81 FR 14072 - Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Amendment 17 to the Atlantic Surfclam and Ocean Quahog Fishery Management Plan

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 51 (March 16, 2016)

Page Range		14072-14078
FR Document		2016-05846

NMFS proposes regulations to implement Amendment 17 to the Atlantic Surfclam and Ocean Quahog Fishery Management Plan. Amendment 17 management measures were developed by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council to: Add cost recovery provisions for the Individual Transferable Quota component of the fishery; modify how biological reference points are incorporated into the fishery management plan; and remove the plan's optimum yield range. These changes are intended to make the management plan consistent with requirements of the Magnuson- Stevens Act, and to improve the management of these fisheries.

Federal Register, Volume 81 Issue 51 (Wednesday, March 16, 2016)

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 51 (Wednesday, March 16, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 14072-14078]
From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2016-05846]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 648

[Docket No. 150902808-6155-01]
RIN 0648-BF04

Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Amendment 17 to the
Atlantic Surfclam and Ocean Quahog Fishery Management Plan

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 Amendment 17 to the
Atlantic Surfclam and Ocean Quahog Fishery Management Plan. Amendment
17 management measures were developed by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery
Management Council to: Add cost recovery provisions for the Individual
Transferable Quota component of the fishery; modify how biological
reference points are incorporated into the fishery management plan; and
remove the plan's optimum yield range. These changes are intended to
make the management plan consistent with requirements of the Magnuson-
Stevens Act, and to improve the management of these fisheries.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 15, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on this document, identified by
NOAA-

[[Page 14073]]

NMFS-2015-0057, by any 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-2015-0057, click the
``Comment Now!'' icon, complete the required fields, and enter or
attach your comments.
Mail: Submit written comments to John K. Bullard, Regional
Administrator, NMFS, Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, 55
Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the
envelope: ``Comments on Surfclam/Ocean Quahog Amendment 17.''
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 commenter may be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous
comments (enter ``N/A'' in the required fields if you wish to remain
anonymous). Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in
Microsoft Word, Excel, or Adobe PDF file formats only.
Copies of Amendment 17, including the draft Environmental
Assessment, preliminary Regulatory Impact Review, and economic
analysis, are available from the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management
Council, 800 North State Street, Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901. The EA/RIR
is also accessible via the Internet at:
www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Douglas Potts, Fishery Policy Analyst,
978-281-9341.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

This action proposes regulations to implement Amendment 17 to the
Atlantic Surfclam and Ocean Quahog Fishery Management Plan (FMP). The
Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council developed this amendment to
establish a program to recover the costs of managing the surfclam and
ocean quahog individual transferable quota (ITQ) fisheries, as required
by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
(Magnuson-Stevens Act), and to make administrative changes to improve
the efficiency of the FMP.

Cost Recovery

The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires each limited access privilege
program, such as the surfclam/ocean quahog ITQ program, to include
measures to recover the costs of management, data collection and
analysis, and enforcement activities involved with the program. This
action proposes to implement a cost recovery program for the surfclam
and ocean quahog ITQ fisheries modeled on the Council's existing cost
recovery program for the Tilefish Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ)
Program.
Under the proposed program, any surfclam or ocean quahog ITQ permit
holder (also referred to in this preamble as ``allocation holders'')
who has quota share (i.e., receives an initial allocation of cage tags
each year) would be responsible for paying a fee at the end of the
year. The fee would be based on the number of the ITQ permit holder's
cage tags that were ultimately used to land clams that year. In the
first quarter of each year, the Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries
Office (GARFO) would announce the fee percentage and the associated
per-tag fee for that year, and distribute this announcement widely.
Although annual fee information would not be published in the Federal
Register, distribution of the GARFO announcement would include posting
it on the GARFO Web site and sending it to each ITQ permit holder with
quota share. The fee percentage would be based on the total recoverable
costs from the prior fiscal year, adjusted for any prior over- or
under-collection, divided by the total ex-vessel value of the fishery.
The resulting percentage cannot exceed the 3-percent statutory maximum.
Then NMFS would calculate a per-tag fee based on the total number of
cage tags used to land surfclams or ocean quahogs in the previous year.
This tag fee would be separate from, and in addition to, the price
allocation holders currently pay to the tag vendor to obtain the
physical cage tags each year.
This process includes an inherent assumption that a similar number
of cage tags will be used each year. While the fishery has been largely
stable over time, many factors (e.g., weather events, market demand,
etc.) may result in the use of more or fewer tags in any given year. As
a result, we fully anticipate that, in some years, we will collect more
or less money than is necessary to recover our costs. Refunding over-
collections and issuing supplemental bills to make up for shortfalls
would increase the cost of administering the fishery, which would
increase the amount charged in bills the following year. To avoid these
additional costs, we would apply any over- or under-collection to our
calculation of recoverable costs and per-tag fees for the following
year. Our communications with the ITQ permit holders each year will
make clear that any prior over- or under-collection adjustments will be
incorporated into the following year's cost-recovery billing.
The Council produced an analysis as part of Amendment 17 using 2013
landings and ex-vessel value and assuming a 0.2-percent fee, which
represents approximately $100,000 of recoverable costs. This analysis
showed that fees would have been $0.56 per surfclam cage tag and $0.27
per ocean quahog cage tag. A scenario using the statutory maximum 3
percent showed the fees could have been as high as $8.36 per surfclam
tag and $4.10 per ocean quahog tag. However, reaching that 3-percent
maximum would require recoverable costs to be over $1.5 million, far
higher than any reasonable estimate for the management costs for these
fisheries. Annual recoverable costs for the first 5 years of our other
Greater Atlantic Region IFQ fisheries have averaged approximately
$21,000 for the Tilefish IFQ Program, and $113,000 for the Limited
Access General Category Scallop IFQ Program. Based on the management
requirements of these programs, we anticipate total costs for the
surfclam and ocean quahog ITQ program would be somewhere between the
costs of these other programs.
If allocation holders transfer some or all of their cage tags or
quota share after the start of the fishing year, they would still be
liable for any cost recovery fee based on landings of their initial
allocation. Here is an example of how this might work for an allocation
holder: Carol has a surfclam ITQ permit with a quota share ratio of
0.02, meaning she is allocated 2 percent of the total surfclam ITQ
quota each year. If in a given year the quota is 1 million bushels
(53.2 million L), Carol's allocation would be 20,000 bushels (1.6
million L), or 625 cage tags (i.e., 20,000 (1.6 million L) bushels
divided by 32 bushels (1,700 L) per cage). In the first quarter of the
year, NMFS announces that the fee will be $0.50 per tag. Over the
course of the year, Carol uses 200 cages to harvest surfclams, and
leases 400 cage tags to Bob. Bob in turn uses 100 cage tags and leases
the 300 remaining tags to Joe who uses 150. Because each cage tag has a
unique number, we can identify which tags originated from Carol's
allocation no matter how many times they were leased. Of the original
625 tag allocation

[[Page 14074]]

a total of 450 tags were used; 200 by Carol, 100 by Bob, 150 by Joe,
and 175 tags were never used. At the end of the fishing year, Carol
would receive a cost recovery bill for $225.00 based on the $0.50 tag
fee multiplied by the 450 tags that were used to land surfclams.
We have already begun tracking recoverable costs in these
fisheries. To the extent possible, we are tracking the recoverable
costs of the surfclam and ocean quahog fisheries separately, although
some costs are shared (e.g., routine maintenance of our database for
tracking allocations and cage tags). Under these proposed regulations,
at the start of the 2017 calendar year, we would use the total
recoverable costs from the 2016 fiscal year (October 1, 2015, through
September 30, 2016) and the total value of the fisheries in the 2016
calendar year, to calculate fee percentages for both surfclam and ocean
quahogs. We would then use the total number of tags used during the
2016 fishing year to determine a per-tag fee for the 2017 fishing year.
In early 2018 (most likely February or March) we would issue the
first cost recovery bills based on how many cage tags were used in 2017
and the 2017 per-tag fee. At the same time, we would announce the fee
percentage and per-tag fees for the 2018 fishing year. If the total
amount to be collected is higher or lower than the total recoverable
costs used to calculate the 2017 per-tag fee (i.e., the fiscal year
2016 recoverable costs), we would adjust the fiscal year 2017
recoverable costs accordingly when calculating the 2018 per-tag fee.
This anticipated timeline is detailed in Table 1.

Table 1--Surfclam and Ocean Quahog Proposed Cost Recovery Implementation
Timeline
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date Anticipated action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 2015...................... NMFS begins tracking recoverable
costs for surfclam and ocean quahog
ITQ fisheries.
March 2017........................ NMFS announces the 2017 cost
recovery per-tag fee, based on
recoverable costs in fiscal year
2016 and the total number of cage
tags used in calendar year 2016.
March 2018........................ NMFS issues a 2017 bill to each ITQ
shareholder based on the previously
announced per-tag fee and how many
of the shareholder's 2017 cage tags
were ultimately used to land clams.
March 2018........................ Concurrent with issuing bills for
2017, NMFS announces the 2018 cost
recovery per-tag fee, based on
costs in fiscal year 2017 (adjusted
for any anticipated over- or under-
collection) and the total number of
cage tags used in calendar year
2017.
Subsequent years.................. Each year, NMFS would issue bills
for the previous fishing year and
announce the cost recovery per-tag
fee for the current fishing year.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cost recovery bills would be due within 30 days of the date of the
bill, and would be paid using the Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries
Office's fishing industry Web site: Fish Online
(www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/apps/login/login). Fish Online
is a secure Web site and NMFS provides a username and password for
individuals to access their accounts. Members of the fishing industry
may use the site to check details about their fishing permit and
landings. The Web page has been used since 2010 to collect cost
recovery payments for the Tilefish IFQ and Limited Access General
Category Scallop IFQ fisheries. Cost recovery bills may be paid with a
credit card or with an account number and routing number from a bank
account, often referred to as an Automated Clearing House or ACH
payment. Once bills are issued, ITQ shareholders would be able to log
onto Fish Online and access the Cost Recovery section. Payments made
through Fish Online are processed using the U.S. Treasury Department's
Pay.gov tool, and no bank account or credit card information is
retained by NMFS. We would not be able to accept partial payments or
advance payments before bills are issued. We do not anticipate that
other payment methods would be accepted, as the proposed payment system
has been effective for other cost recovery programs. However, other
payment methods may be authorized if the Regional Administrator
determines that electronic payment is not practicable.
The proposed regulations include procedures in case an ITQ permit
holder should fail to pay their cost recovery bill. If a bill is not
paid by the due date, NMFS would issue a demand letter, formally
referred to as an initial administrative determination. This letter
would describe the past-due fee, describe any applicable interest or
penalties that may apply, stipulate a 30-day deadline to either pay the
amount due or submit a formal appeal to the Regional Administrator, and
provide instructions for submitting such an appeal. If no appeal is
submitted by the deadline, the Regional Administrator would issue a
final decision letter. An appeal must be submitted in writing, allege
credible facts or circumstances, and include any relevant information
or documentation to support the appeal. If an appeal is submitted, the
Regional Administrator would appoint an appeals officer to determine if
there is sufficient information to support the appeal and that all
procedural requirements have been met. The appeals officer would then
review the record and issue a recommendation to the Regional
Administrator. The Regional Administrator, acting on behalf of the
Secretary of Commerce, would then review the appeal and issue a written
decision. If the Regional Administrator's final determination (whether
or not there was an appeal) finds that ITQ permit holder is out of
compliance, full payment would be required within 30 days. Following a
final determination, we may also suspend the ITQ permit, thereby
prohibiting any transfer of cage tags or quota share, use of associated
cage tags to land surfclams or ocean quahogs, or renewal of the ITQ
permit until full payment, including any interest or penalties, is
received. If full payment is not received within this final 30-day
period as required, we may then refer the matter to the appropriate
authorities, including the Department of Treasury, for collection.
Each year NMFS would issue a report on the status of the ITQ cost
recovery program. This report would provide details of the recoverable
costs to be collected, the success of previous collection efforts, and
other relevant information.

Biological Reference Points

Under National Standard 1, the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that
each Council FMP define overfishing as a rate or level of fishing
mortality (F) that jeopardizes a fishery's capacity to produce maximum
sustainable yield (MSY) on a continuing basis, and defines an
overfished stock as a stock size that is less than a minimum biomass
threshold (see 50 CFR 600.310(e)(2)). The Magnuson-Stevens Act also
requires that each FMP specify

[[Page 14075]]

objective and measurable status determination criteria (i.e.,
biological reference points) for identifying when stocks covered by the
FMP are overfished or subject to overfishing (see section 303(a)(10),
16 U.S.C. 1853). To fulfill these requirements, status determination
criteria are comprised of two components: (1) A maximum fishing
mortality threshold; and (2) a minimum stock size threshold.
Currently, the biological reference points in the FMP were set by
Amendment 12 for ocean quahog (October 26, 1999; 64 FR 57587) and
Amendment 13 for surfclam (December 16, 2003; 68 FR 69970). Although
several stock assessments since these amendments have produced new
biological reference points, there has not been an FMP amendment to
adjust the figures in the plan. As a result, the definitions in the FMP
have become inconsistent with the best scientific information
available. This action would modify how these biological reference
points are defined in the FMP. Rather than using specific definitions,
the FMP would include broad criteria to allow for greater flexibility
in incorporating changes to the definitions of the maximum fishing
mortality threshold and/or minimum stock size threshold as the best
scientific information consistent with National Standards 1 and 2
becomes available. The Council has already adopted this approach in
several of its other FMPs, and this change would make the Surfclam and
Ocean Quahog FMP consistent with these other FMPs.
The maximum fishing mortality threshold for surfclams and ocean
quahogs would be defined as FMSY (or a reasonable proxy
thereof), which is a function of productive capacity, and would be
based upon the best scientific information consistent with National
Standards 1 and 2. Specifically, FMSY is the fishing
mortality rate associated with MSY. The maximum fishing mortality
threshold (FMSY) or a reasonable proxy may be defined as a
function of (but not limited to): Total stock biomass; spawning stock
biomass; total egg production; and may include males, females, both, or
combinations and ratios thereof that provide the best measure of
productive capacity for each of the species managed under the FMP.
Exceeding the established fishing mortality threshold would constitute
overfishing as defined by the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
The minimum stock size threshold for each of the species under the
FMP would be defined as \1/2\ BMSY (or a reasonable proxy
thereof), which is a function of productive capacity, and would be
based upon the best scientific information, consistent with National
Standards 1 and 2. BMSY is the stock biomass associated with
MSY. The minimum stock size threshold (\1/2\ BMSY) or a
reasonable proxy may be defined as a function of (but not limited to):
Total stock biomass; spawning stock biomass; total egg production; and
may include males, females, both, or combinations and ratios thereof
that provide the best measure of productive capacity for each of the
species managed under the FMP. The minimum stock size threshold would
be the level of productive capacity associated with the relevant \1/2\
MSY level. Should the measure of productive capacity for the stock fall
below this minimum threshold, the stock would be considered overfished
as defined by the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The target for rebuilding, when
applicable, is specified as BMSY (or reasonable proxy
thereof) at the level of productive capacity associated with the
relevant MSY level, under the same definition of productive capacity as
specified for the minimum stock size threshold.
Specific definitions or modifications to the status determinations
criteria, and their associated values, would result from the most
recent peer-reviewed stock assessments and their panelist
recommendations. The Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop/Stock
Assessment Review Committee (SAW/SARC) process is the primary mechanism
utilized in the Greater Atlantic Region at present to review scientific
stock assessment advice, including status determination criteria, for
federally-managed species. There are also periodic reviews, which occur
outside the SAW/SARC process that are subject to rigorous peer-review
and may also result in scientific advice to modify or change the
existing stock status determination criteria. These periodic reviews
outside the SARC process could include any of the following review
processes listed below, as deemed appropriate by the Council and NMFS.
Council Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) Review
Council externally contracted reviews with independent
experts (e.g., Center for Independent Experts--CIE)
NMFS internally conducted review (e.g., comprised of NMFS
scientific and technical experts from NMFS Science Centers or Regions)
NMFS externally contracted review with independent experts
(e.g., CIE)
The scientific advice developed on stock status determination
criteria would be provided to the Council's SSC. The SSC would use this
information to develop acceptable biological catch (ABC)
recommendations that address scientific uncertainty based on the
information provided in the peer reviewed assessment of the stock. The
SSC would provide these recommendations to the Council. In addition,
the Council's Industry Advisory groups are often engaged to provide
management recommendations to the Council. The Council would then
consider all available information and advice when developing its own
recommendations to put forward through the regulatory process for
setting the annual specifications for the upcoming fishing year, which
is the primary mechanism for updating and adjusting management measures
on a regular basis in order to meet the goals of the FMP.

Optimum Yield

Currently, the FMP specifies a surfclam optimum yield range of
1.85-3.40 million bushels (98.5 to 181.0 million L), and an ocean
quahog the optimum yield range of 4.00-6.00 million bushels (213.0 to
319.4 million L). The Council must select commercial quotas within
these ranges. Under the current FMP process, modification to the upper
end of the ranges would require a framework adjustment. Commercial
quotas may be set below the lower bounds if the SSC sets a lower ABC,
resulting in an optimum yield range that is higher than ABC. The
current optimum yield ranges in the FMP were based on scientific
information and industry input from the 1980's, and have not been
adjusted to reflect subsequent changes in our understanding of the
biology of these stocks.
This action proposes to remove the optimum yield ranges from the
FMP, but commercial quotas for surfclam and ocean quahog would continue
to be set under the existing system of catch limits. This is consistent
with the other FMPs that the Council manages; surfclam and ocean quahog
are the only stocks with optimum yield ranges specified in the FMP.
As prescribed under this quota setting process, the Council may not
exceed the ABC recommendations of the SSC, and would continue to
specify annual catch limits, targets, and commercial quotas as
otherwise described in the FMP. As part of the specifications process,
the advisory panel would develop recommendations for commercial quotas,
including optimum yield recommendations which would be provided to the
Council.
This action also proposes a modification to the regulations
pursuant to the Secretary's authority under

[[Page 14076]]

section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1855(d)) to
ensure that FMPs are implemented as intended and consistent with the
requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This action proposes to
modify the regulations at 50 CFR 648.11(a) so that vessels holding a
Federal permit for Atlantic surfclam or ocean quahog are included on
the list of vessels required to carry a NMFS-certified fisheries
observer if requested by the Regional Administrator. All other Federal
fisheries permits issued in the Greater Atlantic Region are already
covered by either Sec. 648.11(a) or a similar provision at Sec.
697.12(a), which applies to vessels with an American lobster permit.
The recent Standardized Bycatch Reporting Methodology (SBRM) Omnibus
Amendment final rule (June 30, 2015; 80 FR 37182) modified how at-sea
observers are assigned to fishing vessels. The Council's discussions of
that action and analysis of alternatives clearly indicate the Council
intended for the requirement (that vessels carry a NMFS-certified
observer if requested by the Regional Administrator) to apply to all
fisheries subject to the SBRM Omnibus Amendment final rule. The
surfclam and ocean quahog fisheries have historically had very low
bycatch and have been a low priority for observer coverage. Prior to
the SBRM Omnibus Amendment final rule, NMFS used its discretion to
prioritize observer coverage to other fishing fleets. The SBRM Omnibus
Amendment final rule removed this discretion and implemented a
formulaic process for assigning observer coverage across fisheries.
This resulted in observer coverage being assigned to the surfclam and
ocean quahog fisheries. Subsequent to the publication of the SBRM
Omnibus Amendment final rule, it became apparent that Sec. 648.11(a)
does not currently apply to surfclam and ocean quahog vessel permits.
Over 700 vessels have a surfclam or ocean quahog permit. However, all
but 15 of those vessels are already subject to this observer
requirement because they also carry another Federal permit.
Pursuant to section 303(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Council
has deemed that this proposed rule is necessary and appropriate for the
purpose of implementing Amendment 17, with the exception of the measure
noted above as proposed under the Secretary's authority under section
305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

Classification

Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the
NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is
consistent with Amendment 17, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens
Act, 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.
The Council prepared a draft environmental assessment (EA) for this
FMP amendment that analyzes the impacts on the environment as a result
of this action. A copy of the draft EA is available from the Federal e-
Rulemaking portal www.regulations.gov. Type ``NOAA-NMFS-2015-0057'' in
the Enter Keyword or ID field and click search. A copy of the draft EA
is also available upon request from the Council (see ADDRESSES).
The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce
certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration (SBA) that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The Council prepared an analysis of the potential economic
impacts of this action, which is included in the draft EA for this
action and supplemented by information contained in the preamble of
this proposed rule. The SBA defines a small business in the commercial
harvesting sector, as a firm with receipts (gross revenues) of up to
$5.5 million for shellfish businesses and $20.5 million for finfish
businesses. Using these definitions, there are 26 small entities and 3
large entities that landed surfclam and/or ocean quahog in 2013, the
most recent year of data available to the Council during development of
Amendment 17.
The alternatives for the mechanism to update biological reference
points and to change the optimum yield range in the FMP are
administrative in nature. None of the alternatives are expected to
change fishing methods or activities, nor will they alter the catch and
landings limits for these species or the allocation of the resources
among user groups. These administrative alternative measures are not
expected to impact the economic aspects of these fisheries, as they are
not expected to produce changes in landings, prices, consumer and
producer surplus, harvesting costs, enforcement costs, or to have
distributional effects.
Four alternatives were considered for the development of a cost
recovery program. All of the alternatives would recover the costs of
management, data collection and analysis, and enforcement activities
related to the ITQ program, as required by the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
Each alternative varies in how these costs would be distributed across
the fishery. The total recovered costs could be up to the statutory
maximum of 3 percent of the ex-vessel value of surfclams and ocean
quahogs harvested under the ITQ program, although estimates predict
that the recoverable costs would be much lower than this maximum. A
conservative initial estimate placed costs at approximately $100,000
annually, or about 0.2 percent of the ex-vessel value of the fishery in
2013. For comparison, both a 3-percent fee and a 0.2-percent fee were
used in the analysis of potential economic impact of the alternatives.
Table 2 presents the average cost associated with a 0.2- and 3-percent
cost recovery program for active surfclam and ocean quahog fishery
small entities in 2013.

Table 2--Active Surfclam and Ocean Quahog Fishery Small Entities in 2013, Including Entity Average Surfclam and Ocean Quahog (SC/OQ) Revenues
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Per firm Per firm
Average cost Average cost average cost average cost
associated associated associated associated
Revenue (millions of dollars (M)) Count of small Average gross Average SC/OQ with a 0.2- with a 3- with a 0.2- with a 3-
entity firms receipts receipts percent fee percent fee percent fee percent fee
recovery recovery recovery recovery
program program program program
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0-1M.................................... 17 $421,701 $393,488 $787 $11,805 $46 $694
1-2M.................................... 5 1,366,782 1,355,820 2,712 40,675 542 8,135
2-5.5M.................................. 4 3,591,773 3,489,377 6,979 104,681 1,745 26,170
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................... 26 1,091,150 1,054,843 2,110 31,645 81 1,217
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 14077]]

As illustrated by this analysis and Table 2 (above), the
anticipated annual fee for each small entity is very low under both the
anticipated 0.2-percent fee and the statutory maximum 3-percent fee,
and would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
As a result, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not
required and none has been prepared.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648

Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: March 10, 2016.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is
proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 648--FISHERIES OF THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES

0
1. The authority citation for part 648 continues to read as follows:

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

0
2. In Sec. 648.11, revise paragraph (a) to read as follows:

Sec. 648.11 At-sea sea sampler/observer coverage.

(a) The Regional Administrator may request any vessel holding a
permit for Atlantic sea scallops, NE multispecies, monkfish, skates,
Atlantic mackerel, squid, butterfish, scup, black sea bass, bluefish,
spiny dogfish, Atlantic herring, tilefish, Atlantic surfclam, ocean
quahog, or Atlantic deep-sea red crab; or a moratorium permit for
summer flounder; to carry a NMFS-certified fisheries observer. A vessel
holding a permit for Atlantic sea scallops is subject to the additional
requirements specific in paragraph (g) of this section. Also, any
vessel or vessel owner/operator that fishes for, catches or lands
hagfish, or intends to fish for, catch, or land hagfish in or from the
exclusive economic zone must carry a NMFS-certified fisheries observer
when requested by the Regional Administrator in accordance with the
requirements of this section.
* * * * *
0
3. In Sec. 648.14, redesignate paragraphs (j)(3) through (6) as (j)(4)
through (7) and add paragraph (j)(3) to read as follows:

Sec. 648.14 Prohibitions.

* * * * *
(j) * * *
(3) ITQ cost recovery. (i) Fail to pay an ITQ cost recovery bill
for which they are responsible by the due date specified in a final
decision, as specified at Sec. 648.74(c)(6)(iii)(C).
(ii) Possess or land surfclams or ocean quahogs harvested in or
from the EEZ if the associated ITQ permit has been suspended for non-
payment, as specified at Sec. 648.74(c)(6)(iii)(C).
* * * * *
0
4. In Sec. 648.72, revise paragraphs (a) introductory text and (a)(1)
to read as follows:

Sec. 648.72 Surfclam and ocean quahog specifications.

(a) Establishing catch quotas. The amount of surfclams or ocean
quahogs that may be caught annually by fishing vessels subject to these
regulations will be specified for up to a 3-year period by the Regional
Administrator. Specifications of the annual quotas will be accomplished
in the final year of the quota period, unless the quotas are modified
in the interim pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section.
(1) Quota reports. On an annual basis, MAFMC staff will produce and
provide to the MAFMC an Atlantic surfclam and ocean quahog annual quota
recommendation paper based on the ABC recommendation of the SSC, the
latest available stock assessment report prepared by NMFS, data
reported by harvesters and processors, and other relevant data, as well
as the information contained in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (vi) of
this section. Based on that report, and at least once prior to August
15 of the year in which a multi-year annual quota specification
expires, the MAFMC, following an opportunity for public comment, will
recommend to the Regional Administrator annual quotas and estimates of
DAH and DAP for up to a 3-year period. In selecting the annual quotas,
the MAFMC shall consider the current stock assessments, catch reports,
and other relevant information concerning:
(i) Exploitable and spawning biomass relative to the quotas.
(ii) Fishing mortality rates relative to the quotas.
(iii) Magnitude of incoming recruitment.
(iv) Projected effort and corresponding catches.
(v) Geographical distribution of the catch relative to the
geographical distribution of the resource.
(vi) Status of areas previously closed to surfclam fishing that are
to be opened during the year and areas likely to be closed to fishing
during the year.
* * * * *
0
5. In Sec. 648.74, add paragraph (c) to read as follows:

Sec. 648.74 Individual Transferable Quota (ITQ) Program.

* * * * *
(c) ITQ cost recovery--(1) General. The cost recovery program
collects fees of up to three percent of the ex-vessel value of
surfclams or ocean quahogs harvested under the ITQ program in
accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Act. NMFS collects these fees to
recover the actual costs directly related to the management, data
collection, and enforcement of the surfclam and ocean quahog ITQ
program.
(2) Fee responsibility. If you are an ITQ permit holder who holds
ITQ quota share and receives an annual allocation pursuant to paragraph
(a) of this section, you shall incur a cost recovery fee, based on all
landings of surfclams or ocean quahogs authorized under your initial
annual allocation of cage tags. You are responsible for paying the fee
assessed by NMFS, even if the landings are made by another ITQ permit
holder (i.e., if you transfer cage tags to another individual who
subsequently uses those tags to land clams). If you permanently
transfer your quota share, you are still responsible for any fee that
results from your initial annual allocation of cage tags even if the
landings are made after the quota share is permanently transferred.
(3) Fee basis. NMFS will establish the fee percentages and
corresponding per-tag fees for both the surfclam and ocean quahog ITQ
fisheries each year. The fee percentages cannot exceed three percent of
the ex-vessel value of surfclams and ocean quahogs harvested under the
ITQ fisheries pursuant to section 304(d)(2)(B) of the Magnuson-Stevens
Act.
(i) Calculating fee percentage. In the first quarter of each
calendar year, NMFS will calculate the fee percentages for both the
surfclam and ocean quahog ITQ fisheries based on information from the
previous year. NMFS will use the following equation to annually
determine the fee percentages: Fee percentage = the lower of 3 percent
or (DPC/V) x 100, where:
(A) ``DPC,'' or direct program costs, are the actual incremental
costs for the previous fiscal year directly related to the management,
data collection, and enforcement of the ITQ program. ``Actual
incremental costs'' mean those costs that would not have been incurred
but for the existence of the ITQ program. If the amount of fees
collected by NMFS is greater or lesser than the actual incremental
costs incurred, the DPC will be adjusted accordingly for calculation of
the fee percentage in the following year.

[[Page 14078]]

(B) ``V'' is the total ex-vessel value from the previous calendar
year attributable to the ITQ fishery.
(ii) Calculating per-tag fee. To facilitate fee collection, NMFS
will convert the annual fee percentages into per-tag fees for both the
surfclam and ocean quahog ITQ fisheries. NMFS will use the following
equation to determine each per-tag fee: Per-Tag Fee = (Fee Percentage x
V)/T, where:
(A) ``T'' is the number of cage tags used, pursuant to Sec.
648.77, to land shellfish in the ITQ fishery in the previous calendar
year.
(B) ``Fee percentage'' and ``V'' are defined in paragraph (c)(i) of
this section.
(C) The per-tag fee is rounded down so that it is expressed in
whole cents.
(iii) Publication. During the first quarter of each calendar year,
NMFS will announce the fee percentage and per-tag fee for the surfclam
and ocean quahog ITQ fisheries, and publish this information on the
Regional Office Web site (www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov).
(4) Calculating individual fees. If you are responsible for a cost
recovery fee under paragraph (c)(2) of this section, the fee amount is
the number of ITQ cage tags you were initially allocated at the start
of the fishing year that were subsequently used to land shellfish
multiplied by the relevant per-tag fee, as described in paragraph
(c)(3)(ii) of this section. If no tags from your initial allocation are
used to land clams you will not incur a fee.
(5) Fee payment and collection. NMFS will send you a bill each year
for any applicable ITQ cost recovery fee.
(i) Payment due date. You must submit payment within 30 days of the
date of the bill.
(ii) Payment method. You may pay your bill electronically using a
credit card or direct Automated Clearing House withdrawal from a
designated checking account through the Federal web portal,
www.pay.gov, or another internet site designated by the Regional
Administrator. Instructions for electronic payment will be included
with your bill and are available on the payment Web site.
Alternatively, payment by check may be authorized by the Regional
Administrator if he/she determines that electronic payment is not
practicable.
(6) Payment compliance. If you do not submit full payment by the
due date, NMFS will notify you in writing via an initial administrative
determination (IAD) letter.
(i) IAD. In the IAD, NMFS will:
(A) Describe the past-due fee;
(B) Describe any applicable interest charges that may apply;
(C) Provide you 30 days to either pay the specified amount or
submit an appeal; and
(D) Include instructions for submitting an appeal.
(ii) Appeals. If you wish to appeal the IAD, your appeal must:
(A) Be in writing;
(B) Allege credible facts or circumstances;
(C) Include any relevant information or documentation to support
your appeal; and
(D) Be received by NMFS no later than 30 calendar days after the
date on the IAD. If the last day of the time period is a Saturday,
Sunday, or Federal holiday, the time period will extend to the close of
the business on the next business day. Your appeal must be mailed or
hand delivered to the address specified in the IAD.
(iii) Final decision--(A) Final decision on your appeal. If you
appeal an IAD, the Regional Administrator shall appoint an appeals
officer. After determining there is sufficient information and that all
procedural requirements have been met, the appeals officer will review
the record and issue a recommendation on your appeal to the Regional
Administrator, which shall be advisory only. The recommendation must be
based solely on the record. Upon receiving the findings and
recommendation, the Regional Administrator, acting on behalf of the
Secretary of Commerce, will issue a written decision on your appeal
which is the final decision of the Department of Commerce.
(B) Final decision if you do not appeal. If you do not appeal the
IAD within 30 calendar days, NMFS will notify you via a final decision
letter. The final decision will be from the Regional Administrator and
is the final decision of the Department of Commerce.
(C) If the final decision determines that you are out of
compliance. (1) After the final decision has been made, NMFS may
suspend your ITQ permit, thereby prohibiting any transfer of cage tags
or quota share, use of associated cage tags to land surfclams or ocean
quahogs, or renewal of your ITQ permit until the outstanding balance is
paid in full, including any applicable interest.
(2) The final decision will require full payment within 30 calendar
days.
(3) If full payment is not received within 30 calendar days of
issuance of the final decision, NMFS may refer the matter to the
appropriate authorities for the purposes of collection or enforcement.
(7) Annual report. NMFS will publish annually a report on the
status of the ITQ cost recovery program. The report will provide
details of the costs incurred by NMFS for the management, data
collection, and enforcement of the surfclam and ocean quahog ITQ
program, and other relevant information at the discretion of the
Regional Administrator.
0
6. In Sec. 648.79, revise paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:

Sec. 648.79 Surfclam and ocean quahog framework adjustments to
management measures.

(a)* * *
(1) 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 the first meeting, and prior to and at the
second MAFMC meeting. The MAFMC's recommendations on adjustments or
additions to management measures must come from one or more of the
following categories: Adjustments within existing ABC control rule
levels; adjustments to the existing MAFMC risk policy; introduction of
new AMs, including sub-ACTs; description and identification of EFH (and
fishing gear management measures that impact EFH); habitat areas of
particular concern; set-aside quota for scientific research; VMS; and
suspension or adjustment of the surfclam minimum size limit. Issues
that require significant departures from previously contemplated
measures or that are otherwise introducing new concepts may require an
amendment of the FMP instead of a framework adjustment.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2016-05846 Filed 3-15-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P lley End:?>

14072 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 51 / Wednesday, March 16, 2016 / Proposed Rules

finding (see Request for Information for Conclusion References Cited
Status Reviews, above). On the basis of our evaluation of the A complete list of references cited is
Evaluation of a Petition To List the information presented in the petitions available on the Internet at http://
Yellow-Banded Bumble Bee as an under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act, we www.regulations.gov and upon request
Endangered or Threatened Species have determined that the petitions from the appropriate lead field offices
Under the Act summarized above for the acuna cacus, (contact the person listed under Table 3
Arizona night lizard, Arizona wetsalts in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).
Additional information regarding our
tiger beetle, Bezy’s night lizard, Cheoah Authors
review of this petition can be found as
Bald salamander, Cow Knob
an appendix at http:// The primary authors of this notice are
salamander, MacDougal’s yellowtops,
www.regulations.gov under Docket No. staff members of the Ecological Services
Monito skink, Navasota ladies-tresses,
FWS–R5–ES–2016–0024 under the Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Patagonia eyed silkmoth, reticulate
Supporting Documents section.
collared lizard, South Mountain gray- Authority
Species and Range cheeked salamander, and southern
The authority for these actions is the
Yellow-banded bumble bee (Bombus dusky salamander do not present
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
terricola): Connecticut, Kentucky, substantial scientific or commercial
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Illinois, Maine, Maryland, information indicating that the
requested actions may be warranted. Dated: February 24, 2016.
Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,
Therefore, we are not initiating status Stephen Guertin,
Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey,
New York, North Carolina, North reviews for these species. Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
The petitions summarized above for Service.
Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode
Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, the African elephant, American burying [FR Doc. 2016–05699 Filed 3–15–16; 8:45 am]
Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, beetle, Chinese pangolin, deseret BILLING CODE 4333–15–P

Wisconsin; Canada: Alberta, British milkvetch, giant ground pangolin,
Columbia, Manitoba, Newfoundland, Indian pangolin, Leoncita false-
Nova Scotia, Ontario, Quebec, foxglove, long-tailed pangolin, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Saskatchewan. Philippine pangolin, Rio Grande chub,
Rio Grande sucker, Sunda pangolin, tree National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Petition History pangolin, southwestern willow Administration
On September 15, 2015, we received flycatcher, western bumble bee, and
a petition dated September 15, 2015, yellow-banded bumble bee present 50 CFR Part 648
from Defenders of Wildlife requesting substantial scientific or commercial [Docket No. 150902808–6155–01]
that the yellow-banded bumble bee information indicating that the
(Bombus terricola) be listed as requested actions may be warranted. RIN 0648–BF04
threatened or endangered and critical Because we have found that these
petitions present substantial Fisheries of the Northeastern United
habitat be designated for this species States; Amendment 17 to the Atlantic
under the Act. The petition clearly information indicating that the
petitioned actions may be warranted, we Surfclam and Ocean Quahog Fishery
identified itself as such and included Management Plan
the requisite identification information are initiating status reviews to
for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR determine whether these actions under AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries
424.14(a). This finding addresses the the Act are warranted. At the conclusion Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
petition. of each status review, we will issue a Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
finding, in accordance with section Commerce.
Finding 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act, as to whether or ACTION: Proposed rule; request for
Based on our review of the petition not the Service finds that the petitioned comments.
and sources cited in the petition, we action is warranted.
find that the petition presents It is important to note that the SUMMARY: NMFS proposes regulations to
substantial scientific or commercial standard for a 90-day finding differs implement Amendment 17 to the
information indicating that listing the from the Act’s standard that applies to Atlantic Surfclam and Ocean Quahog
yellow-banded bumble bee (Bombus a status review to determine whether a Fishery Management Plan. Amendment
terricola) may be warranted, based on petitioned action is warranted. In 17 management measures were
Factors A, C, D, and E. However, during making a 90-day finding, we consider developed by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery
our status review, we will thoroughly only the information in the petition and Management Council to: Add cost
evaluate all potential threats to the in our files, and we evaluate merely recovery provisions for the Individual
species, including the extent to which whether that information constitutes Transferable Quota component of the
any protections or other conservation ‘‘substantial information’’ indicating fishery; modify how biological reference
efforts have reduced those threats. Thus, that the petitioned action ‘‘may be points are incorporated into the fishery
for this species, the Service requests any warranted.’’ In a 12-month finding, we management plan; and remove the
information relevant to whether the must complete a thorough status review plan’s optimum yield range. These
species falls within the definition of of the species and evaluate the ‘‘best changes are intended to make the
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

either an endangered species under scientific and commercial data management plan consistent with
section 3(6) of the Act or a threatened available’’ to determine whether a requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens
species under section 3(20), including petitioned action ‘‘is warranted.’’ Act, and to improve the management of
information on the five listing factors Because the Act’s standards for 90-day these fisheries.
under section 4(a)(1) and any other and 12-month findings are different, a DATES: Comments must be received on
factors identified in this finding (see substantial 90-day finding does not or before April 15, 2016.
Request for Information for Status mean that the 12-month finding will ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
Reviews, above). result in a ‘‘warranted’’ finding. on this document, identified by NOAA–

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:39 Mar 15, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\16MRP1.SGM 16MRP1

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 51 / Wednesday, March 16, 2016 / Proposed Rules 14075

objective and measurable status would be based upon the best scientific (ABC) recommendations that address
determination criteria (i.e., biological information, consistent with National scientific uncertainty based on the
reference points) for identifying when Standards 1 and 2. BMSY is the stock information provided in the peer
stocks covered by the FMP are biomass associated with MSY. The reviewed assessment of the stock. The
overfished or subject to overfishing (see minimum stock size threshold (1⁄2 BMSY) SSC would provide these
section 303(a)(10), 16 U.S.C. 1853). To or a reasonable proxy may be defined as recommendations to the Council. In
fulfill these requirements, status a function of (but not limited to): Total addition, the Council’s Industry
determination criteria are comprised of stock biomass; spawning stock biomass; Advisory groups are often engaged to
two components: (1) A maximum total egg production; and may include provide management recommendations
fishing mortality threshold; and (2) a males, females, both, or combinations to the Council. The Council would then
minimum stock size threshold. and ratios thereof that provide the best consider all available information and
Currently, the biological reference measure of productive capacity for each advice when developing its own
points in the FMP were set by of the species managed under the FMP. recommendations to put forward
Amendment 12 for ocean quahog The minimum stock size threshold through the regulatory process for
(October 26, 1999; 64 FR 57587) and would be the level of productive setting the annual specifications for the
Amendment 13 for surfclam (December capacity associated with the relevant 1⁄2 upcoming fishing year, which is the
16, 2003; 68 FR 69970). Although MSY level. Should the measure of primary mechanism for updating and
several stock assessments since these productive capacity for the stock fall adjusting management measures on a
amendments have produced new below this minimum threshold, the regular basis in order to meet the goals
biological reference points, there has not stock would be considered overfished as of the FMP.
been an FMP amendment to adjust the defined by the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
figures in the plan. As a result, the Optimum Yield
The target for rebuilding, when
definitions in the FMP have become applicable, is specified as BMSY (or Currently, the FMP specifies a
inconsistent with the best scientific reasonable proxy thereof) at the level of surfclam optimum yield range of 1.85–
information available. This action productive capacity associated with the 3.40 million bushels (98.5 to 181.0
would modify how these biological relevant MSY level, under the same million L), and an ocean quahog the
reference points are defined in the FMP. definition of productive capacity as optimum yield range of 4.00–6.00
Rather than using specific definitions, specified for the minimum stock size million bushels (213.0 to 319.4 million
the FMP would include broad criteria to threshold. L). The Council must select commercial
allow for greater flexibility in Specific definitions or modifications quotas within these ranges. Under the
incorporating changes to the definitions to the status determinations criteria, and current FMP process, modification to
of the maximum fishing mortality their associated values, would result the upper end of the ranges would
threshold and/or minimum stock size from the most recent peer-reviewed require a framework adjustment.
threshold as the best scientific stock assessments and their panelist Commercial quotas may be set below
information consistent with National recommendations. The Northeast the lower bounds if the SSC sets a lower
Standards 1 and 2 becomes available. Regional Stock Assessment Workshop/ ABC, resulting in an optimum yield
The Council has already adopted this Stock Assessment Review Committee range that is higher than ABC. The
approach in several of its other FMPs, (SAW/SARC) process is the primary current optimum yield ranges in the
and this change would make the mechanism utilized in the Greater FMP were based on scientific
Surfclam and Ocean Quahog FMP Atlantic Region at present to review information and industry input from the
consistent with these other FMPs. scientific stock assessment advice, 1980’s, and have not been adjusted to
The maximum fishing mortality including status determination criteria, reflect subsequent changes in our
threshold for surfclams and ocean for federally-managed species. There are understanding of the biology of these
quahogs would be defined as FMSY (or also periodic reviews, which occur stocks.
a reasonable proxy thereof), which is a outside the SAW/SARC process that are This action proposes to remove the
function of productive capacity, and subject to rigorous peer-review and may optimum yield ranges from the FMP,
would be based upon the best scientific also result in scientific advice to modify but commercial quotas for surfclam and
information consistent with National or change the existing stock status ocean quahog would continue to be set
Standards 1 and 2. Specifically, FMSY is determination criteria. These periodic under the existing system of catch
the fishing mortality rate associated reviews outside the SARC process could limits. This is consistent with the other
with MSY. The maximum fishing include any of the following review FMPs that the Council manages;
mortality threshold (FMSY) or a processes listed below, as deemed surfclam and ocean quahog are the only
reasonable proxy may be defined as a appropriate by the Council and NMFS. stocks with optimum yield ranges
function of (but not limited to): Total • Council Scientific and Statistical specified in the FMP.
stock biomass; spawning stock biomass; Committee (SSC) Review As prescribed under this quota setting
total egg production; and may include • Council externally contracted process, the Council may not exceed the
males, females, both, or combinations reviews with independent experts (e.g., ABC recommendations of the SSC, and
and ratios thereof that provide the best Center for Independent Experts—CIE) would continue to specify annual catch
measure of productive capacity for each • NMFS internally conducted review limits, targets, and commercial quotas as
of the species managed under the FMP. (e.g., comprised of NMFS scientific and otherwise described in the FMP. As part
Exceeding the established fishing of the specifications process, the
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

technical experts from NMFS Science
mortality threshold would constitute Centers or Regions) advisory panel would develop
overfishing as defined by the Magnuson- • NMFS externally contracted review recommendations for commercial
Stevens Act. with independent experts (e.g., CIE) quotas, including optimum yield
The minimum stock size threshold for The scientific advice developed on recommendations which would be
each of the species under the FMP stock status determination criteria provided to the Council.
would be defined as 1⁄2 BMSY (or a would be provided to the Council’s SSC. This action also proposes a
reasonable proxy thereof), which is a The SSC would use this information to modification to the regulations pursuant
function of productive capacity, and develop acceptable biological catch to the Secretary’s authority under

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:39 Mar 15, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\16MRP1.SGM 16MRP1

Document Created: 2016-03-15 23:44:01
Document Modified: 2016-03-15 23:44:01

Category		Regulatory Information
Collection		Federal Register
sudoc Class		AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106:
Publisher		Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration
Section		Proposed Rules
Action		Proposed rule; request for comments.
Dates		Comments must be received on or before April 15, 2016.
Contact		Douglas Potts, Fishery Policy Analyst, 978-281-9341.
FR Citation		81 FR 14072
RIN Number		0648-BF04
CFR Associated		Fisheries; Fishing and Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements

81 FR 14072 - Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Amendment 17 to the Atlantic Surfclam and Ocean Quahog Fishery Management Plan

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCENational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 51 (March 16, 2016)

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration