008-2012). The intent of the caps is to provide a strong an incentive for the herring fleet to continue to reduce river herring and shad catch, while allowing the fleet to fully harvest the herring ACL.

        The Council's recommendations for 2016-2018 river herring/shad catch caps, as specified below in Table 2, are based on updated data and a revised methodology. The Council's intent in specifying the value of the catch caps using the weighted mean catch of river herring and shad (versus median catch) and using a longer time series (the most recent 7 years versus 5 years) is to best account for the inter-annual variability in the level of sampling by both observers and portside samplers as well as river herring and shad catch. Additionally, the revised methodology includes previously omitted catch data, including some shad landings and trips from catch cap areas where trips did not meet the 6,600-lb (3-mt) herring landing threshold, and updated extrapolation methodologies. The Council's recommended catch caps appear to better reflect the herring fishery's recent catch of river herring and shad. Additionally, they balance the opportunity to achieve OY with providing an incentive to avoid river herring and shad catch. For these reasons, the Council recommended and NMFS is proposing the river herring/shad catch caps as shown in Table 2 for fishing years 2016-2018. Although increasing catch caps has the potential to increase river herring and shad catch, the fishery still has strong incentive to avoid reaching the caps. Specifically, the economic loss from limiting herring harvest in an area before the sub-ACLs for an area have been fully reached. Environmental advocates and participants in the tuna and recreational fisheries strongly advised the Council against increasing river herring/shad catch caps for the herring fishery. Instead they recommended that status quo cap amounts should continue through 2018. Subject to review and consideration of public comment on the suitability of these methods for setting caps that provide a strong incentive to avoid river herring and shad catch while allowing the fleet to achieve OY, NMFS preliminarily supports the Council's river herring/shad catch cap recommendations based on the use of the weighted mean and additional data.

          Table 2—Proposed River Herring/Shad Catch Caps

            Status quo and proposed River Herring/Shad catch caps (mt)
            Catch cap area
            2013-2015
            2016-2018

            Gulf Of Maine (GOM)
            Midwater Trawl-85.5
            Midwater Trawl-76.7.

            Cape Cod (CC)
            Midwater Trawl-13.3
            Midwater Trawl-32.4.

            Southern New England/Mid-Atlantic (SNE/MA)
            Midwater Trawl-123.7Bottom Trawl-88.9

            Midwater Trawl-129.6.Bottom Trawl-122.3.

            Georges Bank (GB)
            0
            0.

            Total
            Midwater Trawl-222.5Bottom Trawl-88.9

            Midwater Trawl-238.7.Bottom Trawl-122.3.

        Classification
        Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the MSA, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has preliminarily determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the Herring FMP, other provisions of the MSA, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
        An initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) was prepared, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A summary of the analysis follows.
        Description of the Reasons Why Action by the Agency Is Being Considered and Statement of the Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, the Proposed Rule
        This action proposes management measures and 2016-2018 specifications for the herring fishery. A complete description of the reasons why this action is being considered, and the objectives of and legal basis for this action, are contained in the preamble to this proposed rule and are not repeated here.
        Description and Estimate of Number of Small Entities to Which This Proposed Rule Would Apply
        The proposed specifications would affect all permitted herring vessels; therefore, the regulated entity is the business that owns at least one herring permit. Based on 2014 permit data, the number of potential fishing vessels in each permit category in the herring fishery are as follows: 39 for Category A (limited access, all herring management areas); 4 for Category B (limited access, Herring Management Areas 2/3); 46 for Category C (limited access, all herring management areas); 1,841 for Category D (open access, all herring management areas); and 4 for Category E (open access, Herring Management Areas 2/3). The RFA recognizes three kinds of small entities: Small businesses; small organizations; and small governmental jurisdictions. A small entity is classified as a finfish firm if more than half of the firm's gross receipts are derived from finfish with receipts of up to $20.5 million of gross revenues annually. Individually-permitted vessels may hold permits for several fisheries, harvesting species of fish that are regulated by several different fishery management plans, even beyond those affected by the proposed action. Furthermore, multiple permitted vessels and/or permits may be owned by entities with various personal and business affiliations. For the purposes of this analysis, “ownership entities” are defined as those entities with common ownership as listed on the permit application. Only permits with identical ownership are categorized as an “ownership entity.” For example, if five permits have the same seven persons listed as co-owners on their permit applications, those seven persons would form one “ownership entity,” that holds those five permits. If two of those seven owners also co-own additional vessels, that ownership arrangement would be considered a separate “ownership entity” for the purpose of this analysis.

        From 2014 permit data, there were 1,206 firms that held at least one herring permit; of those, 1,188 were classified as small businesses. There were 103 firms, 96 classified as small business, that held at least one limited access permit. There were 38 firms, including 34 small businesses, that held a limited access permit and were active in the herring fishery (Table 3). Active large entities all held at least one limited access herring permit. Table 4 describes gross receipts from both all fishing and only the herring fishery for firms that were active in the herring fishery. The small firms with limited access permits had 60 percent higher gross receipts and 85 percent higher revenue from herring than the small firms without a limited access herring permit.

          Table 3—Small and Large Firms in the Atlantic Herring Fishery

            All permits
            All
            Active
            Limited access only
            All
            Active

            Small
            1,188
            63
            96
            34

            Large
            18
            4
            7
            4

            Total
            1,206
            67
            103
            38

          Table 4—Average Revenues for Active Small and Large Entities in the Atlantic Herring Fishery

            All permits
            All revenue
            Herring revenue

            Limited access only
            All revenue
            Herring revenue

            Small
            $986,399
            $339,155
            $1,588,059
            $624,820

            Large
            15,913,950
            1,426,152
            15,913,948
            1,426,152

        Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements
        This action contains no new collection-of-information, reporting, or recordkeeping requirements.
        Federal Rules Which May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed Rule
        This action does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules.
        Description of Significant Alternatives to the Proposed Action Which Accomplish the Stated Objectives of Applicable Statues and Which Minimize Any Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities
        The primary differences among Alternative 1 (No Action), Alternative 2 (non-preferred alternative), and Alternative 3 (preferred alternative) for the 2016-2018 herring specifications are the specifications for ABC and ACL. Alternative 1 considers an ABC (114,000 mt) that is 3,000 mt (2.6 percent) higher than the ABC considered under Alternatives 2 and 3 (111,000 mt). Additionally, Alternatives 1 and 2 consider a higher ACL than Alternative 3. The ACL considered under Alternative 3 (104,800 mt) is 3,000 mt (2.78 percent) and 3,200 mt (2.96 percent) less, respectively, than the ACLs considered under Alternative 1 (107,800 mt) and Alternative 2 (108,000 mt). The EA for 2016-2018 herring specifications concluded that all the alternatives would have a low positive economic impact because there would be mortality controls in the fishery and the overall status of herring is not expected to be jeopardized. The EA also concluded that the differences among alternatives were negligible because all alternatives the Council considered for OFL/ABC specifications showed the herring SSB and fishing mortality that would result from fully utilizing the ABC fall within the same range based on the 80-percent confidence intervals. Under Alternatives 1 and 2, small entities are expected to experience slight increases in both gross revenues and herring revenues over the preferred alternative due to higher ACLs considered under Alternative 1 and Alternative 2. Under Alternatives 1 and 2, fishing vessels may take slightly more fishing trips and incur slightly higher variable operating costs over the preferred alternative. However, Alternative 3 would maintain a constant ABC over the specifications period, which would provide consistency for fishing industry operations, stability for the industry, and a steady supply to the market in addition to the stability provided by a three-year specifications process. Fixed and quasi-fixed costs are expected to remain the same. Because the ACLs are fishery wide and closures would apply to the entire fishery, the effects of these closures should be felt proportionally by the herring industry.
        For specifying the 2016-2018 river herring/shad catch caps, the Council chose the preferred alternative (Alternative 3, Option 2) of using the weighted mean and 7-year extended time series shown below in table 5, because it uses the best technical approach to determining river herring/shad catch estimates in support of the goals and objective of Framework 3.

          Table 5—River Herring/Shad Catch Cap Alternatives

            Catch caps
            Alternative 1—no action (2008-2012) (mt)
            Alternative 2-5 years of data (2008-2012) *
            Option 1median (mt)

            Option 2 avg mean (mt)
            Alternative 3-7 years of data (2008-2014) *
            Option 1median (mt)

            Option 2 ** avg mean (mt)

            Midwater Trawl Gulf of Maine
            85.5
            98.1
            98.3
            11.3
            76.7

            Midwater Trawl Cape Cod
            13.3
            8.9
            27.6
            29.5
            32.4

            Midwater Trawl Southern New England
            123.7
            83.9
            115.4
            83.9
            129.6

            Bottom Trawl Southern New England
            88.9
            19.6
            28.2
            24.0
            122.3

            Total
            311.4
            210.5
            269.5
            148.7
            361.0

          * Data errors and extrapolation methodologies were corrected and revised.

          ** Preferred Alternative.

        The primary goal is to provide strong incentive for the industry to continue to avoid river herring/shad and reduce river herring/shad catch to the extent possible. Based on the performance of the fishery in the first year under the river herring/shad catch caps, most of the observed river herring/shad catch has been in the Southern New England by vessels using bottom trawl gear. Alternative 3, Option 2 (preferred) would be the least constraining on the directed herring fishery compared to Alternatives 1 and 2, particularly in the Southern New England bottom trawl catch cap area.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648
          Fisheries, Fishing, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

          Dated: June 15, 2016.
          Samuel D. Rauch III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS proposes to amend 50 CFR part 648 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 § 648.201, paragraph (h) is added to read as follows:

          § 648.201
          AMs and harvest controls.

          (h) If NMFS determines that the New Brunswick weir fishery landed less than 4,000 mt through October 1, NMFS will allocate an additional 1,000 mt to the stockwide ACL and Area 1A sub-ACL. NMFS will notify the Council of this adjustment and publish the adjustment in the Federal Register.

      [FR Doc. 2016-14568 Filed 6-20-16; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 3510-22-P