Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northeast Groundfish Fishery; Framework Adjustment 53, 25109-25143 [2015-09952]

Download as PDF Vol. 80 Friday, No. 84 May 1, 2015 Part IV Department of Commerce mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 648 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Final Rule and Interim Final Rule VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:31 Apr 30, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\01MYR3.SGM 01MYR3 25110 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 84 / Friday, May 1, 2015 / Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 648 [Docket No. 150105004–5355–01] RIN 0648–BE75 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northeast Groundfish Fishery; Framework Adjustment 53 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Final rule; request for comments. AGENCY: This final rule approves and implements Framework Adjustment 53 to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan. This rule sets fishing years 2015–2017 catch limits for several groundfish stocks, modifies management measures for Gulf of Maine cod, and adopts other measures to improve the management of the groundfish fishery. This action is necessary to respond to updated scientific information and achieve the goals and objectives of the fishery management plan. The final measures are intended to prevent overfishing, rebuild overfished stocks, achieve optimum yield, and ensure that management measures are based on the best scientific information available. DATES: Effective May 1, 2015. Comments on the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this final rule must be received by June 30, 2015. ADDRESSES: Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-ofinformation requirements contained in this final rule may be submitted by either of the following methods: • Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via email to OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov. • Mail: Submit written comments to John K. Bullard, Regional Administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope, ‘‘Comments on Groundfish Daily Catch Reporting.’’ Copies of Framework Adjustment 53, including the Environmental Assessment, the Regulatory Impact Review, and the Iinal Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis prepared by the mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:31 Apr 30, 2015 Jkt 235001 New England Fishery Management Council and NMFS in support of this action are available from John K. Bullard, Regional Administrator, NMFS Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. The supporting documents are also accessible via the Internet at: https://www.nefmc.org/ management-plans/northeastmultispecies or https:// www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/ sustainable/species/multispecies. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sarah Heil, Fishery Policy Analyst, phone: 978–281–9257; email: Sarah.Heil@noaa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents 1. Summary of Approved Measures 2. Status Determination Criteria 3. Fishing Year 2015 Shared U.S./Canada Quotas 4. Fishing Years 2015–2017 Catch Limits 5. Gulf of Maine Cod Protection Measures 6. Default Catch Limits 7. Sector Carryover 8. Fishing Year 2015 Common Pool Management Measures 9. Fishing Year 2015 Northern Windowpane Flounder Accountability Measure 10. Daily Catch Reporting for Commercial Groundfish Vessels 11. Regulatory Corrections Under Regional Administrator Authority 1. Summary of Approved Measures This final rule approves and implements measures in Framework Adjustment 53 to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (FMP), and removes all measures that we previously implemented in the 2014 interim action for Gulf of Maine (GOM) cod. The New England Fishery Management Council developed Framework 53 primarily in response to new stock assessments that were conducted in 2014 for a number of groundfish stocks. The new measures implemented by this final rule include: • Revised status determination criteria for several groundfish stocks; • Fishing year 2015 shared U.S./ Canada quotas for transboundary Georges Bank (GB) stocks; • Fishing years 2015–2017 catch limits for several groundfish stocks; • GOM cod protection closures and possession restrictions; • A mechanism to set default catch limits in the event a future management action is delayed; and • A provision that allows groundfish sectors to carry over unused quota in response to a recent court ruling. This action also implements a number of other measures that are not part of Framework 53, but that were considered PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 under our authority specified in the FMP. We are including these measures in conjunction with the Framework 53 approved measures for expediency purposes. The additional measures implemented in this rule are listed below. • Management measures for the common pool fishery—this action implements initial fishing year 2015 trip limits for the common pool fishery. We have the authority to set management measures for the common pool fishery that will help ensure that the fishery achieves, but does not exceed, its catch limits. • Accountability measure (AM) for northern windowpane flounder—this action implements an AM for northern windowpane flounder for fishing year 2015 due to an overage of the 2014 catch limit for this stock. This AM requires sector and common pool vessels to use selective trawl gear when fishing in certain areas on GB. • Daily catch reporting for commercial groundfish vessels—this action implements a requirement that commercial groundfish vessels submit a daily catch report through the Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) when declared into the GOM broad stock area and any other broad stock area on the same trip. Groundfish vessels must currently submit trip-level reports. However, we have the authority to modify the frequency of reporting, if necessary. • Other regulatory corrections—we are implementing several revisions to the regulations to correct references, remove unnecessary text, and make other minor edits. Each correction is described in the section ‘‘11. Regulatory Corrections Under Regional Administrator Authority.’’ 2. Status Determination Criteria The Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) conducted stock assessments in 2014 for GOM cod, GOM haddock, GOM winter flounder, GB yellowtail flounder, GB winter flounder, and pollock. To incorporate the results of these assessments, this action changes the status determination for GB yellowtail flounder to unknown and updates the numerical estimates of the status determination criteria for the remaining stocks. Table 1 provides the updated numerical estimates of the status determination criteria, and Table 2 summarizes changes in stock status based on the new stock assessments conducted in 2014. Although status determination relative to reference points is unknown for GB yellowtail flounder, the best scientific information available E:\FR\FM\01MYR3.SGM 01MYR3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 84 / Friday, May 1, 2015 / Rules and Regulations point the stock assessment for GB yellowtail flounder can provide numerical estimates of status determination criteria, those estimates will be used to evaluate progress towards the existing rebuilding targets. rebuilding progress is made, catch limits will continue to be set at levels at which the Transboundary Resources Assessment Committee and the Council’s Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) determine will prevent overfishing. Additionally, at whatever indicates that stock status is poor. The changes to the status determination criteria implemented in this action do not affect the rebuilding plan for this stock, which has an end date of 2032. Although biomass estimates are not currently available, to ensure that 25111 TABLE 1—NUMERICAL ESTIMATES OF STATUS DETERMINATION CRITERIA Biomass target SSBMSY or proxy (mt) Stock GOM Cod: M=0.2 Model .................................................... Mramp Model ..................................................... GOM Haddock ........................................................ GOM Winter Flounder ............................................ GB Yellowtail Flounder ........................................... GB Winter Flounder ................................................ Pollock .................................................................... 47,184 69,621 4,108 n/a n/a 8,100 76,900 Maximum fishing mortality threshold (FMSY or proxy) MSY (mt) 0.18 ........................................................................ 0.18 ........................................................................ 0.46 ........................................................................ 0.23 exploitation rate .............................................. n/a .......................................................................... 0.44 ........................................................................ 0.42 (equivalent to F5–7 = 0.27) ............................. 7,753 11,388 955 n/a n/a 3,200 14,800 SSB = Spawning Stock Biomass; MSY = Maximum Sustainable Yield; F = Fishing Mortality; M = Natural Mortality Note. An explanation of the two assessment models for GOM cod is provided in the section ‘‘4. Fishing Years 2015–2017 Catch Limits.’’ TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF CHANGES TO STOCK STATUS Previous assessment 2014 assessment Stock Overfishing? GOM Cod .................................................................................................................. GOM Haddock ........................................................................................................... GOM Winter Flounder ............................................................................................... GB Yellowtail Flounder .............................................................................................. GB Winter Flounder ................................................................................................... Pollock ....................................................................................................................... 1 Stock Overfished? Overfishing? Overfished? Yes .............. Yes .............. No ................ Yes .............. No ................ No ................ Yes .............. No 1 ............. Unknown ..... Yes .............. No ................ No ................ Yes .............. No ................ No ................ Unknown ..... No ............... No ................ Yes No Unknown Unknown No No was approaching an overfished condition 3. Fishing Year 2015 U.S./Canada Quotas Canada Resource Sharing Understanding. This action adopts shared U.S./Canada quotas for these stocks for fishing year 2015 based on 2014 assessments and the recommendations of the Transboundary Management Guidance Committee As described in the proposed rule, eastern GB cod, eastern GB haddock, and GB yellowtail flounder are jointly managed with Canada under the U.S./ (TMGC) (Table 3). For a more detailed discussion of the TMGC’s 2015 catch advice, see the TMGC’s guidance document at: https:// www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/ sustainable/species/multispecies/ index.html. TABLE 3—FISHING YEAR 2015 U.S./CANADA QUOTAS (mt, LIVE WEIGHT) AND PERCENT OF QUOTA ALLOCATED TO EACH COUNTRY Eastern GB Cod Eastern GB Haddock Total Shared Quota ....................................................................................................................... U.S. Quota ..................................................................................................................................... Canada Quota ............................................................................................................................... mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Quota 650 ................ 124 (19%) ..... 526 (81%) ..... 37,000 ........... 17,760 (48%) 19,240 (52%) The regulations implementing the U.S./Canada Resource Sharing Understanding require that any overages of the U.S. quota for eastern GB cod, eastern GB haddock, or GB yellowtail flounder be deducted from the U.S. quota in the following fishing year. If fishing year 2014 catch information indicates that the U.S. fishery exceeded its quota for any of the shared stocks, we must reduce the respective U.S. quota for fishing year 2015 in a future VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:33 Apr 30, 2015 Jkt 235001 management action, as close to May 1, 2015, as possible. If any fishery that is allocated a portion of the U.S. quota exceeds its allocation, and causes an overage of the overall U.S. quota, the overage reduction would only be applied to that fishery’s allocation in the following fishing year. This ensures that catch by one component of the fishery does not negatively affect another component of the fishery. PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 GB Yellowtail Flounder 354 248 (70%) 106 (30%) 4. Fishing Years 2015–2017 Catch Limits This action adopts fishing years 2015– 2017 catch limits for GOM cod, GOM haddock, GOM winter flounder, GB winter flounder, GB yellowtail flounder (2015–2016 only), and pollock based on the 2014 assessments for these stocks. In addition, this action updates the 2015 catch limits for GB cod and GB haddock based on the U.S./Canada quotas for the E:\FR\FM\01MYR3.SGM 01MYR3 25112 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 84 / Friday, May 1, 2015 / Rules and Regulations portions of these stocks jointly managed with Canada. For all other stocks, the overall catch limits included in this rule are the same as those previously adopted in the final rules implementing Framework 50 and Framework 51 to the FMP, although small changes have been made to the distribution of these catch limits to the various components of the fishery. The catch limits implemented in this action, including overfishing limits (OFLs), acceptable biological catches (ABCs), and annual catch limits (ACLs), can be found in Tables 4 through 12. A summary of how these catch limits were developed, including the distribution to the various fishery components, was provided in the proposed rule. Additional information on the development of these catch limits is also provided in the Framework 53 each stock can be found in the final rule for 2015–2016 Sector Operations Plans and Contracts. There are no catch limits adopted for fishing years 2016 or 2017 for most groundfish stocks. Stock assessment updates for all groundfish stocks are scheduled for September 2015, and, based on these assessment updates, catch limits will be set in a future action for fishing years 2016–2018. Given the timing of the stock assessments, the management action for the 2016 fishing year is not expected to be completed by the start of the fishing year. As a result, this action adopts default catch limits that would be implemented on May 1, 2016, to prevent disruption to the fishery (see the section ‘‘6. Default Catch Limits’’). Environmental Assessment and its supporting appendices. The sector and common pool catch limits implemented in this action are based on potential sector contributions (PSCs) for fishing year 2015 and fishing year 2014 sector rosters. 2015 sector rosters will not be finalized until May 1, 2015, because individual permit holders have until the end of the 2014 fishing year (April 30, 2015) to drop out of a sector and fish in the common pool fishery for 2015. Therefore, it is possible that the sector and common pool catch limits in this action may change due to changes in the sector rosters. If changes to the sector rosters occur, updated catch limits will be announced as soon as possible in the 2015 fishing year to reflect the final sector rosters as of May 1, 2015. Sector specific allocations for TABLE 4—FISHING YEARS 2015–2017 OVERFISHING LIMITS AND ACCEPTABLE BIOLOGICAL CATCHES [mt, live weight] 2015 2016 2017 Stock OFL GB Cod .................................................... GOM Cod ................................................. GB Haddock ............................................. GOM Haddock ......................................... GB Yellowtail Flounder ............................ SNE/MA Yellowtail Flounder .................... CC/GOM Yellowtail Flounder ................... American Plaice ....................................... Witch Flounder ......................................... GB Winter Flounder ................................. GOM Winter Flounder .............................. SNE/MA Winter Flounder ........................ Redfish ..................................................... White Hake .............................................. Pollock ...................................................... N. Windowpane Flounder ........................ S. Windowpane Flounder ........................ Ocean Pout .............................................. Atlantic Halibut ......................................... Atlantic Wolffish ....................................... U.S. ABC 4,191 514 56,293 1,871 ........................ 1,056 1,194 2,021 1,846 3,242 688 4,439 16,845 6,237 21,538 202 730 313 198 94 OFL 1,980 386 24,366 1,454 248 700 548 1,544 783 2,010 510 1,676 11,974 4,713 16,600 151 548 235 100 70 U.S. ABC OFL U.S. ABC ........................ 514 ........................ 2,270 ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ 3,383 688 ........................ ........................ 6,314 21,864 ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ 386 ........................ 1,772 354 ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ 2,107 510 ........................ ........................ 4,645 16,600 ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ 514 ........................ 2,707 ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ 3,511 688 ........................ ........................ ........................ 24,598 ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ 386 ........................ 2,125 ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ 2,180 510 ........................ ........................ ........................ 16,600 ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ SNE/MA = Southern New England/Mid-Atlantic; CC = Cape Cod; N = Northern; S = Southern. Note: An empty cell indicates no OFL/ABC is adopted for that year. These catch limits will be set in a future action. mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Gulf of Maine Cod A detailed summary of the GOM cod stock assessment, and the development of catch limits for the 2015–2017 fishing years, was provided in the proposed rule to this action, and is not repeated here. In the proposed rule, we made a preliminary determination that an ABC of 386 mt would meet necessary conservation objectives, but requested additional comment on some aspects of this ABC. We received a number of comments in response to this request, including additional catch projections to better illustrate the potential biological impacts of various catch scenarios. After considering public VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:31 Apr 30, 2015 Jkt 235001 comment, supporting analysis, and the best scientific information available, we have determined that an ABC of 386 mt is appropriate and consistent with the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) and the National Standards. As described below, this ABC balances other MagnusonStevens Act objectives, including achieving optimum yield and taking into account the needs of fishing communities, without compromising conservation objectives to prevent overfishing and rebuild the stock. In light of current stock conditions, this ABC is a 75-percent reduction compared to 2014, which is in addition to the 80- PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 percent reduction implemented for fishing years 2013–2014. In total, the GOM cod catch limit has been reduced by 95 percent over the last 5 years. We are approving an ABC of 386 mt with the expectation that the catch limits implemented in this final rule will be reviewed following the September 2015 assessment for GOM cod. This assessment is intended to be incorporated for fishing year 2016. Fishing years 2016–2018 catch limits for GOM cod would be set based on the September 2015 assessment, and would replace the 2016–2017 catch limits adopted in this final rule. Uncertainties in catch projections can be exacerbated if 3-year specifications are set and E:\FR\FM\01MYR3.SGM 01MYR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 84 / Friday, May 1, 2015 / Rules and Regulations remain unchecked without additional stock assessment information. However, in this case, we determined that concerns for past performance, and the risk of erring in setting the ABC, are largely mitigated given the pending 2015 assessment. Therefore, our approval of the GOM cod ABC is, effectively, only approval for the first year of the remaining rebuilding time period. As described more fully in the proposed rule, the SSC initially recommended an OFL of 514 mt and a provisional ABC of 200 mt for fishing years 2015–2017 based on catch scenarios that the Council’s Groundfish Plan Development Team (PDT) presented. One provision of the ABC control rule in the FMP specifies that catch limits be based on 75 percent of FMSY or Frebuild, whichever is lower. As part of the 2014 assessment, catch projections were updated, and Frebuild was calculated as the constant F required to rebuild the stock by 2024. The SSC’s provisional ABC recommendation of 200 mt was the midpoint between the Frebuild catch for the scenario in which natural mortality is 0.2 and the scenario in which natural mortality increases, but returns to 0.2. This provisional ABC did not incorporate the projection that assumes natural mortality remains at 0.4, and that suggests rebuilding is not possible. As a result, the SSC determined that this provisional ABC was not consistent with its OFL recommendation, which was developed by averaging the 2015 FMSY catches from all three catch projections. Following discussion about the rebuilding potential of GOM cod, and the catch projection that indicates rebuilding is not possible, the SSC requested that the PDT provide analysis of the incidental catch of GOM cod. This request was in recognition of the ABC control rule that specifies that, if a stock cannot rebuild in the specified rebuilding period, even with no fishing, the ABC should be based on incidental bycatch, including a reduction in the bycatch rate. Based on analysis presented by the PDT, the SSC determined that the overall incidental catch of GOM cod was approximately 500–600 mt for the 2013 fishing year under the current operating conditions of the fishery. After consideration of this information, and examination of the available assessment information, the SSC recommended an ABC of 386 mt, which was calculated by taking 75 percent of the OFL. This recommendation was an attempt to balance the various natural mortality scenarios and catch projections from the VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:31 Apr 30, 2015 Jkt 235001 two assessment models with the various provisions of the ABC control rule. Similar to our conditional approval of the ABC, the SSC noted that it expected to revisit its catch advice for fishing years 2016–2017 following the 2015 assessment update. The PDT updated the catch projections following the SSC’s final ABC recommendation. These projections, along with the biological impacts analysis, indicate that an ABC of 386 mt has a 6- to 33-percent probability of overfishing in fishing year 2015. Although recognizing that catch projections can be optimistic, these probabilities are well below the median, and indicate that the ABC is sufficiently below the OFL to prevent overfishing. Further, for the two projection scenarios that indicate that rebuilding can occur, an ABC of 386 mt for fishing years 2015–2017 would still rebuild the stock by 2024. All of the available catch projections indicate that an ABC of 386 mt would result in a fishing mortality rate of 0.13–0.11, which would be the lowest fishing mortality rate in the assessment time series. This estimated fishing mortality rate would be an 80percent reduction from the estimated 2014 fishing mortality rate, and a 90percent reduction from the fishing mortality rate estimated for 2013. The catch projections that the PDT completed for the biological impacts analysis indicate that rebuilding could still occur under a 386-mt ABC for the 2015–2017 fishing years. However, since we published the proposed rule, we further examined various catch projection scenarios to better understand the trade-offs associated with an ABC of 386 mt. Based on this evaluation, a catch of 386 mt in fishing year 2015 is expected to have little functional difference in future catches and biomass compared to the 200-mt option that the SSC initially considered, but did not recommend. This is, in part, because catches would be lower under the 386-mt scenario in the out years of the rebuilding period compared to those needed under a catch of 200 mt. Considering this, we determined that an ABC of 386 mt would meet conservation objectives, and allow rebuilding to occur by 2024, while still trying to balance the need to achieve optimum yield for the groundfish fishery, as well as mitigate the economic impacts of the GOM cod catch limit, to the extent practicable. An ABC of 386 mt is expected to have substantial economic impacts on groundfish vessels, which are summarized later in this preamble. These impacts are expected to be disproportionately distributed among PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 25113 the groundfish fleet. The largest revenue reductions are expected for small vessels less than 50 ft (15 m), and those fishing from Gloucester, MA, and New Hampshire ports. The economic impacts of the GOM cod ABC implemented in this final rule are expected to be substantially greater than previous catch limit reductions for GOM cod and other groundfish stocks. Based on incidental catch information compiled by the PDT, an ABC of 386 mt is below the estimate of incidental catch of GOM cod that occurred in fishing year 2013. Incidental catch is largely a function of the overall ACL given the AMs in place for groundfish vessels. However, this information is illustrative of potential fishery operations under an ABC of 386 mt, which are expected to be greatly restricted, and in some cases eliminated. In fishing year 2013, when the ACL was reduced by 80 percent, incidental catch was estimated to be approximately 500–600 mt. Beginning in fishing year 2013, sectors primarily used their GOM cod allocation to access other groundfish stocks. Multiple sources of information indicate a marked decline in directed fishing for GOM cod. With an additional 75-percent reduction beginning in fishing year 2015, the incentive to target GOM cod is virtually eliminated, and the fishery will be, in effect, a ‘‘bycatch-only’’ fishery. The average GOM cod allocation for a sector will be 23,000 lb (10,433 kg), and many sectors will receive allocations less than 10,000 lb (4,536 kg). In addition, the recreational fishery will be prohibited from possessing GOM cod. Even under this incidental catch scenario, the GOM cod ABC is expected to severely restrict catch of other groundfish stocks, particularly GOM haddock, pollock, redfish, and some flatfish. We remain concerned about GOM cod stock status, and will continue to carefully consider management measures for this stock. The ABC we are implementing in this action is a complex balance between conservation objectives and other Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements. In an effort to closely monitor stock indicators, we reviewed the recent fall 2014 NEFSC bottom trawl survey indices. The fall survey indicated a small increase compared to 2012 and 2013; however, the general trend of survey indices, as well as recruitment, remains very low. While the updated survey information may provide an initial, and potentially positive, indication of improvement, it is difficult to anticipate the results of the full 2015 assessment. We will continue to carefully monitor stock indicators leading into the 2015 E:\FR\FM\01MYR3.SGM 01MYR3 25114 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 84 / Friday, May 1, 2015 / Rules and Regulations assessment to fully inform our reevaluation of the GOM cod catch limit, and the balancing of conservation and management objectives. Further, one concern we raised during the development of Framework 53, and in the proposed rule, is the importance of controlling fishing mortality to help ensure that conservation objectives are met. Available analyses suggest that an extremely low catch limit for GOM cod may create an economic incentive to misreport catch, and, if this occurs, could reduce the accuracy of catch apportionment. Information indicates that this incentive increases as the GOM cod catch limit is further reduced. To help ensure correct catch apportionment and compliance with the GOM cod ACL adopted in this action, we are also implementing an additional reporting requirement for common pool and sector vessels fishing in multiple broad stock areas on the same trip. This additional reporting requirement is described in the section ‘‘10. Daily Catch Reporting for Commercial Groundfish Vessels.’’ TABLE 5—FISHING YEAR 2015 CATCH LIMITS [mt, live weight] Stock Total groundfish fishery Total ACL GB Cod ............. GOM Cod .......... GB Haddock ...... GOM Haddock .. GB Yellowtail Flounder ......... SNE/MA Yellowtail Flounder ......... CC/GOM Yellowtail Flounder ......... American Plaice Witch Flounder .. GB Winter Flounder ......... GOM Winter Flounder ......... SNE/MA Winter Flounder ......... Redfish .............. White Hake ........ Pollock ............... N. Windowpane Flounder ......... S. Windowpane Flounder ......... Ocean Pout ....... Atlantic Halibut .. Atlantic Wolffish Preliminary sector Preliminary common pool Recreational fishery Midwater trawl fishery Scallop fishery Small-mesh fisheries State waters sub-component Other sub-component 1,886 366 23,204 1,375 1,787 328 21,759 1,329 1,753 202 21,603 949 34 5 156 9 .................... 121 .................... 372 .................... .................... 227 14 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 20 26 244 11 79 13 975 21 240 195 192 3 .................... .................... 38 5 na 2 666 557 457 102 .................... .................... 66 .................... 14 28 524 1,470 751 458 1,408 610 442 1,381 598 16 27 12 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 38 31 23 27 31 117 1,952 1,891 1,876 15 .................... .................... .................... .................... na 60 489 392 375 18 .................... .................... .................... .................... 87 10 1,607 11,393 4,484 15,878 1,306 11,034 4,343 13,720 1,149 10,974 4,311 13,628 157 60 32 92 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 117 120 47 996 184 239 94 1,162 144 98 na 98 .................... .................... .................... .................... 2 44 527 220 97 65 102 195 64 62 na na na na 102 195 64 62 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 183 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 55 2 30 1 186 24 3 3 TABLE 6—FISHING YEAR 2016 CATCH LIMITS [mt, live weight] Stock Total groundfish fishery Total ACL GOM Cod .......... GOM Haddock .. GB Yellowtail Flounder ......... GB Winter Flounder ......... GOM Winter Flounder ......... White Hake ........ Pollock ............... Preliminary sector Preliminary common pool Recreational fishery Midwater trawl fishery Scallop fishery Small-mesh fisheries State waters sub-component Other sub-component 366 1,675 328 1,620 202 1,155 5 12 121 453 .................... 16 .................... .................... .................... .................... 26 13 13 26 343 278 274 4 .................... .................... 55 7 na 4 2,046 1,982 1,967 15 .................... .................... .................... .................... na 63 489 4,420 15,878 392 4,280 13,720 375 4,249 13,628 18 31 92 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 87 46 996 10 93 1,162 TABLE 7—FISHING YEAR 2017 CATCH LIMITS mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 [mt, live weight] Stock Total ACL GOM Cod ......................... GOM Haddock ................. GB Winter Flounder ......... GOM Winter Flounder ...... VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:31 Apr 30, 2015 366 2,009 2,117 489 Jkt 235001 Total groundfish fishery Preliminary sector Preliminary common pool Recreational fishery Midwater trawl fishery 202 1,386 2,035 375 5 14 16 18 121 543 .................... .................... .................... 20 .................... .................... E:\FR\FM\01MYR3.SGM 01MYR3 328 1,943 2,051 392 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 State waters sub-component Other sub-component 26 15 na 87 13 31 65 10 25115 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 84 / Friday, May 1, 2015 / Rules and Regulations TABLE 7—FISHING YEAR 2017 CATCH LIMITS—Continued [mt, live weight] Stock Total ACL Pollock .............................. Total groundfish fishery 15,878 Preliminary sector Preliminary common pool Recreational fishery Midwater trawl fishery 13,628 92 .................... .................... 13,720 State waters sub-component Other sub-component 996 1,162 TABLE 8—FISHING YEARS 2015–2017 COMMON POOL TRIMESTER TOTAL ALLOWABLE CATCHES [mt, live weight] 2015 2016 2017 Stock Trimester 1 Trimester 2 Trimester 3 Trimester 1 Trimester 2 Trimester 3 Trimester 1 Trimester 2 Trimester 3 8.6 1.3 42.0 2.56 0.6 21.4 5.5 6.6 3.4 1.2 6.5 14.9 12.0 25.7 12.7 1.7 51.3 2.47 0.9 37.7 5.5 9.9 3.8 3.5 6.6 18.5 9.8 32.1 13.1 1.8 62.2 4.46 1.6 42.8 4.7 11.0 5.2 10.1 4.4 26.2 9.8 33.9 .................... 1.3 .................... 3.1 0.9 .................... .................... .................... .................... 1.2 6.5 .................... 11.9 25.7 .................... 1.7 .................... 3.0 1.4 .................... .................... .................... .................... 3.7 6.6 .................... 9.7 32.1 .................... 1.8 .................... 5.4 2.3 .................... .................... .................... .................... 10.5 4.4 .................... 9.7 33.9 .................... 1.3 .................... 3.7 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 1.3 6.5 .................... .................... 25.7 .................... 1.7 .................... 3.6 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 3.8 6.6 .................... .................... 32.1 .................... 1.8 .................... 6.5 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 10.9 4.4 .................... .................... 33.9 GB Cod ..................................... GOM Cod .................................. GB Haddock .............................. GOM Haddock .......................... GB Yellowtail Flounder ............. SNE/MA Yellowtail Flounder ..... CC/GOM Yellowtail Flounder .... American Plaice ........................ Witch Flounder .......................... GB Winter Flounder .................. GOM Winter Flounder ............... Redfish ...................................... White Hake ................................ Pollock ....................................... Note. An empty cell indicates that no catch limit has been set yet for the stock. These catch limits will be set in a future management action. TABLE 9—FISHING YEARS 2015–2016 COMMON POOL INCIDENTAL TOTAL ALLOWABLE CATCHES [mt, live weight] Percent of common pool sub-ACL Stock GB Cod ........................................................................................................................................ GOM Cod ..................................................................................................................................... GB Yellowtail Flounder ................................................................................................................ CC/GOM Yellowtail Flounder ...................................................................................................... American Plaice ........................................................................................................................... Witch Flounder ............................................................................................................................. SNE/MA Winter Flounder ............................................................................................................ 2015 2 1 2 1 5 5 1 2016 0.69 0.05 0.06 0.16 1.37 0.62 1.57 na 0.05 0.09 na na na na TABLE 10—PERCENT OF INCIDENTAL TOTAL ALLOWABLE CATCH ALLOCATED TO EACH SPECIAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Regular B Days-at-Sea program Stock GB Cod ........................................................................................................................................ GOM Cod ..................................................................................................................................... GB Yellowtail Flounder ................................................................................................................ CC/GOM Yellowtail Flounder ...................................................................................................... American Plaice ........................................................................................................................... Witch Flounder ............................................................................................................................. SNE/MA Winter Flounder ............................................................................................................ White Hake .................................................................................................................................. 50 100 50 100 100 100 100 100 Closed Area I hook gear Haddock SAP Eastern U.S./Canada Haddock SAP 16 ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ 34 ........................ 50 ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ SAP = Special Access Program. mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 TABLE 11—FISHING YEARS 2015–2016 COMMON POOL INCIDENTAL TOTAL ALLOWABLE CATCHES FOR EACH SPECIAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM [mt, live weight] Regular B Days-at-Sea program Closed Area I hook gear Haddock SAP Stock 2015 GB Cod .................................................... GOM Cod ................................................. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:31 Apr 30, 2015 Jkt 235001 2016 0.34 0.05 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Eastern U.S./Canada Haddock SAP 2015 na 0.05 Fmt 4701 2016 2015 2016 0.11 ........................ na ........................ 0.23 ........................ na ........................ Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01MYR3.SGM 01MYR3 25116 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 84 / Friday, May 1, 2015 / Rules and Regulations TABLE 11—FISHING YEARS 2015–2016 COMMON POOL INCIDENTAL TOTAL ALLOWABLE CATCHES FOR EACH SPECIAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM—Continued [mt, live weight] Regular B Days-at-Sea program Closed Area I hook gear Haddock SAP Stock 2015 GB Yellowtail Flounder ............................ CC/GOM Yellowtail Flounder ................... American Plaice ....................................... Witch Flounder ......................................... SNE/MA Winter Flounder ........................ 2016 0.03 0.16 1.37 0.62 1.57 Eastern U.S./Canada Haddock SAP 2015 0.05 na na na na 2016 2015 2016 ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ 0.03 ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ 0.05 ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ TABLE 12—FISHING YEAR 2015 CLOSED AREA I HOOK GEAR HADDOCK SPECIAL ACCESS PROGRAM TOTAL ALLOWABLE CATCH [mt, live weight] Exploitable biomass Western GB B20151 Western GB BYear/B2004 Total allowable catch 169,027 ........................................................................................................................................ 59,159 2.166 2,448 1 The western GB exploitable biomass is assumed to be 35 percent of the total exploitable biomass. mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 5. Gulf of Maine Cod Protection Measures This action re-configures the GOM rolling closures and prohibits possession of GOM cod for the recreational fishery. The GOM cod protection closures implemented in this final rule are summarized in Table 13 and Figure 1. These closures apply to all federally permitted commercial vessels, except for commercial vessels that are fishing with exempted gear or in an exempted fishery. Additionally, these closures do not apply to commercial vessels that are fishing exclusively in state waters provided the vessel does not have a Federal multispecies permit. As adopted in Amendment 16 to the FMP, sector vessels are exempt from the closures in March and October. The March and October closures also do not apply to Handgear A vessels, regardless of whether the vessel was fishing in the common pool or in a sector. Exempted gear, as defined in § 648.2, is deemed to be not capable of catching groundfish and currently includes: Pelagic hook and line; pelagic longline; spears; rakes; diving gear; cast nets; tongs; harpoons; weirs; dipnets; stop nets; pound nets; pelagic gillnets; pots and traps; shrimp trawls (with a properly configured grate); and surfclam and ocean quahog dredges. Based on the current list of approved exempted fisheries defined in § 648.80, the GOM cod protection closures do not apply to vessels fishing in the Midwater Trawl Gear Exempted Fishery, the Purse Seine Gear Exempted Fishery, the Raised Footrope Trawl Exempted Whiting Fishery, the Small Mesh Area 2 VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:31 Apr 30, 2015 Jkt 235001 Exemption Area, or the Scallop Dredge Exemption Area. Only the exempted fisheries that overlap in time and area with the cod protection closures are listed here. This list may change if any changes are made to exempted fisheries, or the protection closures, in a future action. TABLE 13—GULF OF MAINE COD PROTECTION CLOSURES Area Closures (30 minute square) Month May ................ June ............... July ................. August ............ September ..... October .......... November ...... December ...... January .......... February ......... March ............. April ................ All Vessels: 125 north of 42°20′ N. lat., 132, 133, 138, 139, 140. All Vessels: 125 north of 42°20′ N. lat., 132, 139, 140, 146, 147. None. None. None. Non-Sector Vessels: 124, 125. All Vessels: Portion of 124, 125. All Vessels: Portion of 124, 125. All Vessels: Portion of 124, 125. None. Non-Sector Vessels: 121, 122, 123. None. Note: Handgear A vessels are exempt from the same closures as sector vessels. The GOM cod closures are intended to protect spawning GOM cod, reduce fishing mortality on GOM cod, and provide additional fishing opportunities for groundfish vessels to target healthy groundfish stocks in areas that were PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 previously closed. These closures are subject to review when the GOM cod spawning stock biomass reaches the minimum biomass threshold (50 percent of SSBMSY). However, as we noted in the proposed rule, the Council could review and modify these closures at any time. Given the pending 2015 assessment, and additional spawning research, reviewing these protection closures as new information becomes available is likely more important than waiting for the minimum biomass threshold to be met. We also highlight a number of concerns below for April, and the Council could consider changes to GOM area closures in light of these concerns. Additionally, as we described in the proposed rule, given the extremely low GOM cod allocation, it is difficult to predict how groundfish vessels will operate in 2015, and we expect the number of active groundfish vessels could markedly decline. We intend to monitor fishing effort following the implementation of management measures for the 2015 fishing year to ensure that any effort changes do not undermine the effectiveness of the protection closures. The protection closures are an additional tool the Council is using to protect GOM cod, and are complementary to its requirement for setting catch limits that will prevent overfishing and help rebuild the stock. Based on the available information, protecting spawning GOM cod could help improve the chances of successful spawning events, and, as a result, help prevent failures of future year classes. Thus, the biological objective of these closures is to help prevent further biomass declines and improve the E:\FR\FM\01MYR3.SGM 01MYR3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 84 / Friday, May 1, 2015 / Rules and Regulations mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 likelihood of rebuilding GOM cod. In light of the low GOM cod catch limit, the protection closures were also designed to balance these biological objectives with access to healthy groundfish stocks. We highlighted some concerns in the proposed rule for the re-configuration of the GOM area closures. There are biological and economic trade-offs associated with the new closures, and we considered these trade-offs carefully. Available information suggests that once a specific spawning aggregation is lost, there is little indication that the aggregation could recover. As a result, we determined that the addition of winter closures is important because there are currently no protections for the winter spawning component. If the removal of April closures was recommended in isolation, with no additional spring or winter closures, we likely would have disapproved this measure. We determined, however, that the closed area recommendations for the winter and April time periods were presented as a package reflecting the Council’s balancing of conservation VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:31 Apr 30, 2015 Jkt 235001 benefits and impacts on the fishing industry, and, as such, could not be approved or disapproved independent of each other without undermining the Council’s intent. With the approval of the new area closures for GOM cod, we reiterate our concerns for the potential of the April opening to have negative impacts on other groundfish stocks that spawn in the spring. A number of these stocks are in poor condition (e.g., GOM winter flounder, CC/GOM yellowtail flounder), and, for plaice, the second 10-year rebuilding program was implemented in 2014 due to inadequate rebuilding progress. As we noted previously in this rule, we also remain concerned about GOM cod given its poor condition. The protection closures implemented in this final rule are closely related to measures under consideration in the Council’s Habitat Omnibus Amendment 2. We will continue to work with the Council to help ensure the goals and objectives of that Amendment are met. Recreational vessels are not subject to the GOM cod protection closures and could continue to fish in these areas. PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 25117 Federally permitted party and charter vessels are still required to obtain a letter of authorization to fish in the GOM closed areas. In lieu of the protection closures, this action adopts a prohibition on possession of GOM cod for all private recreational vessels fishing in Federal waters, and all federally permitted party and charter vessels. This is intended to reduce recreational fishing mortality on GOM cod, by reducing the incentive to target the stock, while still providing recreational vessels the opportunity to target other healthy groundfish stocks. Recent catch projections indicated that the recreational fishery would still exceed its allocation for GOM cod in the 2015 fishing year, due to bycatch, even with the prohibition on possession that is implemented in this action. Therefore, in a separate rulemaking, we are adopting additional recreational measures under our discretionary authority to help ensure the recreational fishery does not exceed its allocation for the 2015 fishing year. BILLING CODE 3510–22–P E:\FR\FM\01MYR3.SGM 01MYR3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 84 / Friday, May 1, 2015 / Rules and Regulations BILLING CODE 3510–22–C 6. Default Catch Limits mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Mechanism for Setting Default Catch Limits This action establishes a mechanism for setting default catch limits in the event a future management action is delayed. If final catch limits have not been implemented by the start of a fishing year on May 1, then default catch limits will be set at 35 percent of the previous year’s catch limit. If this value exceeds the Council’s VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:31 Apr 30, 2015 Jkt 235001 recommendation for the upcoming fishing year, the default catch limits will be reduced to an amount equal to the Council’s recommendation for the upcoming fishing year. Because groundfish vessels are not able to fish if final catch limits have not been implemented, this measure is intended to prevent disruption to the groundfish fishery if final catch limits are not in place by May 1. Each time a specifications action is implemented, we intend to also announce the default catch limits that PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 would go into place for the out year in the event a future management action is delayed. Once the Council’s recommendation is known for that year, we will determine if any of the default catch limits previously set would exceed the Council’s recommendation. If so, we will reduce the default catch limits consistent with the Council’s recommendation, and will announce this adjustment prior to the start of the fishing year on May 1. For example, if a framework action sets catch limits for the 2016–2018 fishing year, we would E:\FR\FM\01MYR3.SGM 01MYR3 ER01MY15.005</GPH> 25118 25119 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 84 / Friday, May 1, 2015 / Rules and Regulations announce the default catch limits for fishing year 2019 in the same final rule implementing the final 2016–2018 catch limits. If necessary, prior to the start of the 2019 fishing year, we will evaluate whether any of the default catch limits previously announced exceed the Council’s recommendation for 2019. If so, we would announce adjustments to the 2019 default catch limits prior to May 1, 2019. The default catch limits would be in place from May 1 through July 31, unless a final rule including finalized catch limits is implemented prior to July 31 that replaces the default catch limits. If final catch limits are not implemented by the end of the default specifications period, then no catch limits would be in place beginning on August 1. Under this scenario, commercial groundfish vessels would be unable to fish until final catch limits and allocations were implemented for the fishing year. All catch occurring while default catch limits are in place will be attributed to the appropriate fishery allocation and the final catch limits for the fishing year. The default catch limits will be distributed to the various components of the fishery based on the distribution adopted by the Council for the previous fishing year. Additionally, this measure does not change any of the existing AMs for any fishery. For example, if a sector catches its entire allocation of redfish specified for the default specifications time period, it will be prohibited from fishing in the redfish stock area until final specifications were set, or it leased additional allocation for this stock. The midwater trawl fishery is the only nongroundfish fishery with an inseason AM for its allocation of GOM and GB haddock. When the GOM or GB haddock catch cap specified for the default specifications period is caught, the directed herring fishery will be closed for all herring vessels fishing with midwater trawl gear for the remainder of the default specifications time period, unless final specifications were set prior to July 31. For other nongroundfish fisheries that receive an allocation (e.g., scallop, small-mesh), this measure will not affect current operations because these fisheries do not currently have inseason AMs. If default catch limits are implemented for any fishing year, groundfish sectors will not be subject to the 20-percent holdback of the prior year’s allocation. This holdback provision was implemented in Amendment 16 to the FMP to allow time for processing end-of-year transfers and determine whether any overage reductions are necessary. However, the holdback provision will not be necessary under default catch limits because additional precaution has already been built in with the 65percent reduction from the previous year’s catch limits. Although most FMPs implement default catch limits that are equal to the previous year’s catch limits, a more precautionary approach was necessary for groundfish catch limits. In recent years, there have been a number of substantial reductions in groundfish catch limits, up to 80 percent. Given the frequency of large reductions, default catch limits equal to the previous year’s catch limits could increase the risk of overfishing during the time period which default catch limits are implemented. As a result, reducing the default catch limits from the previous year’s catch limits is intended to help ensure that overfishing does not occur during the default time period. Default Catch Limits for Fishing Year 2016 Groundfish assessment updates are anticipated in September 2015, and these assessments are expected to be used to set catch limits for the 2016 fishing year beginning on May 1, 2016. However, due to the timing of these assessments, the Council’s management action that will adopt the catch limits for the 2016 fishing year is not expected to be completed in time to be implemented by May 1, 2016. As a result, this action sets default limits for the 2016 fishing year that will become effective May 1, 2016, unless otherwise replaced by final specifications (Tables 14 and 15). This action only sets default catch limits for those groundfish stocks that would not have final specifications in place for 2016, absent another management action. If the default catch limits exceed the Council’s recommendation for fishing year 2016, then they will be adjusted, as necessary, prior to May 1, 2016. TABLE 14—FISHING YEAR 2016 DEFAULT SPECIFICATIONS [mt, live weight] Stock U.S. ABC mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 GB Cod .................................................... GB Haddock ............................................. SNE/MA Yellowtail Flounder .................... CC/GOM Yellowtail Flounder ................... American Plaice ....................................... Witch Flounder ......................................... SNE/MA Winter Flounder ........................ Redfish ..................................................... N. Windowpane Flounder ........................ S. Windowpane Flounder ........................ Ocean Pout .............................................. Atlantic Halibut ......................................... Atlantic Wolffish ....................................... 693 8,528 245 192 540 274 587 4,191 53 192 82 35 25 Groundfish sub-ACL Total ACL 660 8,121 232 184 514 263 563 3,988 50 184 77 34 23 Preliminary sector sub-ACL 625 7,616 151 161 492 213 457 3,862 35 36 68 22 22 614 7,563 124 155 483 209 402 3,846 na na na na na Preliminary common pool sub-ACL 12 53 27 5 9 4 56 16 35 36 68 22 22 Midwater trawl fishery ........................ 79 ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ TABLE 15—FISHING YEAR 2016 DEFAULT COMMON POOL TRIMESTER TOTAL ALLOWABLE CATCHES [mt, live weight] Stock Trimester 1 GB Cod ........................................................................................................................................ GB Haddock ................................................................................................................................ SNE/MA Yellowtail Flounder ....................................................................................................... VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:33 Apr 30, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01MYR3.SGM 3.0 14.2 5.7 01MYR3 Trimester 2 4.4 17.4 10.1 Trimester 3 4.5 21.1 11.5 25120 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 84 / Friday, May 1, 2015 / Rules and Regulations TABLE 15—FISHING YEAR 2016 DEFAULT COMMON POOL TRIMESTER TOTAL ALLOWABLE CATCHES—Continued [mt, live weight] Stock Trimester 1 CC/GOM Yellowtail Flounder ...................................................................................................... American Plaice ........................................................................................................................... Witch Flounder ............................................................................................................................. Redfish ......................................................................................................................................... 7. Sector Carryover Currently, sectors can carry over up to 10 percent of their unused initial allocation into the next fishing year. However, a 2013 court ruling in Conservation Law Foundation v. Pritzker, et al. (Case No. 1:13–CV–0821– JEB) determined that available sector carryover combined with the total ACL for the upcoming fishing year, or total potential catch, cannot exceed the ABC. As a result, this action specifies that the maximum available carryover may be reduced if up to 10 percent of the unused sector sub-ACL, plus the total ACL for the upcoming fishing year, exceeds the ABC. For example, if 10 percent of sector carryover from the previous year plus the total ACL for the upcoming year was expected to exceed the ABC by 50 mt, then we would reduce the available carryover for each sector. The overall reduction of available carryover would be equal to 50 mt, and this amount would be applied to each sector proportional to the total PSCs of the vessels/permits enrolled in the sector. This measure is intended to reduce the risk of catches exceeding the ABCs that the SSC recommends. Sector Carryover From Fishing Year 2014 to 2015 Based on the catch limits implemented in this action, we evaluated whether the total potential catch in fishing year 2015 would exceed the proposed ABC if sectors carried over the maximum 10 percent of unused allocation allowed from 2014 to 2015 (Table 16). Under this scenario, total potential catch would exceed the 2015 ABC for all groundfish stocks, except for GOM haddock. As a result, we expect we will need to adjust the maximum amount of unused allocation that a sector can carry forward from 2014 to 2015 (down from 10 percent). However, it is possible that not all sectors will have 10 percent of unused allocation at the end of the 2014 fishing year. We will 1.9 2.2 1.2 4.0 Trimester 2 Trimester 3 1.9 3.3 1.3 5.0 1.6 3.7 1.8 7.1 make the final adjustment to the maximum carryover possible for each sector based on final 2014 catch for the sectors, each sector’s total unused allocation, and proportional to the cumulative PSCs of vessels/permits participating in the sector. We will announce this adjustment as close to May 1, 2015, as possible. Based on the catch limits adopted in this final rule, the de minimis carryover amount for the 2015 fishing year will be set at the default one percent of the 2015 overall sector sub-ACL. The overall de minimis amount will be applied to each sector based on the cumulative PSCs of vessels/permits participating in that sector. If the overall ACL for any allocated stock is exceeded for the 2015 fishing year, the allowed carryover harvested by a sector, minus its specified de minimis amount, will be counted against its allocation to determine whether an overage, subject to an AM, occurred. TABLE 16—EVALUATION OF MAXIMUM CARRYOVER ALLOWED FROM FISHING YEAR 2014 TO 2015 [mt, live weight] 2015 U.S. ABC Stock GB Cod ................................................................................ GOM cod .............................................................................. GB Haddock ......................................................................... GOM Haddock ..................................................................... SNE Yellowtail Flounder ...................................................... CC/GOM Yellowtail Flounder ............................................... Plaice ................................................................................... Witch Flounder ..................................................................... GB Winter Flounder ............................................................. GOM Winter Flounder .......................................................... SNE/MA Winter Flounder .................................................... Redfish ................................................................................. White Hake .......................................................................... Pollock .................................................................................. 2015 Total ACL 1,980 386 24,366 1,454 700 548 1,544 783 2,010 510 1,676 11,974 4,713 16,600 Potential carryover (10% of 2014 sector subACL) Total potential catch (2015 total ACL + potential carryover) Difference between total potential catch and ABC 174 81 1,705 43 46 46 136 60 336 68 106 1,052 425 1,314 2,060 447 24,909 1,418 712 570 1,605 811 2,287 558 1,714 12,445 4,909 17,192 80 61 543 ¥36 12 22 61 28 277 48 38 471 196 592 1,886 366 23,204 1,375 666 524 1,470 751 1,952 489 1,607 11,393 4,484 15,878 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Note. Carryover of GB yellowtail flounder is not allowed because this stock is jointly managed with Canada. 8. 2015 Annual Measures Under Regional Administrator Authority The FMP gives us authority to implement certain types of management measures for the common pool fishery, the U.S./Canada Management Area, and VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:31 Apr 30, 2015 Jkt 235001 Special Management Programs on an annual basis, or as needed. This action implemented a number of these management measures for the 2015 fishing year. These measures are not part of Framework 53, and were not PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 specifically proposed by the Council. We are implementing them in conjunction with Framework 53 measures in this final rule for expediency purposes, and because they E:\FR\FM\01MYR3.SGM 01MYR3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 84 / Friday, May 1, 2015 / Rules and Regulations relate to the catch limits proposed in Framework 53. Common Pool Trip Limits The initial fishing year 2015 days-atsea (DAS) possession limits and maximum trip limits for common pool vessels are included in Tables 17 and 18. These possession limits were developed after considering changes to the common pool catch limits, catch rates of each stock during 2014, and 25121 other available information. During the fishing year, we will adjust possession and trip limits, as necessary, to prevent common pool catch limits from being exceeded. TABLE 17—INITIAL FISHING YEAR 2015 COMMON POOL POSSESSION AND TRIP LIMITS Stock Possession and trip limits GB Cod (outside Eastern U.S./Canada Area) ......................................... GB Cod (inside Eastern U.S./Canada Area) ............................................ GOM Cod ................................................................................................. GB Haddock ............................................................................................. GOM Haddock .......................................................................................... GB Yellowtail Flounder ............................................................................. SNE/MA Yellowtail Flounder .................................................................... CC/GOM Yellowtail Flounder ................................................................... American plaice ........................................................................................ Witch Flounder ......................................................................................... GB Winter Flounder .................................................................................. GOM Winter Flounder .............................................................................. SNE/MA Winter Flounder ......................................................................... Redfish ...................................................................................................... White hake ................................................................................................ Pollock ...................................................................................................... Atlantic Halibut .......................................................................................... Windowpane Flounder .............................................................................. Ocean Pout ............................................................................................... Atlantic Wolffish ........................................................................................ 2,000 lb (907 kg) per DAS, up to 20,000 lb (9,072 kg) per trip. 100 lb (45 kg) per DAS, up to 500 lb (227 kg) per trip. 50 lb (23 kg) per DAS, up to 200 lb (91 kg) per trip. 25,000 lb (11,340 kg) per trip. 50 lb (23 kg) per DAS, up to 200 lb (91 kg) per trip. 100 lb (45 kg) per trip. 2,000 lb (907 kg) per DAS, up to 6,000 lb (2,722 kg) per trip. 1,500 lb (680 kg) per DAS up to 3,000 lb (1,361 kg) per trip. Unlimited. 1,000 lb (454 kg) per trip. 1,000 lb (454 kg) per trip. 1,000 lb (454 kg) per trip. 3,000 lb (1,361 kg) per DAS, up to 6,000 lb (2,722 kg) per trip. Unlimited. 1,500 lb (680 kg) per trip. 10,000 lb (4,536 kg) per trip. 1 fish per trip. Possession Prohibited. Possession Prohibited. Possession Prohibited. TABLE 18—INITIAL FISHING YEAR 2015 COD TRIP LIMITS FOR HANDGEAR A, HANDGEAR B, AND SMALL VESSEL CATEGORY PERMITS Permit/Stock Trip limit Handgear A—GOM Cod .......................................................................... Handgear A—GB Cod .............................................................................. Handgear B—GOM Cod .......................................................................... Handgear B—GB Cod .............................................................................. Small Vessel Category ............................................................................. 50 lb (23 kg) per trip. 300 lb (136 kg) per trip. 25 lb (11 kg) per trip. 75 lb (34 kg) per trip. 300 lb (136 kg) of cod, haddock, and yellowtail flounder combined; maximum of 50 lb (23 kg) of GOM cod and 50 lb (23 kg) of GOM haddock within the 300-lb (136-kg) combined trip limit. mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Closed Area II Yellowtail Flounder/ Haddock Special Access Program This action allocates zero trips for common pool vessels to target yellowtail flounder within the Closed Area II Yellowtail Flounder/Haddock Special Access Program (SAP) for fishing year 2015. Vessels could still fish in this SAP in 2015 to target haddock, but must fish with a haddock separator trawl, a Ruhle trawl, or hook gear. Vessels will not be allowed to fish in this SAP using flounder nets. This SAP is open from August 1, 2015, through January 31, 2016. We have the authority to determine the allocation of the total number of trips into the Closed Area II Yellowtail Flounder/Haddock SAP based on several criteria, including the GB yellowtail flounder catch limit and the amount of GB yellowtail flounder caught outside of the SAP. The FMP specifies that no trips should be VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:31 Apr 30, 2015 Jkt 235001 allocated to the Closed Area II Yellowtail Flounder/Haddock SAP if the available GB yellowtail flounder catch is insufficient to support at least 150 trips with a 15,000-lb (6,804-kg) trip limit (or 2,250,000 lb (1,020,600 kg)). This calculation accounts for the projected catch from the area outside the SAP. Based on the proposed fishing year 2015 GB yellowtail flounder groundfish sub-ACL of 429,240 lb (194,700 kg), there is insufficient GB yellowtail flounder to allocate any trips to the SAP, even if the projected catch from outside the SAP area is zero. Further, given the low GB yellowtail flounder catch limit, catch rates outside of this SAP are more than adequate to fully harvest the 2015 GB yellowtail flounder allocation. PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 9. Fishing Year 2015 Northern Windowpane Flounder Accountability Measure For data reported through April 14, 2015, estimated catch of northern windowpane flounder is 239 mt, which is 166 percent of the total ACL (144 mt) and 118 percent of the OFL (202 mt). Of this estimated catch, the commercial groundfish fishery has caught 156 mt, and the scallop fishery has caught 83 mt. This catch estimate does not include catch from any other non-groundfish fisheries because inseason catch information is not available. However, catch from these components is typically very low. We are required to implement an AM for northern windowpane flounder in the year immediately following an overage if reliable data indicate that the total ACL has been exceeded. As a result, this final rule implements an AM for northern windowpane flounder for E:\FR\FM\01MYR3.SGM 01MYR3 25122 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 84 / Friday, May 1, 2015 / Rules and Regulations large gear restricted area is implemented for fishing year 2015 (Figure 2). There are no restrictions on common pool or sector vessels fishing with longline or gillnet gear. In addition, the AM will not affect any non-groundfish vessels because northern windowpane is not allocated to any non-groundfish fishery (e.g., scallop fishery). An overview of the windowpane AM can be found here: https:// www.nero.noaa.gov/sfd/sfdmulti.html. As a reminder, sectors cannot request an exemption from this AM. The AM will remain in place for the entire 2015 fishing year, unless modified through a future action. As long as additional overages do not occur, the AM will be removed at the start of the 2016 fishing year, beginning on May 1, 2016. 10. Daily Catch Reporting for Commercial Groundfish Vessels In the proposed rule, we highlighted our concern that the low GOM cod catch limit could provide a strong incentive to misreport or underreport catch on unobserved trips. Currently, commercial groundfish vessels that declare their intent to fish in multiple broad stock areas are required to submit trip-level catch reports via the VMS. However, in the proposed rule, we noted that requiring daily VMS catch reports was one potential tool that could help address our concerns for misreporting. After further consideration, and based on public comments we received, we are, through this final rule, requiring vessels to submit a daily VMS catch report on trips declared into the GOM Broad Stock Area and any other broad stock area (i.e., offshore GB or SNE) on the same trip. This reporting requirement is effective on May 1, 2015. In Amendment 16 to the FMP, the Council recommended requiring daily VMS catch reports for vessels that declare their intent to fish in multiple broad stock areas. Amendment 16 also gave NMFS the discretionary authority to modify this reporting requirement, as we determined was necessary to appropriately monitor the ACLs, while also reducing unnecessary duplication. At the time we implemented Amendment 16, we determined that only trip-level catch reports were necessary for vessels that declared their intent to fish in multiple broad stock areas, and we implemented this requirement beginning for the 2010 fishing year. In light of the GOM cod catch limit, we determined that daily VMS catch reports for trips declared into the GOM and other broad stock areas on the same trip will help ensure more accurate apportionment of cod catch to the GOM and GB stock areas, help enforcement efforts, and more effectively control mortality on the GOM cod stock. We also expect that the daily VMS catch report may promote more accurate VMS trip declarations because only vessels with a true intent of fishing in the GOM will declare into this area given the daily reporting requirement. Vessels subject to the daily VMS catch report requirement are not required to also submit a trip-level catch report. The same information currently required for trip-level catch reports will be required for the daily catch reports, namely a good-faith estimate of the amount of each regulated groundfish species retained (in pounds, landed weight) and the total amount of all species retained (in pounds, landed weight), including groundfish species and species managed by other FMPs, from each broad stock area. For applicable trips, daily VMS catch reports must be submitted for each calendar day of the trip (midnight to midnight), and must be submitted by 0900 hr of the following day. The requirement to submit a daily VMS catch report does not apply to vessels that declare their intent to fish in multiple broad stock areas, but not the GOM. These vessels are still only required to submit a trip-level catch report. For example, if a vessel declares into the offshore GB and SNE/MA Broad Stock Areas, it would only be subject to a trip-level report. This is intended to prevent unnecessary duplication. Most VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:31 Apr 30, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01MYR3.SGM 01MYR3 ER01MY15.006</GPH> mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 fishing year 2015 based on the most recent catch information for 2014. For fishing year 2015, common pool and sector vessels fishing on a groundfish trip with trawl gear are required to use one of the approved selective gears when fishing in the applicable AM area (haddock separator trawl, Ruhle trawl, or rope separator trawl). Because the overage is more than 20 percent, the Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 84 / Friday, May 1, 2015 / Rules and Regulations of our current concerns for catch attribution and compliance are in light of the GOM cod catch limit, and for trips fishing in both the GOM and GB broad stock areas. As a result, we determined that requiring a daily VMS catch report for vessels declared into multiple areas, but not into the GOM, was not necessary at this time. 11. Regulatory Corrections Under Regional Administrator Authority The following changes to the regulations are being made to correct references, inadvertent deletions, and other minor errors. In § 648.14(k)(7), the reference to the GOM Cod Spawning Protection Area (Whaleback) is corrected. This change was overlooked in a previous management action. In § 648.14(k)(12) and (13), the introductory text is revised to clarify that the general restrictions listed in these paragraphs apply to any person. In § 648.87(b)(1)(i)(C)(2), the reference to the sector AM provision is corrected. In § 648.89(f)(1), the reference to special provisions for recreational catch evaluation for fishing years 2010 and 2011 are removed. These provisions are no longer relevant. In § 648.90(a)(2)(i), the reference to a special provision for the biennial review for 2008 and 2009 is removed. This provision is no longer relevant. In § 648.90(a)(2)(viii), a reference is corrected that was overlooked during the implementation of a previous FMP action. In § 648.90(a)(5)(i), this rule corrects a spelling error. mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Comments and Responses on Measures Proposed in the Framework 53 Proposed Rule We received 48 comments during the comment period on the Framework 53 proposed rule. Public comments were submitted by the Council, 2 state marine fisheries agencies, 5 commercial fishing organizations, 1 groundfish sector, 7 commercial fishermen, 1 recreational fishing organization, 24 recreational fishermen, 4 non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and 3 individuals. We requested specific comment on several measures proposed in Framework 53, including some aspects of the GOM cod catch limit and the GOM cod protection measures. Responses to the comments received are below, and, when possible, responses to similar comments on the proposed measures have been consolidated. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:31 Apr 30, 2015 Jkt 235001 Status Determination Criteria Comment 1: Two state marine fisheries agencies supported the revised status determination criteria. Response: We agree, and are implementing these changes in this final rule. The revised status determination criteria for GB yellowtail flounder, as well as the updated numerical estimates of the status determination criteria for other groundfish stocks, incorporate the results of the 2014 assessments for these stocks. As a result, these revisions are based on the best scientific information available, and will help ensure the appropriate catch limits are set for these stocks. Fishing Year 2015 U.S./Canada Quotas Comment 2: One state marine fisheries agency supported the fishing year 2015 shared U.S./Canada quotas for eastern GB cod, eastern GB haddock, and GB yellowtail flounder. Response: We agree, and this final rule implements these quotas for fishing year 2015. The 2015 shared U.S./Canada quotas are based on the results of the 2014 Transboundary Resources Assessment Committee assessment, which represents the best scientific information available. These quotas are also consistent with the recommendations of the TMGC and the SSC. Fishing Year 2015–2017 Catch Limits (Excluding Gulf of Maine Cod) Comment 3: Two state marine fisheries agencies, one commercial fishing organization, two recreational fishermen, and one individual supported the fishing years 2015–2017 catch limits for groundfish stocks. One recreational fisherman reported catching much less GOM winter flounder in recent years. Response: We agree, and are implementing these catch limits for fishing years 2015–2017. These catch limits are based on the 2014 assessments for these stocks, which represent the best scientific information available, and are consistent with the SSC’s recommendations and conservation objectives. Assessment updates are scheduled for 2015 for all of these stocks, which will provide the opportunity to update the catch limits implemented in this final rule for fishing year 2016 and beyond. The results of the 2014 assessment update for GOM winter flounder show large declines in the survey indices in recent years. Based on the assessment, the GOM winter flounder catch limits in this action are a 50-percent reduction compared to 2014. This appears to PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 25123 corroborate the commenter’s observation of catching much less GOM winter flounder in recent years. The assessment peer review panel expressed concerns that recent biomass estimates substantially decreased despite relatively low catch, and reasons for this apparent decline are not known. Available catch information indicates that the majority of GOM winter flounder catch comes from the same statistical areas as the majority of the GOM cod catch. As a result, the substantial reduction in the GOM cod catch limit is expected to affect catch of GOM winter flounder. Comment 4: One commercial fishing organization, one groundfish sector, and one commercial fisherman opposed the catch limits for GB winter flounder, and noted that the catch limits are overly restrictive. The commercial fishing organization also commented that the Council adopted a 7-year rebuilding program for GB winter flounder with the intention of extending it to 10 years, if necessary, and that a 7-year trajectory is unnecessarily restrictive. The groundfish sector commented that the large reduction will have a negative economic impact on New Bedford. Response: We recognize that the reduction in the catch limit for GB winter flounder may be restrictive for groundfish vessels, particularly in light of other substantial reductions for key groundfish stocks that have been implemented in recent years. The economic impacts analysis for this action predicts that GB winter flounder will generate the third most revenue of all groundfish stocks for fishing year 2015 (following GB haddock and pollock, respectively), and that the groundfish fishery will fully utilize its available GB winter flounder quota. Although not fully captured in the economic analysis, selective gear requirements for northern windowpane flounder may reduce profitability for groundfish vessels targeting GB winter flounder. However, the catch limits are based on the 2014 assessment update for this stock, which is the best scientific information available, and are consistent with the SSC’s recommendation. Amendment 16 to the FMP adopted a 7-year rebuilding program for GB winter flounder with a 75-percent probability of rebuilding by 2017. This shorter time period and higher probability were adopted to provide additional flexibility in the event stock rebuilding lagged behind the planned rebuilding trajectory. However, it is unclear whether this would be the case for GB winter flounder. E:\FR\FM\01MYR3.SGM 01MYR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 25124 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 84 / Friday, May 1, 2015 / Rules and Regulations Based on the results of the 2014 assessment, estimated biomass for 2013 is approximately 85 percent of the biomass target. Catch projections also indicate that the stock has a 76-percent probability of rebuilding by 2017 if catches for the next 3 years are set based on Frebuild. Thus, it appears this stock is on its planned rebuilding trajectory. The SSC recommended ABCs based on Frebuild, and did not note any reason to depart from this approach. Further, although the GB winter flounder rebuilding program was not considered in Framework 53, given the retrospective pattern in the assessment, the PDT noted that the conservative rebuilding approach (higher probability) may be appropriate given the revised lower biomass estimates from the 2014 assessment. In any event, we can only approve or disapprove Framework 53 measures. Because the Council did not consider, or approve, extending the rebuilding timeframe for GB winter flounder in Framework 53, such a change is outside the scope and authority of this action. Comment 5: Although supportive of the GOM haddock catch limits included in this action, one commercial fishing organization noted concerns that strong year classes were down-weighted in the stock assessment, and that GB/GOM stock mixing is largely unaccounted for as well. Response: We acknowledge uncertainties around recent year classes, and the possibility of mixing between the GB and GOM haddock stocks. However, these issues were examined in the 2014 benchmark assessment for GOM haddock. The PDT and SSC also completed a review of haddock stock mixing, and this analysis was reviewed during the 2014 assessment. Based on the examination of these issues, the 2014 assessment appropriately accounted for year class uncertainty and mixing, and the peer review panel concluded this was the best scientific information available. The results of the 2014 stock assessment for GOM haddock indicate that the 2012 year class is strong. However, the size of this potentially large year class was identified as the largest source of uncertainty in the assessment, primarily because it is based on only two surveys. The final model did constrain recruitment estimates in the last 3 years of the time series. This type of adjustment is intended to offset uncertainties due to the low confidence in the survey observations that are not yet substantiated by fishery-dependent data. Although the 2012 year class appears strong, this estimate is still highly VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:31 Apr 30, 2015 Jkt 235001 uncertain, and the adjustment helps prevent overly optimistic results that could occur from anomalous survey tows. The assessment did explore sensitivity runs that further downweighted this year class; however, these sensitivity runs were not used to develop the fishing years 2015–2017 catch limits implemented in this action. We are closely monitoring stock indicators for GOM haddock to gauge if initial indications of a strong 2012 year class are substantiated. The fall 2014 survey indices have increased relative to 2013, and this is likely a function of the signal from incoming year classes. We expect that the 2015 assessment update for GOM haddock will provide additional information about the absolute size of the 2012 year class. However, recent survey indices appear to support the initial indications of a strong 2012 year class. While it is true that the assessment model does not account for mixing, this issue was examined during the 2014 benchmark assessment. The assessment examined multiple sources of evidence that indicated the annual percent mixing from GB to GOM is low (less than 0.8 percent), but there is considerable uncertainty regarding the degree of mixing. Both the peer review panel and the SSC noted the significant risk to GOM haddock that could occur if the wrong mixing rate is assumed, and ultimately concluded that additional research is needed to determine the stock movement rates before incorporating mixing into the assessment model. Gulf of Maine Cod Assessment Comment 6: Two commercial fishing organizations opposed the process used for the 2014 assessment update. The commenters noted that the process was not transparent, and that we only secured an ad-hoc peer review of the assessment after it had been completed. One commercial fishing organization noted that Framework 53 was largely intended to address northern windowpane flounder, and that the 2014 assessment for GOM cod disrupted this work. Response: We acknowledge that the 2014 assessment for GOM cod was not scheduled, and that stakeholders did not expect to receive updated stock information. In recent years, both the Council and stakeholders have frequently requested more timely information on stock conditions, as well as advanced notice when we see early indications of changes in stock condition. As a result, we have undertaken a number of efforts to develop a more efficient process for PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 generating information on stock status. In 2014, after examining the most recent survey data for GOM cod, we determined that all major indicators of stock health appeared to have deteriorated since the 2012 assessment. Catch and age data for 2012 and 2013 were also available at the time and used to conduct the 2014 stock assessment update. The intent of undertaking the update was part of our larger effort to provide early indications of changes in stock conditions. Once the preliminary results of the assessment update were clear, we shared the information with the Council, and then sought the Council’s assistance to conduct a peer review of the stock assessment. We recognize that recent AMs for northern windowpane flounder have reduced yield of other groundfish stocks on GB. The Council did consider management measures for northern windowpane flounder in Framework 53, including an allocation of this stock for the scallop fishery. However, the Council ultimately took no action on these measures because, as noted in the Council’s analysis, it determined that they would not have sufficiently addressed the goal of increasing catch accountability for individual fishery components. Further, in lieu of any changes in Framework 53, the Council set a 2015 priority to review windowpane flounder management, and, depending on the outcome of that review, the Council may potentially identify revisions to the existing management measures. Comment 7: One commercial fisherman, two recreational fishermen, and two commercial fishing organizations commented that, although GOM cod biomass is low, the 2014 assessment results are too pessimistic. These commenters noted that fishermen are reporting an increase in relative cod catch, and that they are catching more cod in areas not recently known for cod. Response: Throughout the development of Framework 53, we have continued to hear from commercial fishermen that cod catches, while still low, have increased relative to recent years. Analysis from the PDT shows a few signs of high cod tows in the commercial fishery. However, available catch data indicate that catch per unit effort has continued to decline through 2014. These data also show that the spatial re-distribution of cod catch patterns in 2013 and 2014 were primarily the result of a spatial shift in fishing effort. Catch efficiency of cod is greater in the western Gulf of Maine, and, in response to catch limit reductions in fishing year 2013, many vessels shifted effort east as one way to E:\FR\FM\01MYR3.SGM 01MYR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 84 / Friday, May 1, 2015 / Rules and Regulations avoid cod. Catch data indicate that the proportion of GOM cod caught from the western GOM declined coincident with an easterly shift in fishing effort. Although it is difficult to distinguish trends in catch per unit effort from declining catch limits, the available data do not appear to support an increased availability of GOM cod. However, if there has been a recent increase in GOM cod, we expect that this increase would be captured in the trawl surveys, and incorporated into subsequent assessments. Comment 8: One NGO commented that the 2014 assessment update did not take a precautionary approach for estimating recruitment. Another NGO commented on the potential for GOM cod to suffer depensation effects at such low biomass levels. Response: We disagree that the assessment did not take a precautionary approach for estimating recruitment. One term of reference for the peer review panel of the 2014 assessment was to perform short-term catch projections that accounted for recent recruitment. The peer review panel concluded that the recruitment protocol for the 2014 assessment update was consistent with the approved benchmark formulation, which assumes that recruitment success is compromised under current SSB levels. Additionally, for the 2014 assessment, age-1 recruitment was estimated using the geometric mean of the most recent 5 years (2009–2013), as opposed to the most recent 10 years, in further recognition of the lower recruitments in recent years. These catch projections using the 5-year geometric mean were used as the basis for the catch advice for fishing years 2015–2017 that we are implementing in this final rule. During the 2014 assessment, and the development of this action, there was some discussion on the potential for depensation given the very low biomass for GOM cod. Depensation can be caused by several factors, including reduced recruitment at lower SSB levels, reduced egg production or survival when age structure of the spawning population is truncated, or increased predation. As noted above, the catch projections do include the potential for recruitment to be compromised under certain SSB levels. This adjustment was intended to help account for possible depensation effects. Additionally, the 2014 assessment noted the potential for further declines in biomass and truncation of age-structure to affect future recruitment success, and that catch projections could be optimistic. These uncertainties were considered in the development of catch VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:31 Apr 30, 2015 Jkt 235001 advice for GOM cod and additional protection measures that are implemented in this final rule, as described elsewhere in this preamble, as well as corresponding measures for sectors that are implemented in the final rule for 2015 and 2016 Sector Operations Plans and Contracts. Comment 9: One commercial fishing organization noted concerns that the stock assessment does not adequately capture the specific geographic stock components for GOM cod. Response: The 2012 benchmark assessment for GOM cod identified multiple topics that warranted further investigation, including cod stock structure. Since the 2012 benchmark assessment, a workshop was held on stock structure of cod in the GOM region, and this workshop concluded that there are three genetic stocks. Although some workshop participants concluded there was sufficient evidence to indicate that the current management units should be revised, the workshop was not able to reach any conclusions on the most appropriate management response. Following this workshop, additional information has become available on cod stock structure, and the Council has also set a 2015 priority to examine how stock structure may affect management. The peer review panel for the 2014 assessment update discussed all of the available information on cod stock structure, and noted that this issue should be further considered in a benchmark assessment. In providing catch advice for fishing years 2015– 2017, the SSC also reiterated the importance of continuing the evaluation of cod stock structure, and that this work should be completed as soon as possible. Although recognizing that there are uncertainties in any stock assessment, we determined that the assessments relied on for this action are the best scientific information available. Cod stock structure, along with other topics identified for the GOM cod assessment, will continue to be examined. However, it should be noted that, currently, the GOM cod assessment scheduled for September 2015 is an operational assessment, and not a benchmark assessment. Fishing Years 2015–2017 Gulf of Maine Cod Catch Limits Comment 10: The Council, two state marine fisheries agencies, and three commercial fishing organizations supported the proposed GOM cod catch limits. Although supportive of the catch limit, one commercial fishing organization disagreed with our interpretation that an ABC of 386 mt PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 25125 was not strictly based on an Frebuild approach. This organization also commented that catch projections used to develop catch advice assumed a catch of 1,470 mt for 2014, and the realized 2014 catch is likely lower than this value. Response: For all of the reasons previously discussed in this preamble, we are implementing an ABC of 386 mt in this final rule. We recognize that there may be disagreements on how to characterize an ABC of 386 mt relative to the various provisions of the ABC control rule. However, based on the best scientific information available, and the SSC’s final report, we determined that an ABC of 386 mt is consistent with Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements. Based on updated catch projections, this ABC will end overfishing and will not jeopardize the stock’s ability to rebuild by 2024. Further, because no peer review body has been able to conclude that any scenario is more plausible than any other, an ABC of 386 mt appropriately incorporates all of the available catch projections. The updated catch projections show little difference in the future catches and biomass between an ABC of 386 mt and an ABC of 200 mt, in part because catch limits would likely need to be set lower under the 386-mt scenario in the out years of the rebuilding period than those needed under 200 mt. The PDT did explore the sensitivity of catch projections to the 2014 catch assumption. One sensitivity run was completed that assumed a 2014 catch of 1,000 mt instead of 1,470 mt. This sensitivity analysis indicated that a lower 2014 catch would result in approximately 60 mt more catch in 2015. The PDT did not evaluate the likelihood that catch would be 1,000 mt, however, and this sensitivity analysis was not generated for use in providing 2015 catch advice. Comment 11: The Council and one state marine fisheries agency noted concerns that we highlighted uncertainties and requested specific comments on various aspects of the ABC in the proposed rule, and that this appears to conflict with the SSC process for developing ABC recommendations. Response: We give great weight to the SSC’s recommendation. The SSC is charged with providing scientific advice to the Council, including ABC recommendations that will meet Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements. We recognize that the SSC considered its catch advice for GOM cod carefully, and thoroughly reviewed the available information. However, as specified in the Magnuson-Stevens Act, we must ensure that any fishery management E:\FR\FM\01MYR3.SGM 01MYR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 25126 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 84 / Friday, May 1, 2015 / Rules and Regulations plan is carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the National Standards. In order to make a final determination, and as part of the public rulemaking process, we must carefully examine the available information and seek any clarifications necessary to ensure final measures are consistent with applicable requirements. In doing this, it provides the public additional opportunity to comment on the issues and respond to any concerns that we raise. We must then evaluate all comments that we receive during the proposed rule comment period together with the SSC’s deliberations, analysis of the proposed measures, and the best scientific information available. For these reasons, we considered it appropriate to raise our concerns regarding the SSC’s recommendation in order to make a final determination on the GOM cod catch limits adopted in this rule. Comment 12: Three NGOs opposed an ABC of 386 mt, and instead supported an ABC of 200 mt. These commenters asserted that an ABC of 386 mt was above the level associated with Frebuild, that it would fail to rebuild the stock by the rebuilding plan end date of 2024, and, as a result, was not consistent with National Standard 1, Amendment 16, and § 304(e) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. These commenters noted concerns about the retrospective pattern in the assessment and the past performance of catch projections. Response: We understand the concerns about GOM cod raised by the commenters, and we noted many of these concerns in the proposed rule. GOM cod stock status is poor and appropriate measures must be implemented to ensure conservation objectives are met. As we highlighted during the development of Framework 53, and in our approval of an ABC of 386 mt, we remain concerned for GOM cod, and are proceeding with the caveat that the ABC for the 2016 and 2017 fishing years must be reevaluated in light of the September 2015 assessment for this stock. The ABC adopted in this action is a complex balance between conservation objectives and other Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements that we must take into account. The development of the ABC adopted in this action is described earlier in the preamble of this rule, and the proposed rule, and is only briefly summarized again here. During the 2014 assessment update, rebuilding catch trajectories were updated based on the new rebuilding program adopted in Framework 51 to the FMP with an end date of 2024. These rebuilding catch projections assumed a constant F for the VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:31 Apr 30, 2015 Jkt 235001 remaining 9 years of the rebuilding plan. The PDT initially presented these Frebuild projections completed for the 2014 assessment update to the SSC, as well as an option to set a 200-mt constant catch, which was based on the two projection scenarios that indicated rebuilding was possible. The PDT updated the catch projections with the 200-mt constant ABC option, and these projections indicated the stock would still rebuild by 2024. The SSC recommended this provisional ABC of 200 mt, but noted that it was not consistent with the development of the OFL, which incorporated all three catch projections. As a result, the SSC requested additional information from the PDT to consider incidental catch in its ABC recommendation in order to incorporate all three plausible catch projection scenarios, as well as the control rule provision that specifies the ABC should be based on incidental bycatch if rebuilding cannot occur, even in the absence of fishing mortality. Updated catch projections indicate that the stock can rebuild by 2024 under an ABC of 386 mt for fishing years 2015–2017. Based on our examination of additional catch projections, we determined there is likely little functional biological difference between 200 mt and 386 mt. This is, in part, because lower catches may be necessary in the out years of the rebuilding program under the 386-mt ABC scenario compared to the 200-mt scenario. Based on the available projections, and analysis of the biological impacts of this action, we determined that an ABC of 386 mt is sufficiently below the OFL to prevent overfishing, and will not jeopardize rebuilding progress. We recognize the recent changes in the perception of stock status and uncertainties in groundfish catch projections. Multiple analyses have been completed that highlight the past performance of groundfish catch projections, and the SSC considers this information each time it provides catch advice for groundfish stocks. In many instances, a constant catch strategy has been used to help offset these uncertainties, and provide an increasingly larger scientific uncertainty buffer as the projections move further from the terminal year of the assessment. The SSC applied this strategy to GOM cod in its recommendation for fishing years 2015– 2017. However, more importantly, in providing its catch advice, the SSC noted that pending the results of the 2015 assessment, it would reconsider its catch advice for fishing year 2016 and beyond. PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 As we noted earlier in the preamble of this rule, we are approving an ABC of 386 mt with the expectation that the catch limits in this final rule will be reassessed for fishing years 2016 and beyond due to the GOM cod assessment update scheduled for September 2015. When considering all three of the available catch projection scenarios, an ABC of 386 mt was a higher option than other catch outputs, most notably the provisional recommendation of 200 mt. However, the 2015 assessment provides an opportunity to closely monitor the status of this stock in order to make any necessary adjustments to the catch limits adopted in this rule for future fishing years. Our approval of the GOM cod ABC, therefore, is, in effect, only approval for the first year (2015) of the remaining rebuilding time period. As a result, we determined that the uncertainties in projection and concerns for the past performance are mitigated given the pending assessment. Although the Council could have considered, and recommended, an ABC lower than the SSC’s recommendation of 386 mt, a lower ABC would not have mitigated economic impacts consistent with Magnuson-Stevens Act national standards and other requirements. In this case, to ignore an alternative that meets conservation objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and that could help mitigate some of the substantial economic impacts this action is expected to have, would not be consistent with National Standard 8, and could jeopardize achieving optimum yield for the groundfish fishery. Further, analysis prepared for this action indicates that a lower GOM cod catch limit may create an economic incentive to misreport catch. This incentive may increase under a 200-mt ABC compared to an ABC of 386 mt. Even a slight increase in misreporting could diminish the benefits of a lower catch limit because of the relatively small biological benefit expected from an ABC as low as 200 mt when compared to 386 mt. We have continued to reiterate the importance of controlling fishing mortality, and agree with commenters that this is necessary to help ensure conservation objectives are met for GOM cod. As a result, along with an ABC of 386 mt, we are also implementing an additional reporting requirement for groundfish vessels to help ensure catch remains within this limit, and have also made adjustments to sector exemptions for fishing year 2015 in light of GOM cod stock status. Comment 13: One NGO commented that the proposed rule and supporting E:\FR\FM\01MYR3.SGM 01MYR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 84 / Friday, May 1, 2015 / Rules and Regulations documents inadequately assess the biological impacts of the ABC (386 mt). Response: We disagree. The final report for the 2014 assessment update, supporting analyses developed by the PDT, Council and SSC deliberations, and the Framework 53 Environmental Assessment provide a thorough examination of the impacts of the ABC implemented in this final rule. The development of a GOM cod ABC occurred over the course of a peer review of the 2014 stock assessment, several PDT meetings, two SSC meetings, two Groundfish Committee meetings, and two Council meetings. All of this information, including summaries of the relevant meetings, is publically available, and all of it was incorporated into the Framework 53 Environmental Assessment, which was made available with the proposed rule for this action. Further, considering all of the available catch projections, there was a wide range of potential catches and fishing mortality rates examined in the supporting analyses. For example, the 2014 assessment update completed catch projections for various catch alternatives ranging from Frebuild to FMSY. Catch projections from the 2014 assessment update also explored the sensitivity of the projections to different recruitment assumptions to better ensure projections reflected the recent lower observed recruitment. Additionally, during the development of Framework 53, the SSC provisionally recommended an ABC of 200 mt. Although this ABC was not its final recommendation, the available catch projections provide a comparison between an ABC of 200 mt and an ABC of 386 mt. The biological impacts of 386 mt were also analyzed in the Framework 53 Environmental Assessment and catch projections were updated with an ABC of 386 mt. This analysis also compared the biological impacts of 386 mt to No Action. In the No Action alternative, groundfish vessels would have been unable to fish because catch limits would not have been set for a number of stocks. Under this scenario, catches would not be completely eliminated because incidental bycatch would still occur in other non-groundfish fisheries. However, the analysis concluded that there was little difference between these two scenarios (200 mt and 386 mt), and that the future catches and biomass indicated from the catch projections were relatively similar. The commenter offered no specific reasons or evidence that contradicts this analysis. Comment 14: Two individual fishermen, one state marine fisheries agency, and three commercial fishing VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:31 Apr 30, 2015 Jkt 235001 organizations reiterated concerns for the socio-economic impact of the GOM cod ABC. The state marine fisheries agency suggested that the predicted gross revenue losses are likely severe underestimates, and that the economic impacts analysis incorrectly assumed a fluid quota leasing market. Response: We highlighted similar concerns in the proposed rule, particularly our concern that this final rule will primarily impact small vessels and ports north of Boston (Gloucester, MA, and New Hampshire ports). Some measures are expected to provide marginal economic relief that could increase the viability of the inshore fleet. However, even measures designed to provide additional fishing opportunities will not mitigate all of the substantial economic impacts that are expected from the GOM cod ABC. The economic impacts analysis of this action noted that gross revenue for the groundfish fishery has declined in recent years (from $120 million in fishing year 2011 to $79 million in fishing year 2013). The predicted gross revenue losses for fishing year 2015 (approximately 10 percent) may mask some of the economic impacts to small vessels and ports. However, evaluation of the past performance of the economic model used for analysis suggests that, generally, the predicted gross revenues for a fishing year were relatively close to the realized values. Of course, there are uncertainties in the model, and although the model is intended to capture fishery-wide behavior changes related to catch limit changes, it can over-predict landings under a number of circumstances. With all of this in consideration, the economic impacts analysis concluded that the additional declines forecasted for fishing year 2015 would result in impacts to the entire groundfish fishery even greater than previous GOM cod catch limit reductions. Reductions in the GOM cod catch limit implemented in previous years resulted in economic losses; however, available information indicates the sector fishery has been able to adapt to some degree. Despite some ability to adapt under previous catch limit reductions, GOM cod was constraining in fishing year 2013. The economic impacts analysis did note that if it becomes difficult for fishermen to avoid GOM cod, the predicted gross revenues could be serious overestimates. Further, although the economic impacts analysis attempts to include the possibility of high GOM cod tows, it does not fully capture these risks. If observed trips encounter unexpected high GOM cod tows, these trips could endanger fishing PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 25127 operations for the entire sector. The quota leasing market, and potential changes in fishing year 2015, were discussed in the full economic impacts analysis, and are not repeated here. However, we recognize the comment that the analysis may not fully capture the current quota leasing market. Comment 15: One NGO commented that the management uncertainty buffer should be increased to account for potential observer bias. Another NGO commented that GOM cod needs realistic buffers, but didn’t specifically comment on whether the management uncertainty buffers for GOM cod should be adjusted. Response: Each time catch limits are set, the PDT reviews the management uncertainty buffers used for each fishery component and recommends any necessary adjustments. For Framework 53, the PDT reviewed the current management uncertainty buffers, as well as previous analysis completed in support of Framework 50 to the FMP, which set GOM cod catch limits for fishing years 2013–2015. Both the PDT and the Council have periodically discussed the possibility of increasing the buffers due to evidence that fishing behavior may differ on observed and unobserved trips, possibly resulting in an underestimate of discards. However, to date the PDT has been unable to estimate the amount of suspected bias of observed trips. Further, the PDT concluded that the direction of the bias can change year to year, for reasons that are unknown. As a result, the PDT has been unable to determine whether any adjustments to the existing buffers would be warranted to address potential bias. The PDT concluded that no new information is available at this time that would warrant any changes to the buffers previously adopted in Framework 50 to the FMP, and recommended no changes to the management uncertainty buffers. Comment 16: Multiple commenters suggested various types of management approaches in light of GOM cod stock status and the fishing year 2015 catch limit. Suggestions included splitting the GOM cod quota into biannual allocations or trimester, implementing dynamic inseason closures for bycatch avoidance, and banning all fishing for, or closing the directed fishing for, GOM cod. One NGO requested that we initiate a Secretarial amendment, and another has submitted a petition for rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act to prohibit commercial and recreational fishing for GOM cod and to limit catch to a level consistent with rebuilding requirements. E:\FR\FM\01MYR3.SGM 01MYR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 25128 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 84 / Friday, May 1, 2015 / Rules and Regulations Response: Other than the GOM cod possession restriction for the recreational fishery, none of the measures suggested by commenters were proposed in Framework 53, and so are beyond the scope and authority relating to this action because we can only approve or disapprove measures in a framework. In a future action, the Council could develop any combination of management measures it determines are necessary to meet the goals and objectives of the FMP. Additionally, sectors can voluntarily develop GOM cod avoidance mechanisms at any time. In fact, some sectors have already developed additional restrictions for member vessels to help avoid GOM cod and stay within the available allocation for the 2015 fishing year. Although it is still unclear how commercial groundfish vessels will operate in 2015, we expect that the sector fishery, to the extent possible, will continue to find ways to adapt to the new GOM cod catch limit, and target other groundfish stocks. With the initial 2013 reductions of the GOM cod catch limits, many groundfish vessels were no longer targeting GOM cod, and instead, used available GOM cod quota to access other stocks. Analysis indicates a dramatic decline in targeted GOM cod trips beginning in the 2013 fishing year. As noted earlier in this rule, with an additional 75-percent reduction in fishing year 2015, it is expected that the incentive for sector vessels to take targeted GOM cod trips is virtually eliminated given the extremely low GOM cod allocations that each sector will receive. We are also setting the GOM cod trip limit for the common pool fishery at 50 lb (23 kg) to reduce the incentive to target GOM cod. The combination of commercial measures, along with a prohibition on possession of GOM cod for the recreational fishery, is expected to, in effect, result in a ‘‘bycatch only’’ fishery. Section 304 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act provides the Secretary of Commerce with the authority to prepare, and implement, a fishery management plan if the Council fails to develop a plan after a reasonable period of time, or fails to submit a plan that meets necessary conservation and management objectives. We have carefully considered the available information, and determined that all of the management measures implemented in this final rule, along with corresponding measures implemented through the final rule for 2015–2016 Sector Operations Plans and Contracts and 2015 recreational measures, will provide sufficient protection for GOM cod to prevent overfishing and contribute to VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:31 Apr 30, 2015 Jkt 235001 rebuilding consistent with MagnusonStevens Act requirements. Further, as already noted, we will continue to work with the Council to ensure that GOM cod management measures are reviewed, or updated, as needed. As a result, a Secretarial amendment, at this time, is unnecessary and unwarranted. The petition for rulemaking is under consideration, and we will respond to this request consistent with the applicable requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act. Comment 17: Two NGOs, one state marine fisheries agency, and two commercial fishing organizations noted concerns for monitoring the low GOM cod catch limit in fishing year 2015. One NGO commented that calculation of the at-sea monitoring coverage level should be at the level of the individual vessel. The two commercial fishing organizations highlighted the importance of electronic monitoring (EM), and that this may provide a way to improve catch accounting. One organization commented that we should implement a requirement to restrict vessels to fishing in a single broad stock area on a trip. The Council also commented in response to the concerns we raised in the proposed rule, and noted that in Amendment 16 to the FMP, the Council provided us with the authority to implement daily catch reporting at any time we deem it necessary. Response: We agree that adequate monitoring, accounting, and enforcement are essential to help ensure catch limits are effective. A description of at-sea monitoring coverage levels is provided in the final rule for the 2015– 2016 Sector Operations Plans and Contracts, and is not repeated here. We recognize that the low GOM cod catch limit may create an economic incentive to misreport, which could reduce the accuracy of catch apportionment. Although we implemented a single broad stock area requirement in our initial 2014 interim action, this measure can severely restrict some fishing operations, and reduce the ability for groundfish vessels to target healthy groundfish stocks. In our 2014 interim action, we determined that, despite the potential negative economic impacts, the single broad stock area requirement was necessary as a midyear adjustment for the fishery. The 2014 assessment indicated that, if no action was taken, the measures in place for the 2014 fishing year would have resulted in substantial overfishing. The single broad stock area requirement was intended to help minimize further catch, and ensure the effectiveness of the interim measures. However, a PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 requirement to fish in a single broad stock area is not necessary to ensure the effectiveness of the final measures in this rule. All of the measures in this final rule, including a much lower catch limit, are being implemented at the beginning of the 2015 fishing year, as opposed to a mid-year implementation for the 2014 interim rule. These measures, along with corresponding measures implemented through the final rule for 2015–2016 Sector Operations Plans and Contracts, will provide sufficient protection for GOM cod to prevent overfishing and contribute to rebuilding consistent with MagnusonStevens Act requirements. To address concerns for potential misreporting, we are implementing a daily catch report requirement for vessels fishing in the GOM and other broad stock areas. This requirement is intended to help ensure accurate catch attribution and reduce the incentive for vessels to misreport. As the Council noted in its comment, a daily reporting requirement was recommended by the Council in Amendment 16 to the FMP. Amendment 16 also delegated authority to us to modify the frequency of reporting requirements, as necessary, to help ensure accurate catch accounting. At the time we implemented Amendment 16, we determined that daily reporting was not necessary, and implemented a trip-level reporting requirement for vessels fishing in multiple broad stock areas. However, for reasons described earlier in this rule, we determined daily catch reports are now necessary to help ensure the effectiveness of the measures implemented in this final rule. We agree that EM has the potential to be an effective monitoring tool in the groundfish fishery, but EM is not yet sufficiently developed at this time. We are currently working to address the challenges to implement EM, including legal requirements and data processing, and are also examining costs associated with EM. We are also working with several groundfish sectors for fishing year 2015 to help address some of the remaining challenges to implement EM. If successful, EM could be fully implemented as a monitoring program for a portion of the groundfish fishery in fishing year 2016. Comment 18: One commercial fishing organization commented that, in considering incidental catch, the SSC has addressed concerns for misreporting. The commenter noted that in trying to balance all of the plausible scenarios from the assessment, incorporating incidental catch information attempted to identify what level of catch may be required to keep E:\FR\FM\01MYR3.SGM 01MYR3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 84 / Friday, May 1, 2015 / Rules and Regulations the fishery open without directed cod fishing. Response: We recognize that the SSC considered incidental catch information to help develop its final ABC recommendation. An ABC of 386 mt for GOM cod is a considerable reduction from the incidental catch estimates generated for fishing year 2013 (500–600 mt). Further, as discussed in other sections of this rule, an ACL of 1,470 mt in fishing year 2013 was constraining for groundfish vessels. Available analysis indicates there was a marked decline in directed GOM cod trips beginning in 2013. Although sector vessels were able to adapt to some extent to this first substantial reduction for GOM cod, the additional reduction in fishing year 2015 will be substantially more challenging. Thus, we expect that an ABC of 386 mt will effectively remove the incentive for commercial groundfish vessels to fish for this stock. Nevertheless, with such a low GOM cod allocation, and in considering the supporting analysis, the economic incentive to misreport could still be high, particularly if groundfish vessels continue to report an uptick in cod availability. As a result, as previously described, we are implementing an additional reporting requirement for commercial groundfish vessels to help ensure accurate catch attribution. mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Gulf of Maine Cod Protection Measures Protection Closures Comment 19: One state marine fisheries agency and two commercial fishing organizations supported the GOM cod protection closures. The state marine fisheries agency disagreed with our concerns for April, but noted that it expected we would closely monitor the fishery to understand the consequences of opening April. All of these commenters highlighted the importance of providing GOM cod protections while still affording access to healthy groundfish stocks. One other commercial fishing organization supported all of the closures, but noted concerns for the opening of April closures. Response: We generally agree with all of these comments, and as described earlier in this preamble, we approved the new GOM cod protection measures. There are some biological and economic trade-offs with the addition of winter and May-June closures and removal of April closures. We recognize the importance of providing access to healthy stocks, and support this objective of the cod closures, as long as it does not result in unanticipated VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:31 Apr 30, 2015 Jkt 235001 consequences. However, we remain concerned for GOM cod stock status, and the potential negative impact on other groundfish stocks as a result of opening April. We will continue to urge the Council to reconsider April closures in light of these concerns. We agree with the commenters that it is important to monitor the effectiveness of these closures, and we intend to closely monitor any potential effort shifts to help ensure the overall conservation objectives for these measures are met. To the extent possible, these closures should also be reviewed as new information becomes available to help identify any potential adjustments to these closures. We expect additional spawning research may also provide more information on spawning locations for GOM cod that the Council could use in its decisionmaking process. Comment 20: Two NGOs opposed the GOM cod protection closures and commented that the protection closures should be more expansive. One of these NGOs also commented that the protection closures are inadequate under the Magnuson-Stevens Act because they would fail to end overfishing. One commercial fishing organization noted concerns for the opening of April closures. Response: We share some of the concerns noted by commenters, and we have described these concerns in our approval of the protection closures in this final rule. However, we disagree that the protection closures are inadequate under the MagnusonStevens Act. As we described earlier in this rule, updated catch projections indicate that the GOM cod ABC of 386 mt will end overfishing and rebuild the stock. The new protection closures are complementary to this ABC, and are measures in addition to the ACLs and AMs adopted for GOM cod. The additional closures are intended to enhance the effectiveness of these conservation measures by further reducing fishing mortality on spawning aggregations. Any additional benefits realized from the area closures are important, particularly for the benefit of the winter spawning component of GOM cod. While more closures always have the potential for increasing the probability of meeting various conservation objectives, we determined that the closures, along with other management measures adopted for fishing year 2015, are sufficient to prevent overfishing and provide for rebuilding. The GOM cod protection measures, which include the area closures and the recreational possession restriction, were PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 25129 developed by the Council as a package. In developing these measures, the commercial closures were intended to balance biological and economic objectives resulting from the recommended actions. If the opening of April closures was recommended in isolation, with no additional spring or winter closures, we likely would have disapproved this measure. As stated in the preamble, however, we determined that we could not independently approve or disapprove the recommendations for winter and April without undermining the Council’s intent to balancing conservation benefits and impacts on the fishing industry. The addition of winter closures is important because there are currently no protections for this spawning component, and some information suggests that a spawning aggregation is not likely to recover once lost. Despite our concerns for GOM cod with the removal of April closures, there are May and June closures, so the removal of April does not completely eliminate protection of the spring spawning component. Some of the comments from an NGO noted that the protection closures adopted in this final rule would provide less protection than the status quo in a number of instances. In reviewing and analyzing the impacts of the protection closures, the status quo measures must be put in context for the commercial groundfish fishery. With the adoption of Amendment 16, sector vessels were exempt from a number of the GOM rolling closures because sectors are limited by stock-specific allocations and AMs. As noted in the supporting analysis for this document, although a number of closures are being removed, many of these closures only applied to the common pool fishery, which accounts for less than 2 percent of the fishery. In these instances, the impact of removing the closures is expected to be minimal because the sector fishery is already allowed access to these areas. Given our concerns for the status of GOM cod, we intend to closely monitor stock indicators and fishery operations. We will continue to work with the Council to ensure that the most appropriate GOM cod protection measures are in place. We expect that the Industry Based Survey for GOM Cod will restart at some point in 2015, and that this survey could provide additional information on cod spawning that the Council could use in the future. Additionally, the protection closures developed and implemented in this action overlap with the Council’s Habitat Omnibus Amendment. The Council is working to complete this E:\FR\FM\01MYR3.SGM 01MYR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 25130 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 84 / Friday, May 1, 2015 / Rules and Regulations Amendment, and we will continue to help the Council in this effort to ensure that the goals and objectives of this Amendment are met. Comment 21: Another commercial fishing organization opposed the closure of block 138 in May because it would restrict haddock and pollock catches, and suggested that this closure should be disapproved, or that only a portion of this block should be closed in May. This organization also commented that true spawning areas can only be identified through acoustic telemetry and passive acoustic monitoring. Response: As described earlier, the objectives of the protection closures were to reduce fishing mortality and protect spawning aggregations for GOM cod while allowing access to healthy groundfish stocks. The protection measures were designed to re-configure the existing GOM rolling closures. Although available information on spawning was used to help develop the protection closures in this final rule, other information was also used to evaluate the potential biological and economic trade-offs associated with the final measures. Block 138 was closed in the previous GOM rolling closures, and based on the available information, no change was recommended for this closure in Framework 53. Because the Council recommended that the entire block 138 be closed in May, we cannot modify this closure in any way, or only partially approve a portion of the closure, and still be consistent with the Council’s intent. However, in a future action, the Council could reconsider this closure, and make any modifications, if warranted. We disagree that spawning areas can only be identified through acoustic telemetry and passive acoustic monitoring. The Framework 53 Environmental Assessment describes the analytical techniques used to identify times and location of spawning for GOM cod. Identification of times and areas of potential spawning was not based on a single source of information. Multiple sources of information and analytical approaches were used to identify and corroborate spawning locations. The analyses note that the NEFSC and MA Division of Marine Fisheries trawl surveys have narrow seasonal coverage, which limits their applicability to spawning cod. However, the Industry Based Survey for GOM cod was specifically designed to study stock distribution and demographics of cod, and also recorded spawning condition of cod caught. As a result, the peer review of the Industry Based Survey concluded that one of the primary uses VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:31 Apr 30, 2015 Jkt 235001 of the survey data was to describe spawning activity of GOM cod. The Framework 53 analyses did note some caveats with the use of the ichthyoplankton survey data, particularly due to the time period of this survey. However, these data were determined to be useful because the areas highlighted as potential spawning locations were similar to the areas identified using trawl survey data. Comment 22: One NGO commented that it is generally supportive of timearea management for GOM cod, but cautioned that the final protection measures should be supported by the available data. The NGO also noted that we should commit to review the protection closures at a specific time to help ensure that effort shifts from the final measures does not undermine the effectiveness of these measures, or any measures developed by Take Reduction Teams. Response: We generally agree with this comment. As noted earlier in the preamble of this rule, we have some concerns for the removal of April closures, particularly due to potential effort shifts, and the potential impact on other groundfish stocks. Although the protection measures are subject to review once the GOM cod biomass reaches the biomass threshold, we will continue to urge the Council to reconsider these closures in light of their potential negative impacts on other groundfish stocks, and in light of GOM cod stock status. These closures should also be reviewed as more information becomes available for GOM cod. The 2015 assessment update will provide new information on the status of GOM cod, and we expect additional spawning research will be available in the near future that could help further identify areas important to cod spawning. Regulations to reduce the potential of serious injury and death of marine mammal species will be in place for the western Gulf of Maine regardless of the GOM cod protection closures. The Harbor Porpoise and Atlantic Right Whale Take Reduction Plans are not predicated on the existence of groundfish closed areas, or the GOM cod protection closures. As a result, it is only necessary to amend these Take Reduction Plans if new information indicates that additional interaction risks to marine mammal species are occurring. The Harbor Porpoise and Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Teams meet regularly to monitor the implementation of the final Take Reduction Plans for these species. These teams monitor any changes in the interaction rates and fishing behavior that may result from management PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 actions. Based on this review, the Take Reduction Teams determine if modifications to the Take Reduction Plans are warranted in order to meet the requirements of the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Endangered Species Act. Comment 23: One commercial fishing organization commented that hook gear should be allowed in the protection closures because it does not interfere with spawning. Response: We disagree that hook gear should be allowed in the protection closures. As we noted in the proposed rule, the available research on GOM cod spawning indicates that fishing on spawning cod may affect spawning activity beyond just the removal of fish. Fishing activity may disrupt spawning signals, and, as a result, can reduce spawning success. Additionally, information indicates that if a spawning aggregation is disrupted by fishing activity, it will scatter and not return. Groundfish vessels fishing with hook gear are capable of interrupting spawning aggregations because they are capable of catching cod. Further, the protection closures are also intended to help reduce fishing mortality for GOM cod, and applying these closures to all commercial groundfish vessels was necessary to help ensure this objective is met. Additionally, it is important to note that Handgear A vessels were afforded similar flexibilities as sector vessels, regardless of whether they are fishing in the common pool or a sector. Handgear A vessels are exempt from both the March and October common pool closures. As indicated in the response to the next comment, we have similar concerns for the potential for other gear types to disrupt spawning, and would support the Council in reconsidering the fisheries and gears that are allowed to fish in the protection areas. Comment 24: Two commercial fishing organizations and one NGO noted that the list of exempted fisheries allowed into the GOM cod protection closures should be reviewed. One NGO also opposed allowing recreational groundfish vessels into these closure areas. Response: We highlighted similar concerns in the proposed rule relative to the gears that are allowed in these protection closures. Because fishing activity may disrupt spawning success, we noted that there is a potential for these exempted fisheries to diminish the additional spawning protection that the closures are intended to provide. We would support the Council reviewing the fisheries allowed into these protection closures, and, if warranted, to E:\FR\FM\01MYR3.SGM 01MYR3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 84 / Friday, May 1, 2015 / Rules and Regulations mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 remove the exception for some of these other fisheries and gears. Alternatively, the Council could also consider including other fisheries and gears for a subset of these protection closures to better protect GOM cod spawning while still providing these fisheries with some flexibility. As discussed earlier in this rule, the recreational fishery may still fish in these protection closures, similar to the previous GOM rolling closures. Instead, this action implements a prohibition on possession of GOM cod for the recreational fishery to help control fishing mortality of GOM cod for this fishery. The intent of this trade off was to help ensure the recreational fishery continued to have access to healthy groundfish stocks. Because most of the protection closures are inshore, it was expected that recreational vessels would largely not have been able to adjust to these closures due to business operations and safety concerns. Applying these protection closures to the commercial groundfish fishery is an important start to ensuring that spawning aggregations of GOM cod are protected. However, we would support the Council reconsidering whether protection closures, or a subset, should be applied to the recreational fishery. Recreational Fishery Prohibition on Possession of Gulf of Maine Cod Comment 25: One commercial fishing organization, two NGOs, one state marine fisheries agency, and one recreational fisherman supported a prohibition on possession of GOM cod for the recreational fishery. The recreational fisherman noted that survival rates of recreational released GOM cod are relatively high. Other comments highlighted that outreach is essential to ensure this measure is effective. Response: We agree on all of these points, and have approved this measure in this final rule. Updated catch projections indicated that if no adjustment was made to possession restrictions, recreational catch of GOM cod would have exceeded the recreational allocation by 400 percent. During the development of Framework 53, analysis also indicated that noncompliance in the recreational fishery could be as high as 50 percent. In response to this, we have initiated a number of new recreational outreach efforts to help inform recreational anglers of the existing management measures. Despite the possession restriction implemented in this final rule, projections indicated that the recreational fishery would still likely VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:31 Apr 30, 2015 Jkt 235001 exceed its GOM cod allocation unless additional measures are implemented. These projections may overestimate the potential recreational effort in 2015, and, if so, could also overestimate GOM cod catch. However, to help ensure that the recreational fishery does not exceed its allocations, we are implementing additional measures under our discretionary authority in a separate rulemaking. Available information does indicate that the discard mortality of recreationally caught GOM cod is low. Based on the 2012 benchmark assessment, 70 percent of the GOM cod discards from the recreational fishery were expected to survive. A recently conducted study provides additional information that suggests survival rates of released cod could be higher (85 percent). Comment 26: Eighteen recreational fishermen opposed a prohibition on possession of GOM cod for the recreational fishery. These commenters noted that the recreational fishery has little impact on the GOM cod stock, and that the commercial fishery, particularly draggers, have led to the current GOM cod stock status. Many of these commenters supported a small bag limit for GOM cod, and a few comments supported a bag limit of at least 10 fish. Commenters also expressed concern for the socio-economic impact of this measure. Response: We disagree. Both the recreational and the commercial groundfish fishery receive an allocation of GOM cod. Both fisheries have AMs, and we must implement management measures that will help ensure that each fishery stays within its allocation. Updated catch projections indicate that, even under zero possession, the recreational fishery would still exceed its allocation for GOM cod in fishing year 2015, unless additional measures are implemented. Additionally, catch projections that assumed a status quo bag limit (9 fish) indicated that recreational catch would exceed the 2015 allocation by more than 400 percent. We understand concerns for the socioeconomic impact of zero possession for the recreational fishery. Other measures for the recreational fishery were considered for this action to help protect GOM cod. However, these measures would not have mitigated economic impacts to the recreational fishery compared to zero possession. The GOM cod closures, if applied to the recreational fishery, would likely have had even greater economic impacts on the fishery. These closures are mainly inshore, and recreational vessels may PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 25131 have been unable to move to alternative areas to fish for other groundfish stocks. Analysis indicated that the total steam time to fish further offshore, around the closures, would have exceeded the standard party/charter trip of 4 or 6 hours. Zero possession will help ensure that fishing mortality by the recreational fishery is reduced for GOM cod, while still ensuring the recreational fishery has access to other healthy groundfish stocks. The Council can review this measure in any future action, and if warranted could implement different management measures for the recreational fishery, as long as they would still meet conservation objectives, and help ensure that the recreational fishery does not exceed its allocation. Comment 27: We received six comments from recreational fishermen about various aspects of recreational management measures for the 2015 fishing year, including opposition to the survival rates current used for the recreational caught GOM cod and haddock, the GOM haddock bag limit, the recreational rulemaking process, and recreational gear requirements. Response: None of these measures were specifically proposed in Framework 53, and therefore are beyond the scope and authority relating to this action. Although this action implements zero possession of GOM cod for the recreational fishery, we are implementing all other recreational measures, including GOM haddock measures, in a separate rulemaking under our discretionary authority to adjustment recreational measures. These measures are intended to prevent the recreational fishery from exceeding its allocations of GOM cod and GOM haddock for the 2015 fishing year. The issues raised by the commenters will be addressed in our separate rule implementing final recreational measures for fishing year 2015. Default Catch Limits Comment 28: One state marine fisheries agency and one commercial fishing organization supported the mechanism to establish default catch limits in years when a management action is delayed. The commercial fishing organization commented that default catch limits set at 35 percent of the previous year’s value would be extremely restrictive for groundfish vessels, but this was better than the alternative of no catch limits. Response: We agree, and are implementing this measure in this final rule. We recognize that default catch limits, if implemented, may be E:\FR\FM\01MYR3.SGM 01MYR3 25132 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 84 / Friday, May 1, 2015 / Rules and Regulations mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 extremely restrictive for groundfish vessels. Although the 2015 assessment schedule is expected to delay implementation of the management action for fishing year 2016, this measure is not intended to allow lengthy delays in implementation of final measures. Default catch limits are available as a management tool to prevent disruption to the groundfish fishery, but any default specifications time period should not be allowed to languish. To help ensure that management actions are still implemented as quickly as possible, the default specifications time period is only from May 1 through July 31. If default catch limits were allowed to languish beyond this period, the severely restricted catch limits could prevent optimum yield in the fishery. Sector Carryover Provision Comment 29: One state marine fisheries agency supported this change to the carryover provision. Response: We agree and are implementing the revision to the sector carryover provision in this final rule. The measure is necessary to comply with a recent court ruling, and ensure that the total potential catch does not exceed the ABC for any stock. Comment 30: One commercial fishing organization expressed concern that the ever changing rules regarding carryover makes it difficult to stabilize business plans, as does the ability for the carryover amount to change year to year. Response: The revision to the sector carryover provision in this final rule is in response to a recent court ruling, as previously described. We have determined that the carryover provision is now consistent with MagnusonStevens Act requirements, and will help ensure that total potential catch does not exceed the ABC for any stock. As a result, we do not anticipate any further modifications of the sector carryover provision, unless the Council chooses to revisit this measure in a future action. We recognize some of the difficulties that sectors face in trying to plan. To help offset some of the uncertainty, we specified that the default de minimis amount is 1 percent of the overall sector sub-ACL for the upcoming fishing year. If it is necessary to change the default de minimis amount, we will announce this to sectors as soon as we know the recommended ABCs for the upcoming year. Similarly, once ABC recommendations are known for the upcoming year, we will announce the possibility that the maximum carryover amount may need to be adjusted. We cannot make a final determination on the maximum carryover amount until VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:31 Apr 30, 2015 Jkt 235001 we have final catch information for sectors; however, the initial determination that assumed a maximum of 10-percent carryover provides sectors with an upper bound. We also expect that the years with the greatest uncertainty will be years in which catch limits are dramatically reduced, as we would most likely have to adjust the maximum carryover allowed in those years. Common Pool Management Measures Comment 31: One state marine fisheries agency supported the common pool trip limits. Response: We agree, and are implementing these initial common pool trip limits for fishing year 2015. We will closely monitor common pool catch, and, if necessary, will make appropriate adjustments to the possession and trip limits for common pool vessels. Each year, it is difficult to predict common pool effort, and there is a possibility that some vessels may drop out of a sector and fish in the common pool for fishing year 2015. If this occurs, we may make adjustments to the trip limits to reflect any increases in the number of common pool vessels that are actively fishing. Comment 32: One commercial fisherman opposed a GOM cod trip limit of 50 lb (23 kg), and instead supported a trip limit of at least 100 lb (45 kg). The commenter noted that a 50-lb (23-kg) trip limit would result in high discards. Response: We disagree that the GOM cod trip limit should be set at 100 lb (45 kg). The trimester TAC for GOM cod is less than 2 mt for each trimester in fishing year 2015. In previous years, when we set the GOM cod trip limit at 100 lb (45 kg), common pool vessels continued to target the stock, and the GOM area was prematurely closed before the end of the trimester. A 50-lb (23-kg) trip limit will help create an incentive to avoid GOM cod. This trip limit will also help provide continued access to other groundfish stocks by helping to prevent a premature closure of the trimester. Comment 33: A number of commercial fishermen commented on common pool management measures. Comments included opposition to the current trimester TAC system used for the common pool, the trimester TACs should be divided among trimesters based on recent landings, and that the common pool fishery should receive 10 percent carryover similar to sectors. Response: None of these measures were considered in Framework 53, and they are beyond the scope and authority relating to this action. Any changes to the existing common pool management PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 measures would have to be developed through the Council process in a future management action. The Council could reconsider common pool management measures at any time provided these measures still met the necessary conservation requirements. For example, the trimester TAC AM system is only one type of reactive AM that the Council may use for the common pool fishery. The allocation of the common pool sub-ACL was developed as part of Amendment 16, and was based on landings through fishing year 2009. These distributions have been unchanged since the implementation of Amendment 16. However the Council can adjust the trimester TAC distribution in a framework action based on landings from the most recent 5 years. Again, any changes to the trimester TAC provision would have to be developed through the Council in a future management action. National Environmental Policy Act and Associated Analyses Comment 34: One NGO commented that Framework 53 does not meet the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) because it failed to include a reasonable range of alternatives for the GOM cod protection closures. The commenter noted that Framework 53 should have included the 2014 interim closures as one alternative, as well as an additional alternative that was developed by the PDT. Response: We disagree that this action does not meet the requirements of NEPA. Any comments about the sufficiency of the NEPA analysis of this framework must be considered in the context of the ongoing set of measures that adapt to changing conditions and information affecting the overall FMP, and the many different alternatives that have been analyzed over the years. Within this context, Framework 53 does include a reasonable range of alternatives for the GOM cod area closures that represented various combinations of closures based on the available information. The Purpose and Need of Framework 53 related to the area closures was to enhance spawning protection for GOM cod, help reduce fishing mortality of GOM cod, and to minimize the economic impact of the closures by providing access to healthy groundfish stocks. Although some of the area closures implemented in our 2014 interim action for GOM cod were intended to protect spawning aggregations, area closures were also used as a mechanism to reduce overfishing in lieu of reducing E:\FR\FM\01MYR3.SGM 01MYR3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 84 / Friday, May 1, 2015 / Rules and Regulations the catch limit inseason. As a result, it was apparent that the 2014 interim closures would not have met the Purpose and Need of Framework 53 to provide access to healthy groundfish stocks because the interim closures were not designed, or intended, to meet this objective. Further, because the interim closures were designed to reduce overfishing in lieu of an ACL reduction, these closures would have been overly restrictive for fishing year 2015 once the GOM cod catch limit was reduced based on the 2014 assessment result. The PDT option that the commenter referenced closely resembled the 2014 interim action closures, and in some cases, was more restrictive than the interim closures. Because the protection closures are complementary to the GOM cod catch limit, the option presented by the PDT would likely have been overly restrictive. Further, this option would have virtually shut down the inshore GOM to the groundfish fishery for eight months of the year, and small inshore vessels would likely have been unable to adapt to these closures. Therefore, although the PDT presented this option to the Council’s Groundfish Oversight Committee, the Committee did not advance this option for consideration in Framework 53 because it clearly would not have met all of the goals and objectives of the action. mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Changes From the Proposed Rule We made one change from the proposed rule in this action. After further consideration of the available information and public comments, we are implementing a daily VMS catch report requirement for commercial groundfish vessels that declare their intent to fish in the GOM and any other broad stock area on the same trip. Given concerns for the low GOM cod catch limit and the potential incentive to misreport, we determined that daily VMS catch reports will help ensure more accurate catch apportionment and compliance with the cod catch limits. Classification Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that the management measures implemented in this final rule are necessary for the conservation and management of the Northeast groundfish fishery and consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law. This final rule has been determined to be significant for purposes of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866. This final rule does not contain policies with Federalism or ‘‘takings’’ VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:31 Apr 30, 2015 Jkt 235001 implications as those terms are defined in E.O. 13132 and E.O. 12630, respectively. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries finds good cause, under authority contained in 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), to waive the 30-day delayed effectiveness of this action. The effective date of this action affects a parallel rulemaking approving sector operations plans for the start of the 2015 fishing year on May 1, 2015. In addition, this action sets fishing year 2015 catch limits for several groundfish stocks, revises GOM cod management measures to provide additional protection for the stock, and adopts other measures to improve the management of the groundfish fishery. This final rule must be in effect at the beginning of 2015 fishing year to fully capture the conservation and economic benefits of Framework 53 measures and the 2015 sector operations plans. During the development of the Framework 53, updated stock information for GOM cod became available. As a result of this updated stock information, the Council had to include additional measures in Framework 53 to respond to this information and increase protection for GOM cod given its poor status. As a result, this rulemaking could not be completed further before this date. Therefore, in order to have this action effective at the beginning of the 2015 fishing year, which begins on May 1, 2015, it is necessary to waive the 30-day delayed effectiveness of this rule. Failure to waive the 30-day delayed effectiveness would result in no catch limits being specified for a number of groundfish stocks. Without an allocation for these groundfish stocks, sector vessels would be unable to fish beginning on May 1, 2015. This would severely disrupt the fishery, and could result in foregone yield and revenue reductions. The groundfish fishery already faced substantial cuts in the catch limits for many key groundfish stocks beginning in 2013, and this final rule implements additional catch limit reductions. However, if sector vessels were unable to fish beginning on May 1, 2015, the negative economic impacts would exceed any negative economic impacts anticipated from this action. Any further disruption to the fishery that would result from a delay of this final rule could worsen the severe economic impacts to the groundfish fishery. This action includes specifications that would increase the catch limit for haddock, and reconfigures GOM closed areas to increase fishing opportunities on healthy groundfish stocks. These measures are PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 25133 intended to help mitigate the economic impacts of the reductions in catch limits for several key groundfish stocks. A delay in implementation of this action would greatly diminish any benefits of these specifications and other approved measures. For these reasons, a 30-day delay in the effectiveness of this rule is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Section 604 of the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 604, requires Federal agencies to prepare a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) for each final rule. The FRFA describes the economic impact of this action on small entities. The FRFA includes a summary of significant issues raised by public comments, the analyses contained in Framework 53 and its accompanying Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review/ Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), the IRFA summary in the proposed rule, as well as the summary provided below. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained in Framework 53 and in the preamble to the proposed rule, as well as this final rule, and are not repeated here. A copy of the full analysis is available from the NMFS (see ADDRESSES). A Summary of the Significant Issues Raised by the Public in Response to the IRFA, a Summary of the Agency’s Assessment of Such Issues, and a Statement of Any Changes Made in the Final Rule as a Result of Such Comments Our responses to all of the comments received on the proposed rule, including those that raised significant issues with the proposed action, or commented on the economic analyses summarized in the IRFA, can be found in the Comments and Responses section of this rule. As outlined in that section, significant issues were raised by the public with respect to: • GOM cod catch limits for the 2015– 2017 fishing years; • GOM cod protection closures; and • The prohibition on possession of GOM cod for recreational fishing vessels. Comments 14 and 26 discussed the economic impacts of this action. Comment 14 noted that the GOM cod reduction would have severe negative impacts on the commercial groundfish fishery, and one of these commenters suggested that the analysis may have underestimated the predicted gross revenue losses as a result of the GOM cod reduction. Comment 26 highlighted E:\FR\FM\01MYR3.SGM 01MYR3 25134 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 84 / Friday, May 1, 2015 / Rules and Regulations Furthermore, multiple-permitted vessels and/or permits may be owned by entities affiliated by stock ownership, common management, identity of interest, contractual relationships, or economic dependency. For the purposes Description and Estimate of Number of of the RFA analysis, the ownership Small Entities to Which the Rule Would entities, not the individual vessels, are Apply considered to be the regulated entities. Ownership entities are defined as The Small Business Administration those entities with common ownership defines a small business as one that is: • independently owned and operated; personnel as listed on the permit application. Only permits with identical • not dominant in its field of ownership personnel are categorized as operation; • has annual receipts that do not an ownership entity. For example, if five permits have the same seven exceed— Æ $20.5 million in the case of persons listed as co-owners on their commercial finfish harvesting entities permit application, those seven persons would form one ownership entity, that (NAICS 1 114111) Æ $5.5 million in the case of hold those five permits. If two of those commercial shellfish harvesting entities seven owners also co-own additional vessels, that ownership arrangement (NAICS 114112) would be considered a separate Æ $7.5 million in the case of for-hire ownership entity for the purpose of this fishing entities (NAICS 114119); or • has fewer than— analysis. On June 1 of each year, ownership Æ 500 employees in the case of fish entities are identified based on a list of processors all permits for the most recent complete Æ 100 employees in the case of fish calendar year. The current ownership dealers. This final rule affects commercial and data set used for this analysis is based on calendar year 2013 and contains recreational fish harvesting entities average gross sales associated with those engaged in the groundfish fishery, the permits for calendar years 2011 through small-mesh multispecies and squid 2013. In addition to classifying a fisheries, the midwater trawl herring business (ownership entity) as small or fishery, and the scallop fishery. Individually-permitted vessels may hold large, a business can also be classified by its primary source of revenue. A permits for several fisheries, harvesting business is defined as being primarily species of fish that are regulated by engaged in fishing for finfish if it several different FMPs, even beyond obtains greater than 50 percent of its those impacted by the proposed action. concerns that the GOM cod possession restriction for the recreational fishery would have severe socio-economic impacts. There were no other comments directly related to the IRFA. gross sales from sales of finfish. Similarly, a business is defined as being primarily engaged in fishing for shellfish if it obtains greater than 50 percent of its gross sales from sales of shellfish. A description of the specific permits that are likely to be impacted by this action is provided below, along with a discussion of the impacted businesses, which can include multiple vessels and/ or permit types. Regulated Commercial Fish Harvesting Entities Table 19 describes the total number of commercial business entities potentially affected by the proposed action. As of May 1, 2014, there were 1,386 commercial business entities potentially affected by this action. These entities participate in, or are permitted for, the groundfish, small-mesh multispecies, herring midwater trawl, and scallop fisheries. For the groundfish fishery, this action directly regulates potentially affected entities through catch limits and other management measures designed to achieve the goals and objectives of the FMP. For the nongroundfish fisheries, this action includes allocations for groundfish stocks caught as bycatch in these fisheries. For each of these fisheries, there are AMs that are triggered if their respective allocations are exceeded. As a result, the likelihood of triggering an AM is a function of changes to the ACLs each year. TABLE 19—COMMERCIAL FISH HARVESTING ENTITIES REGULATED BY THIS FINAL RULE Type Total number Classified as small businesses Primarily finfish ............................................................................................................................................ Primarily shellfish ......................................................................................................................................... 813 573 813 549 Total ...................................................................................................................................................... 1,386 1,362 This action will directly impact entities engaged in the limited access groundfish fishery. The limited access groundfish fishery consists of those enrolled in the sector program and those in the common pool. Both sectors and the common pool are subject to catch limits, and AMs that prevent fishing in a respective stock area when the entire catch limit has been caught. Additionally, common pool vessels are subject to DAS restrictions and trip limits. All permit holders are eligible to enroll in the sector program; however, many vessels remain in the common pool because they have low catch histories of groundfish stocks, which translate into low PSCs. Low PSCs would limit a vessel’s viability in the sector program. In general, businesses enrolled in the sector program rely more heavily on sales of groundfish species than vessels enrolled in the common pool. As of May 1, 2014 (beginning of fishing year 2014), there were 1,046 individual limited access permits. Of these, 613 were enrolled in the sector program, and 433 were in the common pool. For fishing year 2013, which is the most recent complete fishing year, 708 of these limited access permits had landings of any species, and 360 of these permits had landings of groundfish species. Of the 1,046 individual limited access multispecies permits potentially impacted by this action, there are 868 distinct ownership entities. Of these, 855 are categorized as small entities, and 13 are categorized as large entities. 1 The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) is the standard used by Federal statistical agencies in classifying business establishments for the purpose of collecting, analyzing, and publishing statistical data related to the U.S. business economy. mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Limited Access Groundfish Fishery VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:31 Apr 30, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01MYR3.SGM 01MYR3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 84 / Friday, May 1, 2015 / Rules and Regulations However, these totals may mask some diversity among the entities. Many, if not most, of these ownership entities maintain diversified harvest portfolios, obtaining gross sales from many fisheries and not dependent on any one. However, not all are equally diversified. This action is most likely to affect those entities that depend most heavily on sales from harvesting groundfish species. There are 114 entities that are groundfish-dependent, all of which are small, and all of which are finfish commercial harvesting businesses. Of these groundfish-dependent entities, 102 have some level of participation in the sector program, and 12 operate exclusively in the common pool. mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Limited Access Scallop Fisheries The limited access scallop fisheries include limited access scallop permits and Limited Access General Category (LAGC) scallop permits. Limited access scallop businesses are subject to a mixture of DAS restrictions and dedicated area trip restrictions. LAGC scallop businesses are able to acquire and trade LAGC scallop quota, and there is an annual cap on quota/landings. The scallop fishery receives an allocation for GB and SNE/MA yellowtail flounder and southern windowpane flounder. If these allocations are exceeded, AMs are implemented in a subsequent fishing year. These AMs close certain areas of high groundfish bycatch to scallop fishery, and the length of the closure depends on the magnitude of the overage. Of the total commercial business entities potentially affected by this action (1,386), there are 171 scallop fishing entities. The majority of these entities are defined as shellfish businesses (167). However, four of these entities are defined as finfish businesses, all of which are small. Of the total scallop fishing entities, 149 entities are classified as small entities. Midwater Trawl Fishery There are four categories of permits for the herring fishery. Three of these permit categories are limited access, and vary based on the allowable herring possession limits and areas fished. The fourth permit category is open access. Although there is a large number of open access permits issued each year, this category is subject to fairly low possession limits for herring, account for a very small amount of the herring landings, and derive relatively little revenue from the fishery. The midwater trawl herring fishery receives an allocation of GOM and GB haddock. Once the entire allocation for either stock has been caught, the directed VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:31 Apr 30, 2015 Jkt 235001 herring fishery is closed in the respective area for the remainder of the fishing year. Additionally, if the midwater trawl fishery exceeds its allocation, the overage is deducted from its allocation in the following fishing year. Of the total commercial business entities potentially regulated by this action (1,386), there are 71 herring fishing entities. Of these, 43 entities are defined as finfish businesses, all of which are small. There are 28 entities that are defined as shellfish businesses, and 21 of these are considered small. For the purposes of this analysis, squid is classified as shellfish. Thus, because there is some overlap with the herring and squid fisheries, it is likely that these shellfish entities derive most of their revenues from the squid fishery. Small-Mesh Fisheries The small-mesh exempted fishery allows vessels to harvest species in designated areas using mesh sizes smaller than the minimum mesh size required by the Northeast Multispecies FMP. To participate in the small-mesh multispecies (whiting) fishery, vessels must hold either a limited access multispecies permit or an open access multispecies permit. Limited access multispecies permit holders can only target whiting when not fishing under a DAS or a sector trip, and while declared out of the fishery. A description of limited access multispecies permits was provided above. Many of these vessels target both whiting and longfin squid on small-mesh trips and, therefore, most of them also have open access or limited access squid, mackerel, and butterfish permits. As a result, squid, mackerel, and butterfish permits were not handled separately in this analysis. The small-mesh fisheries receive an allocation of GB yellowtail flounder. If this allocation is exceeded, an AM is triggered for a subsequent fishing year. The AM requires small-mesh vessels to use selective trawl gear when fishing on GB. This gear restriction is only implemented for one year as a result of an overage, and is removed as long as additional overages do not occur. Of the total commercial harvesting entities potentially affected by this action, there are 570 small-mesh entities. However, this is not necessarily informative because not all of these entities are active in the whiting fishery. Based on the most recent information, 25 of these entities are considered active, with at least 1 lb of whiting landed. Of these entities, 7 are defined as finfish businesses, all of which are small. There are 18 entities that are defined as shellfish businesses, and 17 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 25135 of these are considered small. Because there is overlap with the whiting and squid fisheries, it is likely that these shellfish entities derive most of their revenues from the squid fishery. Regulated Recreational Party/Charter Fishing Entities The charter/party permit is an open access groundfish permit that can be requested at any time, with the limitation that a vessel cannot have a limited access groundfish permit and an open access party/charter permit concurrently. There are no qualification criteria for this permit. Charter/party permits are subject to recreational management measures, including minimum fish sizes, possession restrictions, and seasonal closures. During calendar year 2014, 732 party/ charter permits were issued. Of these, 267 party/charter permit holders reported catching and retaining any groundfish species on at least one forhire trip. In addition, 204 party/charter permit holders reported catching at least one cod in 2014. While all party/charter fishing businesses that catch cod may be affected by the proposed action, the recreational groundfish fishery only receives an allocation for the GOM stock. Of the 204 party/charter businesses that reported to have caught cod, 106 reported catching cod in the GOM. A 2013 report indicated that, in the northeast United States, the mean gross sales was approximately $27,650 for a charter business and $13,500 for a party boat. Based on the available information, no business approached the $7.5 million large business threshold. Therefore, the 267 potentially regulated party/charter entities are all considered small businesses. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements This action contains a change to an information collection requirement, which has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under OMB Control Number 0648–0605: Northeast Multispecies Amendment 16 Data Collection. The revision requires vessels that declare trips into the GOM Broad Stock Area and any other broad stock area (i.e., GB or SNE/MA) on the same trip to submit a daily catch report via VMS. Vessels fishing in multiple broad stock areas are currently required to submit a trip-level VMS catch report, so this change only increases the frequency of submission for certain trips. The daily catch report is estimated to take 15 minutes to complete, and cost $2.08 per submission. Based on trips to E:\FR\FM\01MYR3.SGM 01MYR3 25136 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 84 / Friday, May 1, 2015 / Rules and Regulations mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 multiple broad stock areas taken during the 2013 fishing year, the average trip length for vessels that fish in multiple broad stock areas on a single trip is 5 days. If vessels take 7 trips per year, the burden estimate for daily trip reports is 8 hours and $73. Public comment is sought regarding whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Send comments on these or any other aspects of the collection of information to NMFS and to OMB (see ADDRESSES). Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, and no person shall be subject to penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number. Description of the Steps the Agency Has Taken To Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities Consistent With the Stated Objectives of Applicable Statutes The economic impacts of the measures implemented in this action are summarized below and are discussed in more detail in sections 7.4 and 8.11 of the Framework 53 Environmental Assessment. Although small entities are defined based on gross sales of ownership groups, not physical characteristics of the vessel, it is reasonable to assume that larger vessels are more likely to be owned by large entities. The economic impacts of this action are anticipated to result in aggregate gross revenue losses of approximately $4 million in fishing year 2015, compared to predicted revenues for fishing year 2014. However, these losses are expected to be absorbed primarily by small businesses. Some vessel size classes and ports are predicted to have 50- to 80-percent declines in revenues from groundfish, and many vessels may be forced to relocate to Southern New England ports, or stop fishing altogether. Because predicted losses are expected to primarily affect small businesses, this action has the potential to place small entities at a competitive disadvantage relative to large entities. This is mainly because large entities may have more VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:31 Apr 30, 2015 Jkt 235001 flexibility to adjust to, and accommodate, the measures. However, as discussed in more detail below, the additional declines in gross revenues expected as a result of this action will pose serious difficulties for all groundfish vessels and their crew. Status Determination Criteria This action changes the GB yellowtail flounder status, relative to reference points, to unknown. In addition, this action updates the numerical estimates of the status determination criteria for GOM cod, GOM haddock, GOM winter flounder, GB winter flounder, and pollock. These updates result in lower values of MSY. For some of these, the lower values of MSY result in lower ACLs in the short-term, which is expected to have negative economic impacts (i.e., lower net revenues). However, the updates to the status determination criteria are expected to have positive stock benefits by helping to prevent overfishing. Thus, in the long-term, the changes to status determination criteria are expected to result in higher and more sustainable landings when compared to the No Action option. All of the revisions are based on the 2014 assessments for the respective stocks, and are therefore based on the best scientific information available. Status determination criteria are formulaic based on the results of a stock assessment. As a result, the only other alternative considered for this action was the No Action option, which would not update the status determination criteria for any groundfish stocks based on the 2014 assessments. This option would not incorporate the best scientific information available, and would not be consistent with Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements, and, as a result, was not selected. This option would not have any immediate economic impacts. However if this option resulted in overfishing in the long-term, then it would have severe negative economic impacts for the fisheries affected by this action. Annual Catch Limits This action sets catch limits for eastern GB cod and haddock, GOM cod, GOM haddock, GB yellowtail flounder, GOM winter flounder, and Pollock, and has the potential to affect groundfish (including small-mesh), midwater trawl, and scallop-dependent small entities. For the commercial groundfish fishery, the catch limits are expected to result in a 7-percent decrease in gross revenues on groundfish trips, or $6 million, compared to predicted gross revenues for fishing year 2014. PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 However, as described later, the aggregate predicted revenues for 2015 also depend on the other measures adopted in this action. The negative impacts of the approved catch limits are not expected to be uniformly distributed across vessels size classes. Vessels in the 30–50 ft (9–15 m) category are predicted to incur the largest decrease in gross revenues compared to 2014. Based only on the approved catch limits, vessels in this category could incur revenue losses of 33 percent, and aggregate losses are expected to be more as a result of other measures in this action. Larger vessel classes are not expected to be affected as heavily by the catch limits in this action. Based only on the approved catch limits, 50–75-ft (15–23-m) vessels are predicted to incur losses of 16 percent, and the largest vessels (75 ft (23 m) and greater) are predicted to incur losses of 3 percent. For the scallop, midwater trawl, and small-mesh fisheries, the catch limits implemented in this action include allocations for bycatch of groundfish species that occurs in these fisheries. The GB yellowtail flounder allocation for both the scallop and small-mesh fisheries would be a decrease in 2015 compared to 2014, which could increase the likelihood of triggering AMs. However, based on recent catch performance, AMs for GB yellowtail flounder have never been implemented for these fisheries as a result of an overage. Additionally, based on scallop management measures that are proposed for 2015, it is not expected that scallop effort will increase on GB relative to recent years. Although the reduction for GB yellowtail flounder could have negative economic impacts, these fisheries are not expected to exceed their respective allocations in 2015, and no AMs are expected to be triggered. For the midwater trawl fishery, the allocations for GOM and GB haddock are both expected to increase in 2015 relative to 2014. However, in fishing year 2013, the AM for GB haddock was triggered. As a result, it is possible that this could occur again in 2015 depending on catch rates of herring and haddock. If the AM for GB haddock is triggered, there could be negative economic impacts that result from foregone herring yield. The magnitude of these negative impacts would depend on how much herring quota remained at the time the AM was implemented, and whether other herring management areas were open for directed herring fishing. The catch limits are based on the latest stock assessment information, which is considered the best scientific information available, and the E:\FR\FM\01MYR3.SGM 01MYR3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 84 / Friday, May 1, 2015 / Rules and Regulations mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 applicable requirements in the FMP and the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The only other possible alternatives to the catch limits implemented in this action that would mitigate negative impacts would be higher catch limits. Alternative, higher catch limits, however, are not permissible under the law because they would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of the FMP, or the Magnuson-Stevens Act, particularly the requirement to prevent overfishing. The Magnuson-Stevens Act, and case law, prevent implementation of measures that conflict with conservation requirements, even if it means negative impacts are not mitigated. The catch limits implemented in this action are the highest allowed given the best scientific information available, the SSC’s recommendations, and requirements to end overfishing and rebuild fish stocks. The only other legally available alternatives to the catch limits in this action would be lower limits, which would not mitigate the economic impacts of this action to the fishery. Under the No Action option, no catch limits would be specified for the U.S./ Canada stocks, GB winter flounder, GOM winter flounder, or pollock. In this scenario, sector vessels would be unable to fish in the respective stock areas at the start of the 2015 fishing year if no allocations were specified. This would result in greater negative economic impacts for vessels compared to the proposed action due to lost revenues as a result of being unable to fish. The proposed action is predicted to result in approximately $77 million in gross revenues from groundfish trips. All of this revenue would be lost if no action was taken to specify catch limits. As a result, this alternative was not selected because if would fail to meet the Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements to achieve optimum yield and consider the needs of fishing communities. Gulf of Maine Cod Protection Measures This action re-configures the GOM rolling closures for commercial vessels and adopts a prohibition on possession of GOM cod for the recreational fishery. For the commercial groundfish fishery, this action is expected to result in less severe negative economic impacts than the approved catch limits alone. Based on predicted leasing practices, the negative economic impacts of the selected alternative are estimated to be greater compared to other alternatives considered that would have adopted additional GOM cod spawning closures. However, the aggregate economic impacts of the spawning closures that were considered for this action, but not VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:31 Apr 30, 2015 Jkt 235001 adopted, are largely driven by the flow of quota from smaller inshore vessels, which would be unable to fish, to larger offshore vessels. Although analysis indicated that the selected action would have greater negative impacts compared to these other alternatives, the negative impacts to small vessels are masked by the predicted aggregate gross revenues. The approved action would add closures in some months, while removing other closures, largely in the month of April. Removing closures in April was intended to provide vessels access to healthy groundfish stocks. As a result, the approved action is expected to improve the viability of the inshore fleet, and help mitigate the economic impacts of the approved catch limits, compared to other closure alternatives considered in the action that included different time-area combinations, and that would have maintained April closures. The ability of the approved action to provide increased spawning protection would largely dictate the long-term economic impacts of this action. If the approved action enhances spawning protection, which translates into increased stock rebuilding, then the long-term economic impacts would be positive. However, if the approved action does not enhance spawning protection or translate into increased stock rebuilding, then the long-term economic impacts would be similar to the status quo, or negative. For the recreational fishery, the prohibition on GOM cod possession is expected to result in short-term negative economic impacts, as it will likely result in some recreational anglers not booking party/charter trips. However, if the prohibition results in a decrease in fishing mortality relative to the status quo, then it could contribute to stock rebuilding. If this occurs, the long-term economic impacts of the prohibition could be positive if demand for party/ charter fishing trips increase as the stock rebuilds. Further, in the long-term, the recreational fishery would benefit from the commercial closures discussed above if they successfully enhance spawning protection and increase stock rebuilding. Adopting a possession restriction for the recreational fishery, in lieu of time and area closures to protect GOM cod, mitigated economic impacts for the recreational fishery to the extent practicable. The GOM cod protection closures that were considered in this action, but not adopted, would likely have had even greater economic impacts on the recreational fishery. These closures are mainly inshore, and analysis indicated that the total steam PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 25137 time to fish further offshore, around the closures, would have exceeded the standard party/charter trip of 4 or 6 hours. As a result, recreational vessels may have been unable to move to alternative areas to fish for other groundfish stocks. Default Groundfish Specifications This action establishes a mechanism for setting default catch limits in the event a management action is delayed. This is expected to have positive economic benefits, primarily for sector vessels, compared to the No Action option. Sector vessels are not allowed to fish without an allocation, so if no catch limits are specified for the fishing year, there would be severe negative economic impacts to the groundfish fishery. The default groundfish specifications are expected to prevent the situation that would otherwise occur if no action was taken. Sector Carryover This action modifies the provision that allows sectors to carryover unused allocation from one fishing year into the next fishing year. The economic impacts of the carryover provision are likely minor, and similar to the status quo. In any fishing year, if the maximum available sector carryover is reduced from 10 percent, this could have a negative economic impact. However, the approved action does not modify the AM for sectors that requires any overages, even overages that result from harvesting available carryover, must be paid back. As a result, the approved action is not expected to largely change sector operations compared to the No Action alternative. Small Entity Compliance Guide Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 states that, for each rule or group of related rules for which an agency is required to prepare a FRFA, the agency shall publish one or more guides to assist small entities in complying with the rule, and shall designate such publications as ‘‘small entity compliance guides.’’ The agency shall explain the actions a small entity is required to take to comply with a rule or group of rules. As part of this rulemaking process, a small entity compliance guide will be sent to all holders of Federal permits issued for the Northeast multispecies fisheries, as well as the scallop and herring fisheries that receive an allocation of some groundfish stocks. In addition, copies of this final rule and guides (i.e., information bulletins) are available from NMFS at E:\FR\FM\01MYR3.SGM 01MYR3 25138 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 84 / Friday, May 1, 2015 / Rules and Regulations the following Web site: https:// www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/. List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648 Fisheries, Fishing, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements. Dated: April 23, 2015. Eileen Sobeck, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. For the reasons stated in the preamble, NMFS amends 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 § 648.2: a. Lift the suspension of the definition for ‘‘Gillnet gear capable of catching multispecies’’ and revise it; and ■ b. Remove the definition for ‘‘Gillnet gear capable of catching multispecies (for purposes of the interim action)’’. The revision reads as follows: ■ ■ § 648.2 Definitions. * * * * * Gillnet gear capable of catching multispecies means all gillnet gear except pelagic gillnet gear specified at § 648.81(f)(5)(ii) and pelagic gillnet gear that is designed to fish for and is used to fish for or catch tunas, swordfish, and sharks. * * * * * § 648.10 [Amended] 3. In § 648.10, revise paragraph (k)(2) and remove paragraphs (k)(3)(i)(A) and (B). The revision reads as follows: ■ § 648.10 VMS and DAS requirements for vessel owners/operators. mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 * * * * * (k) * * * (2) Reporting requirements for NE multispecies vessel owners or operators fishing in more than one broad stock area per trip. Unless otherwise provided in this paragraph (k)(2), the owner or operator of any vessel issued a NE multispecies limited access permit that has declared its intent to fish within multiple NE multispecies broad stock areas, as defined in paragraph (k)(3) of this section, on the same trip must submit a hail report via VMS providing a good-faith estimate of the amount of each regulated species retained (in pounds, landed weight) and the total amount of all species retained (in pounds, landed weight), including NE multispecies and species managed by VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:31 Apr 30, 2015 Jkt 235001 other FMPs, from each broad stock area. This reporting requirement is in addition to the reporting requirements specified in paragraph (k)(1) of this section and any other reporting requirements specified in this part. The report frequency is detailed in paragraphs (k)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section. (i) Vessels declaring into GOM Stock Area and any other stock area. A vessel declared to fish in the GOM Stock Area, as defined in paragraph (k)(3)(i), and any other stock area defined in (k)(3)(ii) through (iv) of this section, must submit a daily VMS catch report in 24-hr intervals for each day by 0900 hr of the following day. Reports are required even if groundfish species caught that day have not yet been landed. (ii) Vessels declaring into multiple broad stock areas not including GOM Stock Area. A vessel declared into multiple stock areas defined in (k)(3)(ii) through (iv) of this section, not including the GOM Stock Area I defined in (k)(3)(i), must submit a trip-level report via VMS prior to crossing the VMS demarcation line, as defined in § 648.10, upon its return to port following each fishing trip on which regulated species were caught, as instructed by the Regional Administrator. (iii) The Regional Administrator may adjust the reporting frequency specified in paragraph (k)(2) of this section. (iv) Exemptions from broad stock area VMS reporting requirements. (A) A vessel is exempt from the reporting requirements specified in paragraph (k)(2) of this section if it is fishing in a special management program, as specified in § 648.85, and is required to submit daily VMS catch reports consistent with the requirements of that program. (B) The Regional Administrator may exempt vessels on a sector trip from the reporting requirements specified in this paragraph (k)(2) if it is determined that such reporting requirements would duplicate those specified in § 648.87(b). * * * * * ■ 4. In § 648.14: ■ a. Lift the suspension of paragraphs (k)(6)(i)(E), (k)(7)(i)(A) and (B), (k)(12)(v)(E) and (F), (k)(12)(v)(K) and (L), (k)(13)(i)(D)(1) through (4), (k)(13)(ii)(B) through (D), (k)(13)(ii)(K) through (M), (k)(14)(viii), and (k)(16)(iii)(A) through (F); ■ b. Revise paragraph (k)(6)(i)(E); ■ c. Remove paragraph (k)(6)(i)(H); ■ d. Revise paragraphs (k)(7)(i)(A) and (B); ■ e. Remove paragraphs (k)(7)(i)(H) through (J); PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 f. Revise paragraph (k)(12)(i) introductory text; ■ g. Remove paragraphs (k)(12)(v)(K) through (N); ■ h. Revise paragraph (k)(13)(i) introductory text; ■ i. Remove paragraphs (k)(13)(i)(D)(5) and (6), (k)(13)(ii)(K) through (P), and (k)(14)(xii); ■ j. Revise paragraphs (k)(16) introductory text and (k)(16)(iii)(A) and (B); and ■ k. Remove paragraphs (k)(16)(iii)(D) through (H). The revisions read as follows: ■ § 648.14 Prohibitions. * * * * * (k) * * * (6) * * * (i) * * * (E) Use, set, haul back, fish with, possess on board a vessel, unless stowed and not available for immediate use as defined in § 648.2, or fail to remove, sink gillnet gear and other gillnet gear capable of catching NE multispecies, with the exception of single pelagic gillnets (as described in § 648.81(f)(5)(ii)), in the areas and for the times specified in § 648.80(g)(6)(i) and (ii), except as provided in § 648.80(g)(6)(i) and (ii), and § 648.81(f)(5)(ii), or unless otherwise authorized in writing by the Regional Administrator. * * * * * (7) * * * (i) * * * (A) Enter, be on a fishing vessel in, or fail to remove gear from the EEZ portion of the areas described in § 648.81(d)(1), (e)(1), (f)(4), and (g)(1), except as provided in § 648.81(d)(2), (e)(2), (f)(5), (g)(2), and (i). (B) Fish for, harvest, possess, or land regulated species in or from the closed areas specified in § 648.81(a) through (f) and (n), unless otherwise specified in § 648.81(c)(2)(iii), (f)(5)(i), (f)(5)(iv), (f)(5)(viii) and (ix), (i), (n)(2)(i), or as authorized under § 648.85. * * * * * (12) * * * (i) It is unlawful for any person to: * * * * * (13) * * * (i) It is unlawful for any person to: * * * * * (16) Recreational and charter/party requirements. It is unlawful for the owner or operator of a charter or party boat issued a valid Federal NE multispecies permit, or for a recreational vessel, as applicable, unless otherwise specified in § 648.17, to do any of the following if fishing under the recreational or charter/party regulations: * * * * * E:\FR\FM\01MYR3.SGM 01MYR3 25139 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 84 / Friday, May 1, 2015 / Rules and Regulations (iii) * * * (A) Fail to comply with the applicable restrictions if transiting the GOM Regulated Mesh Area with cod on board that was caught outside the GOM Regulated Mesh Area. (B) Fail to comply with the requirements specified in § 648.81(f)(5)(v) when fishing in the areas described in § 648.81(d)(1), (e)(1), and (f)(4) during the time periods specified. * * * * * ■ 5. In § 648.80: ■ a. Lift the suspension of paragraphs (a)(3)(vi), (a)(3)(viii), (a)(4)(iii), (a)(4)(ix), and (g)(6)(i) and (ii); ■ b. Remove paragraphs (a)(3)(viii) and (ix) and (a)(4)(ix) and (x); ■ c. Revise paragraphs (g)(6)(i) and (ii); and ■ d. Remove paragraphs (g)(6)(iii) and (iv). The revisions read as follows: § 648.80 NE multispecies regulated mesh areas and restrictions on gear and methods of fishing. mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 * * * * * (g) * * * (6) * * * (i) Requirements for gillnet gear capable of catching NE multispecies to reduce harbor porpoise takes. In addition to the requirements for gillnet fishing identified in this section, all persons owning or operating vessels in the EEZ that fish with sink gillnet gear and other gillnet gear capable of catching NE multispecies, with the exception of single pelagic gillnets (as described in § 648.81(f)(5)(ii)), must comply with the applicable provisions of the Harbor Porpoise Take Reduction Plan found in § 229.33 of this title. (ii) Requirements for gillnet gear capable of catching NE multispecies to prevent large whale takes. In addition to the requirements for gillnet fishing identified in this section, all persons owning or operating vessels in the EEZ that fish with sink gillnet gear and other gillnet gear capable of catching NE multispecies, with the exception of single pelagic gillnets (as described in § 648.81(f)(5)(ii)), must comply with the applicable provisions of the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan found in § 229.32 of this title. * * * * * ■ 6. In § 648.81: ■ a. Lift suspension of paragraphs (d)(1) through (4), (e)(1) and (2), (f)(1) and (2), (g)(1)(i), (o)(1)(iii), (iv) and (viii) through (x), and (o)(2)(iv); ■ b. Revise paragraph (d)(2); VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:33 Apr 30, 2015 Jkt 235001 c. Remove paragraphs (d)(3) through (6); ■ d. Revise paragraph (e)(2); ■ e. Remove paragraphs (e)(3) and (4); ■ f. Revise paragraph (f); ■ g. Remove paragraph (g)(1)(vii); ■ h. Revise paragraphs (g)(2) introductory text, (g)(2)(i), and (i); and ■ i. Remove paragraph (o). The revisions read as follows: ■ § 648.81 NE multispecies closed areas and measures to protect EFH. * * * * * (d) * * * (2) Unless otherwise restricted under the EFH Closure(s) specified in paragraph (h) of this section, paragraph (d)(1) of this section does not apply to persons on fishing vessels or fishing vessels that meet the criteria in paragraphs (f)(5)(ii) through (v) of this section. * * * * * (e) * * * (2) Unless otherwise restricted under paragraph (h) of this section, paragraph (e)(1) of this section does not apply to persons on fishing vessels or fishing vessels that meet the criteria in paragraphs (f)(5)(ii) through (v) of this section consistent with the requirements specified under § 648.80(a)(5). * * * * * (f) GOM Cod Protection Closures. (1) Unless otherwise allowed in this part, no fishing vessel or person on a fishing vessel may enter, fish in, or be in; and no fishing gear capable of catching NE multispecies may be in, or on board a vessel in GOM Cod Protection Closures I through V as described, and during the times specified, in paragraphs (f)(4)(i) through (v) of this section. (2) Any vessel subject to a GOM cod protection closure may transit the area, provided it complies with the requirements specified in paragraph (i) of this section. (3) The New England Fishery Management Council shall review the GOM Cod Protection Closures Areas specified in this section when the spawning stock biomass for GOM cod reaches the minimum biomass threshold specified for the stock (50 percent of SSBMSY). (4) GOM Cod Protection Closure Areas. Charts depicting these areas are available from the Regional Administrator upon request. (i) GOM Cod Protection Closure I. From May 1 through May 31, the restrictions specified in paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section apply to GOM Cod Protection Closure I, which is the area bounded by the following PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 coordinates connected in the order stated by straight lines: GOM COD PROTECTION CLOSURE I [May 1–May 31] Point CPCI CPCI CPCI CPCI CPCI CPCI CPCI CPCI CPCI 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 N. latitude ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 43°30′ 43°30′ 43°00′ 43°00′ 42°30′ 42°30′ 42°20′ 42°20′ 43°30′ N N N N N N N N N W. longitude (1) 69°30′ 69°30′ 70°00′ 70°00′ 70°30′ 70°30′ W W W W W W (2) (3) (1) (3) 1 The intersection of 43°30′ N latitude and the coastline of Maine. 2 The intersection of 42°20′ N latitude and the coastline of Massachusetts. 3 From Point 8 back to Point 1 following the coastline of the United States. (ii) GOM Cod Protection Closure II. From June 1 through June 30, the restrictions specified in paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section apply to GOM Cod Protection Closure II, which is the area bounded by the following coordinates connected in the order stated by straight lines: GOM COD PROTECTION CLOSURE II [June 1–June 30] Point CPCII CPCII CPCII CPCII CPCII CPCII CPCII CPCII CPCII CPCII CPCII CPCII 1 .......... 2 .......... 3 .......... 4 .......... 5 .......... 6 .......... 7 .......... 8 .......... 9 .......... 10 ........ 11 ........ 1 .......... N. latitude (1) 43°30′ 43°30′ 42°30′ 42°30′ 42°20′ 42°20′ 42°30′ 42°30′ 43°00′ 43°00′ (1) N N N N N N N N N N W. longitude 69°30′ 69°30′ 70°00′ 70°00′ 70°30′ 70°30′ W W W W W W (2) (3) (4) (3) 70°30′ W 70°30′ W (5) (6) 69°30′ W 6 1 The intersection of 69°30′ W longitude and the coastline of Maine. 2 The intersection of 42°20′ N latitude and the coastline of Massachusetts. 3 From Point 7 to Point 8 following the coastline of Massachusetts. 4 The intersection of 42°30′ N latitude and the coastline of Massachusetts. 5 The intersection of 43°00′ N latitude and the coastline of New Hampshire. 6 From Point 11 back to Point 1 following the coastlines of New Hampshire and Maine. (iii) GOM Cod Protection Closure III. From November 1 through January 31, the restrictions specified in paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section apply to GOM Cod Protection Closure III, which is the area bounded by the following coordinates connected in the order stated by straight lines: E:\FR\FM\01MYR3.SGM 01MYR3 25140 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 84 / Friday, May 1, 2015 / Rules and Regulations GOM COD PROTECTION CLOSURE III [November 1–January 31] Point CPCIII CPCIII CPCIII CPCIII CPCIII CPCIII CPCIII 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 N. latitude ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 42°30′ 42°30′ 42°15′ 42°15′ 42°00′ 42°00′ 42°30′ N N N N N N N W. longitude (1) 70°30′ 70°30′ 70°24′ 70°24′ W W W W (2) (3) (1) (3) 1 The intersection of 42°30′ N latitude and the Massachusetts coastline. 2 The intersection of 42°00′ N latitude and the mainland Massachusetts coastline at Kingston, MA. 3 From Point 6 back to Point 1 following the coastline of Massachusetts. (iv) GOM Cod Protection Closure IV. From October 1 through October 31, the restrictions specified in paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section apply to GOM Cod Protection Closure IV, which is the area bounded by the following coordinates connected in the order stated by straight lines: GOM COD PROTECTION CLOSURE IV [October 1–October 31] Point CPCIV CPCIV CPCIV CPCIV CPCIV 1 2 3 4 1 N. latitude ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ 42°30′ 42°30′ 42°00′ 42°00′ 42°30′ N N N N N W. longitude (1) 70°00′ W 70°00′ W (2) (3) (1) (3) 1 The intersection of 42°30′ N latitude and the Massachusetts coastline 2 The intersection of 42°00′ N latitude and the mainland Massachusetts coastline at Kingston, MA 3 From Point 4 back to Point 1 following the coastline of Massachusetts (v) GOM Cod Protection Closure V. From March 1 through March 31, the restrictions specified in paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section GOM Cod Protection Closure V, which is the area bounded by the following coordinates connected in the order stated by straight lines: GOM COD PROTECTION CLOSURE V [March 1–March 31] mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Point CPCV CPCV CPCV CPCV CPCV 1 2 3 4 1 ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... N. latitude 42°30′ 42°30′ 42°00′ 42°00′ 42°30′ N N N N N W. longitude 70°00′ 68°30′ 68°30′ 70°00′ 70°00′ W W W W W (5) The GOM cod protection closures specified in this section do not apply to persons aboard fishing vessels or fishing vessels that meet any of the following criteria: VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:33 Apr 30, 2015 Jkt 235001 (i) That have not been issued a multispecies permit and that are fishing exclusively in state waters; (ii) That are fishing with or using exempted gear as defined under this part, except for pelagic gillnet gear capable of catching NE multispecies, unless fishing with a single pelagic gillnet not longer than 300 ft (91.4 m) and not greater than 6 ft (1.83 m) deep, with a maximum mesh size of 3 inches (7.6 cm), provided that: (A) The net is attached to the boat and fished in the upper two-thirds of the water column; (B) The net is marked with the owner’s name and vessel identification number; (C) There is no retention of regulated species; and (D) There is no other gear on board capable of catching NE multispecies; (iii) That are fishing in the Midwater Trawl Gear Exempted Fishery as specified in § 648.80(d); (iv) That are fishing in the Purse Seine Gear Exempted Fishery as specified in § 648.80(e); (v) That are fishing under charter/ party or recreational regulations specified in § 648.89, provided that: (A) For vessels fishing under charter/ party regulations in a GOM cod protection closure described under paragraph (f)(4) of this section, it has on board a letter of authorization issued by the Regional Administrator, which is valid from the date of enrollment through the duration of the closure or 3 months duration, whichever is greater; for vessels fishing under charter/party regulations in the Cashes Ledge Closure Area or Western GOM Area Closure, as described under paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section, respectively, it has on board a letter of authorization issued by the Regional Administrator, which is valid from the date of enrollment until the end of the fishing year; (B) Fish species managed by the NEFMC or MAFMC that are harvested or possessed by the vessel, are not sold or intended for trade, barter or sale, regardless of where the fish are caught; (C) The vessel has no gear other than rod and reel or handline on board; and (D) The vessel does not use any NE multispecies DAS during the entire period for which the letter of authorization is valid; (vi) That are fishing with or using scallop dredge gear when fishing under a scallop DAS or when lawfully fishing in the Scallop Dredge Fishery Exemption Area as described in § 648.80(a)(11), provided the vessel does not retain any regulated NE multispecies during a trip, or on any part of a trip; or PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 (vii) That are fishing in the Raised Footrope Trawl Exempted Whiting Fishery, as specified in § 648.80(a)(15), or in the Small Mesh Area II Exemption Area, as specified in § 648.80(a)(9); (viii) That are fishing on a sector trip, as defined in this part, and in the GOM Cod Protection Closures IV or V, as specified in paragraphs (f)(4)(iv) and (v) of this section; or (ix) That are fishing under the provisions of a Northeast multispecies Handgear A permit, as specified at § 648.82(b)(6), and in the GOM Cod Protection Closures IV or V, as specified in paragraphs (f)(4)(iv) and (v) of this section . (g) * * * (2) Paragraph (g)(1) of this section does not apply to persons on fishing vessels or to fishing vessels that meet any of the following criteria: (i) That meet the criteria in paragraphs (f)(5)(i), (ii), or (iii) of this section; * * * * * (i) Transiting. Unless otherwise restricted or specified in this paragraph (i), a vessel may transit CA I, the Nantucket Lightship Closed Area, the Cashes Ledge Closed Area, the Western GOM Closure Area, the GOM Cod Protection Closures, the GB Seasonal Closure Area, the EFH Closure Areas, and the GOM Cod Spawning Protection Area, as defined in paragraphs (a)(1), (c)(1), (d)(1), (e)(1), (f)(4), (g)(1), (h)(1), and (n)(1), of this section, respectively, provided that its gear is stowed and not available for immediate use as defined in § 648.2. A vessel may transit CA II, as defined in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, in accordance with paragraph (b)(2)(iv) of this section. Private recreational or charter/party vessels fishing under the Northeast multispecies provisions specified at § 648.89 may transit the GOM Cod Spawning Protection Area, as defined in paragraph (n)(1) of this section, provided all bait and hooks are removed from fishing rods, and any regulated species on board have been caught outside the GOM Cod Spawning Protection Area and has been gutted and stored. * * * * * § 648.82 [Amended] 7. In § 648.82, lift the suspension of paragraphs (b)(5) through (8), and remove paragraphs (b)(7) through (10). ■ § 648.85 [Amended] 8. In § 648.85, lift the suspension of paragraphs (b)(6)(iv)(D) and (K) and remove paragraphs (b)(6)(iv)(K) and (L). ■ E:\FR\FM\01MYR3.SGM 01MYR3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 84 / Friday, May 1, 2015 / Rules and Regulations § 648.86 [Amended] 9. In § 648.86, lift the suspension of paragraphs (b)(1) through (7) and remove paragraphs (b)(5) through (10). ■ 10. In § 648.87: ■ a. Lift the suspension of paragraphs (b)(1)(v)(A), (b)(1)(ix), (b)(1)(x), (c)(2)(i), (c)(2)(ii)(A) and (B), (c)(2)(ii)(E), and (c)(2)(iii); ■ b. Revise paragraphs (b)(1)(i)(C) and (b)(1)(iii)(C); ■ c. Remove paragraphs (b)(1)(v)(C) and (b)(1)(x) and (xi); ■ d. Revise paragraphs (c)(2)(i) and (c)(2)(ii)(B); and ■ e. Remove paragraphs (c)(2)(ii)(E) through (G) and (c)(2)(iii) and (iv). The revisions read as follows: ■ § 648.87 Sector allocation. mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 * * * * * (b) * * * (1) * * * (i) * * * (C) Carryover. (1) With the exception of GB yellowtail flounder, a sector may carryover an amount of ACE equal to 10 percent of its original ACE for each stock that is unused at the end of one fishing year into the following fishing year, provided that the total unused sector ACE plus the overall ACL for the following fishing year does not exceed the ABC for the fishing year in which the carryover may be harvested. If this total exceeds the ABC, NMFS shall adjust the maximum amount of unused ACE that a sector may carryover (down from 10 percent) to an amount equal to the ABC of the following fishing year. Any adjustments made would be applied to each sector based on its total unused ACE and proportional to the cumulative PSCs of vessels/permits participating in the sector for the particular fishing year, as described in paragraph (b)(1)(i)(E) of this section. (i) Eastern GB Stocks Carryover. Any unused ACE allocated for Eastern GB stocks in accordance with paragraph (b)(1)(i)(B) of this section shall contribute to the carryover allowance for each stock, as specified in this paragraph (b)(1)(i)(C)(1), but shall not increase individual sector’s allocation of Eastern GB stocks during the following year. (ii) This carryover ACE remains effective during the subsequent fishing year even if vessels that contributed to the sector allocation during the previous fishing year are no longer participating in the same sector for the subsequent fishing year. (2) Carryover accounting. (i) If the overall ACL for a particular stock is exceeded, the allowed carryover of a particular stock harvested by a sector, VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:31 Apr 30, 2015 Jkt 235001 minus the NMFS-specified de minimis amount, shall be counted against the sector’s ACE for purposes of determining an overage subject to the AM in paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this section. (ii) De Minimis Carryover Amount. The de minimis carryover amount is one percent of the overall sector sub-ACL for the fishing year in which the carryover would be harvested. NMFS may change this de minimis carryover amount for any fishing year through notice consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act. The overall de minimis carryover amount would be applied to each sector proportional to the cumulative PSCs of vessels/permits participating in the sector for the particular fishing year, as described in paragraph (b)(1)(i)(E) of this section. * * * * * (iii) * * * (C) ACE buffer. At the beginning of each fishing year, NMFS shall withhold 20 percent of a sector’s ACE for each stock for a period of up to 61 days (i.e., through June 30), unless otherwise specified by NMFS, to allow time to process any ACE transfers submitted at the end of the fishing year pursuant to paragraph (b)(1)(viii) of this section and to determine whether the ACE allocated to any sector needs to be reduced, or any overage penalties need to be applied to individual permits/vessels in the current fishing year to accommodate an ACE overage by that sector during the previous fishing year, as specified in paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this section. NMFS shall not withhold 20 percent of a sector’s ACE at the beginning of a fishing year in which default specifications are in effect, as specified in § 648.90(a)(3). * * * * * (c) * * * (2) * * * (i) Regulations that may not be exempted for sector participants. The Regional Administrator may not exempt participants in a sector from the following Federal fishing regulations: Specific times and areas within the NE multispecies year-round closure areas; permitting restrictions (e.g., vessel upgrades, etc.); gear restrictions designed to minimize habitat impacts (e.g., roller gear restrictions, etc.); reporting requirements; AMs specified in § 648.90(a)(5)(i)(D). For the purposes of this paragraph (c)(2)(i), the DAS reporting requirements specified in § 648.82; the SAP-specific reporting requirements specified in § 648.85; and the reporting requirements associated with a dockside monitoring program are not considered reporting requirements, PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 25141 and the Regional Administrator may exempt sector participants from these requirements as part of the approval of yearly operations plans. For the purpose of this paragraph (c)(2)(i), the Regional Administrator may not grant sector participants exemptions from the NE multispecies year-round closures areas defined as Essential Fish Habitat Closure Areas as defined in § 648.81(h); the Fippennies Ledge Area as defined in paragraph (c)(2)(i)(A) of this section; Closed Area I and Closed Area II, as defined in § 648.81(a) and (b), respectively, during the period February 16 through April 30; and the Western GOM Closure Area, as defined at § 648.81(e), where it overlaps with GOM Cod Protection Closures I through III, as defined in § 648.81(f)(4). This list may be modified through a framework adjustment, as specified in § 648.90. * * * * * (ii) * * * (B) The GOM Cod Protection Closures IV and V specified in § 648.81(f)(4)(iv) and (v) and the GB Seasonal Closed Area specified in § 648.81(g)(1); * * * * * § 648.88 [Amended] 11. In § 648.88, lift the suspension of paragraphs (a)(1) and (3), and remove paragraphs (a)(3) and (4). ■ 12. In § 648.89: ■ a. Lift the suspension of paragraphs (b)(3), (c)(1) and (2), (c)(8), and (e)(1) through (4); ■ b. Revise paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2)(i); ■ c.. Remove paragraphs (c)(2)(v) and (c)(8) and (9); ■ c. Revise paragraph (e)(1); ■ d. Remove paragraphs (e)(4) through (7); and ■ e. Revise paragraph (f). The revisions read as follows: ■ § 648.89 Recreational and charter/party vessel restrictions. * * * * * (c) Possession Restrictions—(1) Recreational fishing vessels. (i) Each person on a private recreational vessel may possess no more than 10 cod per day in, or harvested from, the EEZ when fishing outside of the GOM Regulated Mesh Area specified in § 648.80(a)(1). (ii) When fishing in the GOM Regulated Mesh Area specified in § 648.80(a)(1), persons aboard private recreational fishing vessels may not fish for or possess any cod with the exception that private recreational vessels in possession of cod caught outside the GOM Regulated Mesh Area specified in § 648.80(a)(1) may transit this area, provided all bait and hooks E:\FR\FM\01MYR3.SGM 01MYR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 25142 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 84 / Friday, May 1, 2015 / Rules and Regulations are removed from fishing rods and any cod on board has been gutted and stored. (iii) For purposes of counting fish, fillets will be converted to whole fish at the place of landing by dividing the number of fillets by two. If fish are filleted into a single (butterfly) fillet, such fillet shall be deemed to be from one whole fish. (iv) Cod harvested by recreational fishing vessels in or from the EEZ with more than one person aboard may be pooled in one or more containers. Compliance with the possession limit will be determined by dividing the number of fish on board by the number of persons on board. If there is a violation of the possession limit on board a vessel carrying more than one person, the violation shall be deemed to have been committed by the owner or operator of the vessel. (v) Cod must be stored so as to be readily available for inspection. (2) Charter/party vessels. (i) Persons aboard charter/party fishing vessels permitted under this part and not fishing under the NE multispecies DAS program or on a sector trip that are fishing in the GOM Regulated Mesh Area specified in § 648.80(a)(1) may not fish for, possess, or land any cod with the exception that charter/party vessels in possession of cod caught outside the GOM Regulated Mesh Area specified in § 648.80(a)(1) may transit this area, provided all bait and hooks are removed from fishing rods and any cod on board has been gutted and stored. * * * * * (e) * * * (1) GOM Closed Areas. (i) A vessel fishing under charter/party regulations may not fish in the GOM closed areas specified in § 648.81(d)(1), (e)(1), and (f)(4) during the time periods specified in those paragraphs, unless the vessel has on board a valid letter of authorization issued by the Regional Administrator pursuant to § 648.81(f)(5)(v) and paragraph (e)(3) of this section. The conditions and restrictions of the letter of authorization must be complied with for a minimum of 3 months if the vessel fishes or intends to fish in the GOM cod protection closures; or for the rest of the fishing year, beginning with the start of the participation period of the letter of authorization, if the vessel fishes or intends to fish in the year-round GOM closure areas. (ii) A vessel fishing under charter/ party regulations may not fish in the GOM Cod Spawning Protection Area specified at § 648.81(n)(1) during the time period specified in that paragraph, VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:31 Apr 30, 2015 Jkt 235001 unless the vessel complies with the requirements specified at § 648.81(n)(2)(iii). * * * * * (f) Recreational fishery AM—(1) Catch evaluation. As soon as recreational catch data are available for the entire previous fishing year, the Regional Administrator will evaluate whether recreational catches exceed any of the sub-ACLs specified for the recreational fishery pursuant to § 648.90(a)(4). When evaluating recreational catch, the components of recreational catch that are used shall be the same as those used in the most recent assessment for that particular stock. To determine if any sub-ACL specified for the recreational fishery was exceeded, the Regional Administrator shall compare the 3-year average of recreational catch to the 3year average of the recreational sub-ACL for each stock. (2) Reactive AM adjustment. (i) If it is determined that any recreational subACL was exceeded, as specified in paragraph (f)(1) of this section, the Regional Administrator, after consultation with the New England Fishery Management Council, shall develop measures necessary to prevent the recreational fishery from exceeding the appropriate sub-ACL in future years. Appropriate AMs for the recreational fishery, including adjustments to fishing season, minimum fish size, or possession limits, may be implemented in a manner consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act, with final measures published in the Federal Register no later than January when possible. Separate AMs shall be developed for the private and charter/ party components of the recreational fishery. (ii) The Regional Administrator shall not adjust the possession limit for GOM cod, under the reactive AM authority specified in paragraph (f)(2)(i) of this section, as long as possession of this stock is prohibited for the recreational fishery, as specified in paragraph (c) of this section. (3) Proactive AM adjustment. (i) When necessary, the Regional Administrator, after consultation with the New England Fishery Management Council, may adjust recreational measures to ensure the recreational fishery achieves, but does not exceed any recreational fishery sub-ACL in a future fishing year. Appropriate AMs for the recreational fishery, including adjustments to fishing season, minimum fish size, or possession limits, may be implemented in a manner consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act, with final measures published in the PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 Federal Register prior to the start of the fishing year where possible. In specifying these AMs, the Regional Administrator shall take into account the non-binding prioritization of possible measures recommended by the Council: for cod, first increases to minimum fish sizes, then adjustments to seasons, followed by changes to bag limits; and for haddock, first increases to minimum size limits, then changes to bag limits, and then adjustments to seasons. (ii) The Regional Administrator shall not adjust the possession limit for GOM cod, under the proactive AM authority specified in paragraph (f)(3)(i) of this section, as long as possession of this stock is prohibited for the recreational fishery, as specified in paragraph (c) of this section. ■ 13. In § 648.90, revise paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and (viii), (a)(3), and (a)(5)(i) introductory text to read as follows: § 648.90 NE multispecies assessment, framework procedures and specifications, and flexible area action system. * * * * * (a) * * * (2) * * * (i) The NE multispecies PDT shall meet on or before September 30 every other year to perform a review of the fishery, using the most current scientific information available provided primarily from the NEFSC. Data provided by states, ASMFC, the USCG, and other sources may also be considered by the PDT. Based on this review, the PDT will develop ACLs for the upcoming fishing year(s) as described in paragraph (a)(4) of this section and develop options for consideration by the Council if necessary, on any changes, adjustments, or additions to DAS allocations, closed areas, or other measures necessary to rebuild overfished stocks and achieve the FMP goals and objectives. * * * * * (viii) If the Regional Administrator concurs in the Council’s recommendation, a final rule shall be published in the Federal Register on or about April 1 of each year, with the exception noted in paragraph (a)(2)(vii) of this section. If the Council fails to submit a recommendation to the Regional Administrator by February 1 that meets the FMP goals and objectives, the Regional Administrator may publish as a proposed rule one of the options reviewed and not rejected by the Council, provided that the option meets the FMP objectives and is consistent with other applicable law. If, after considering public comment, the Regional Administrator decides to E:\FR\FM\01MYR3.SGM 01MYR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 84 / Friday, May 1, 2015 / Rules and Regulations approve the option published as a proposed rule, the action will be published as a final rule in the Federal Register. * * * * * (3) Default OFLs, ABCs, and ACLs. (i) Unless otherwise specified in this paragraph (a)(3), if final specifications are not published in the Federal Register for the start of a fishing year, as outlined in paragraph (a)(4) of this section, specifications for that fishing year shall be set at 35 percent of the previous year’s specifications for each NE multispecies stock, including the U.S./Canada shared resources, for the period of time beginning on May 1 and ending on July 31, unless superseded by the final rule implementing the current year’s specifications. (ii) If the default specifications exceed the Council’s recommendations for any stock for the current year, the specifications for that stock shall be reduced to the Council’s recommendation through notice consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act. (iii) These specifications shall be subdivided among the various subcomponents of the fishery consistent with the ABC/ACL distribution adopted for the previous year’s specifications. * * * * * (5) * * * (i) AMs for the NE multispecies commercial and recreational fisheries. If the catch of regulated species or ocean pout by a sub-component of the NE multispecies fishery (i.e., common pool vessels, sector vessels, or private recreational and charter/party vessels) exceeds the amount allocated to each sub-component, as specified in paragraph (a)(4)(iii)(H) of this section, then the applicable AM for that subcomponent of the fishery shall take effect, pursuant to paragraphs (a)(5)(i)(A) through (C) of this section. In determining the applicability of AMs specified for a sub-component of the NE multispecies fishery in paragraphs (a)(5)(i)(A) through (C) of this section, the Regional Administrator shall consider available information regarding the catch of regulated species and ocean pout by each sub-component of the NE multispecies fishery, plus each subcomponent’s share of any overage of the overall ACL for a particular stock caused by excessive catch by vessels outside of the FMP, exempted fisheries, or the Atlantic sea scallop fishery, as specified in this paragraph (a)(5), as appropriate. * * * * * [FR Doc. 2015–09952 Filed 4–30–15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–22–P VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:31 Apr 30, 2015 Jkt 235001 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 648 [Docket No. 140821699–5361–02] RIN 0648–XD461 Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northeast Multispecies Fishery; 2015 and 2016 Sector Operations Plans and 2015 Contracts and Allocation of Northeast Multispecies Annual Catch Entitlements National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Final rule. AGENCY: We have partially approved sector operations plans and contracts for fishing years 2015 and 2016, granting regulatory exemptions for fishing years 2015 and 2016, and providing Northeast multispecies annual catch entitlements to approved sectors for fishing year 2015. Approval of sector operations plans is necessary to allocate annual catch entitlements to the sectors and for the sectors to operate. The Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan allows limited access permit holders to form sectors, and requires sectors to submit their operations plans and contracts to us, NMFS, for approval or disapproval. Approved sectors are exempt from certain effort control regulations and receive allocations of Northeast multispecies based on its members’ fishing history. DATES: Sector operations plans and regulatory exemptions are effective May 1, 2015, through April 30, 2017. Northeast multispecies annual catch entitlements for sectors are effective May 1, 2015, through April 30, 2016. ADDRESSES: Copies of each sector’s final operations plan and contract, and the environmental assessment (EA), are available from the NMFS Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office: John K. Bullard, Regional Administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. These documents are also accessible via the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Liz Sullivan, Fishery Management Specialist, phone (978) 282–8493, fax (978) 281–9135. To review Federal Register documents referenced in this rule, you can visit: https:// SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 25143 www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/ sustainable/species/multispecies. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Amendment 13 to the Northeast (NE) Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (FMP) (69 FR 22906, April 27, 2004) established a process for forming sectors within the NE multispecies (groundfish) fishery, and Amendment 16 to the FMP (74 FR 18262, April 9, 2010), followed by Framework Adjustment 45 to the FMP (76 FR 23042, April 25, 2011) and Framework 48 to the FMP (78 FR 26118; May 3, 2013), expanded and revised sector management. The FMP defines a sector as ‘‘[a] group of persons (three or more persons, none of whom have an ownership interest in the other two persons in the sector) holding limited access vessel permits who have voluntarily entered into a contract and agree to certain fishing restrictions for a specified period of time, and which has been granted a TAC(s) [sic] in order to achieve objectives consistent with applicable FMP goals and objectives.’’ Sectors are self-selecting, meaning each sector can choose its members. The NE multispecies sector management system allocates a portion of the NE multispecies stocks to each sector. These annual sector allocations are known as annual catch entitlements (ACE). These allocations are a portion of a stock’s annual catch limit (ACL) available to commercial NE multispecies vessels within a sector, based on the collective fishing history of a sector’s members. Currently, sectors may receive allocations of most largemesh NE multispecies stocks with the exception of Atlantic halibut, windowpane flounder, Atlantic wolffish, and ocean pout, which are non-allocated. A sector determines how to harvest its ACEs and may decide to consolidate operations to fewer vessels. Because sectors elect to receive an allocation under a quota-based system, the FMP grants sector vessels several ‘‘universal’’ exemptions from the FMP’s effort controls. These universal exemptions apply to: Trip limits on allocated stocks; the Georges Bank (GB) Seasonal Closure Area; NE multispecies days-at-sea (DAS) restrictions; the requirement to use a 6.5-inch (16.5-cm) mesh codend when fishing with selective gear on GB; portions of the Gulf of Maine (GOM) Cod Protection Closures (as created by Framework 53; implemented concurrently with this rule); and the at-sea monitoring (ASM) coverage rate for sector vessels fishing on a monkfish DAS in the Southern New England (SNE) Broad Stock Area E:\FR\FM\01MYR3.SGM 01MYR3

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 84 (Friday, May 1, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 25109-25143]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-09952]

[[Page 25109]]

Vol. 80

Friday,

No. 84

May 1, 2015

Part IV

Department of Commerce

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

50 CFR Part 648

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Provisions;
Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Final Rule and Interim
Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 80 , No. 84 / Friday, May 1, 2015 / Rules and
Regulations

[[Page 25110]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 648

[Docket No. 150105004-5355-01]
RIN 0648-BE75

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northeast
Groundfish Fishery; Framework Adjustment 53

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

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This final rule approves and implements Framework Adjustment
53 to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan. This rule
sets fishing years 2015-2017 catch limits for several groundfish
stocks, modifies management measures for Gulf of Maine cod, and adopts
other measures to improve the management of the groundfish fishery.
This action is necessary to respond to updated scientific information
and achieve the goals and objectives of the fishery management plan.
The final measures are intended to prevent overfishing, rebuild
overfished stocks, achieve optimum yield, and ensure that management
measures are based on the best scientific information available.

DATES: Effective May 1, 2015. Comments on the burden-hour estimates or
other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained
in this final rule must be received by June 30, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or
other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained
in this final rule may be submitted by either of the following methods:
Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public
comments via email to OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov.
Mail: Submit written comments to John K. Bullard, Regional
Administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service, 55 Great Republic
Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope,
``Comments on Groundfish Daily Catch Reporting.''
Copies of Framework Adjustment 53, including the Environmental
Assessment, the Regulatory Impact Review, and the Iinal Regulatory
Flexibility Act analysis prepared by the New England Fishery Management
Council and NMFS in support of this action are available from John K.
Bullard, Regional Administrator, NMFS Greater Atlantic Regional
Fisheries Office, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. The
supporting documents are also accessible via the Internet at: https://www.nefmc.org/management-plans/northeast-multispecies or https://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/sustainable/species/multispecies.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sarah Heil, Fishery Policy Analyst,
phone: 978-281-9257; email: Sarah.Heil@noaa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

1. Summary of Approved Measures
2. Status Determination Criteria
3. Fishing Year 2015 Shared U.S./Canada Quotas
4. Fishing Years 2015-2017 Catch Limits
5. Gulf of Maine Cod Protection Measures
6. Default Catch Limits
7. Sector Carryover
8. Fishing Year 2015 Common Pool Management Measures
9. Fishing Year 2015 Northern Windowpane Flounder Accountability
Measure
10. Daily Catch Reporting for Commercial Groundfish Vessels
11. Regulatory Corrections Under Regional Administrator Authority

1. Summary of Approved Measures

This final rule approves and implements measures in Framework
Adjustment 53 to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan
(FMP), and removes all measures that we previously implemented in the
2014 interim action for Gulf of Maine (GOM) cod. The New England
Fishery Management Council developed Framework 53 primarily in response
to new stock assessments that were conducted in 2014 for a number of
groundfish stocks. The new measures implemented by this final rule
include:
Revised status determination criteria for several
groundfish stocks;
Fishing year 2015 shared U.S./Canada quotas for
transboundary Georges Bank (GB) stocks;
Fishing years 2015-2017 catch limits for several
groundfish stocks;
GOM cod protection closures and possession restrictions;
A mechanism to set default catch limits in the event a
future management action is delayed; and
A provision that allows groundfish sectors to carry over
unused quota in response to a recent court ruling.
This action also implements a number of other measures that are not
part of Framework 53, but that were considered under our authority
specified in the FMP. We are including these measures in conjunction
with the Framework 53 approved measures for expediency purposes. The
additional measures implemented in this rule are listed below.
Management measures for the common pool fishery--this
action implements initial fishing year 2015 trip limits for the common
pool fishery. We have the authority to set management measures for the
common pool fishery that will help ensure that the fishery achieves,
but does not exceed, its catch limits.
Accountability measure (AM) for northern windowpane
flounder--this action implements an AM for northern windowpane flounder
for fishing year 2015 due to an overage of the 2014 catch limit for
this stock. This AM requires sector and common pool vessels to use
selective trawl gear when fishing in certain areas on GB.
Daily catch reporting for commercial groundfish vessels--
this action implements a requirement that commercial groundfish vessels
submit a daily catch report through the Vessel Monitoring System (VMS)
when declared into the GOM broad stock area and any other broad stock
area on the same trip. Groundfish vessels must currently submit trip-
level reports. However, we have the authority to modify the frequency
of reporting, if necessary.
Other regulatory corrections--we are implementing several
revisions to the regulations to correct references, remove unnecessary
text, and make other minor edits. Each correction is described in the
section ``11. Regulatory Corrections Under Regional Administrator
Authority.''

2. Status Determination Criteria

The Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) conducted stock
assessments in 2014 for GOM cod, GOM haddock, GOM winter flounder, GB
yellowtail flounder, GB winter flounder, and pollock. To incorporate
the results of these assessments, this action changes the status
determination for GB yellowtail flounder to unknown and updates the
numerical estimates of the status determination criteria for the
remaining stocks. Table 1 provides the updated numerical estimates of
the status determination criteria, and Table 2 summarizes changes in
stock status based on the new stock assessments conducted in 2014.
Although status determination relative to reference points is
unknown for GB yellowtail flounder, the best scientific information
available

[[Page 25111]]

indicates that stock status is poor. The changes to the status
determination criteria implemented in this action do not affect the
rebuilding plan for this stock, which has an end date of 2032. Although
biomass estimates are not currently available, to ensure that
rebuilding progress is made, catch limits will continue to be set at
levels at which the Transboundary Resources Assessment Committee and
the Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) determine will
prevent overfishing. Additionally, at whatever point the stock
assessment for GB yellowtail flounder can provide numerical estimates
of status determination criteria, those estimates will be used to
evaluate progress towards the existing rebuilding targets.

Table 1--Numerical Estimates of Status Determination Criteria
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biomass target
Stock SSBMSY or proxy Maximum fishing mortality MSY (mt)
(mt) threshold (FMSY or proxy)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GOM Cod:
M=0.2 Model............................ 47,184 0.18......................... 7,753
Mramp Model............................ 69,621 0.18......................... 11,388
GOM Haddock................................ 4,108 0.46......................... 955
GOM Winter Flounder........................ n/a 0.23 exploitation rate....... n/a
GB Yellowtail Flounder..................... n/a n/a.......................... n/a
GB Winter Flounder......................... 8,100 0.44......................... 3,200
Pollock.................................... 76,900 0.42 (equivalent to F5 7 = 14,800
0.27).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SSB = Spawning Stock Biomass; MSY = Maximum Sustainable Yield; F = Fishing Mortality; M = Natural Mortality
Note. An explanation of the two assessment models for GOM cod is provided in the section ``4. Fishing Years 2015-
2017 Catch Limits.''

Table 2--Summary of Changes to Stock Status
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous assessment 2014 assessment
Stock --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overfishing? Overfished? Overfishing? Overfished?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GOM Cod........................ Yes................ Yes............... Yes............... Yes
GOM Haddock.................... Yes................ No \1\............ No................ No
GOM Winter Flounder............ No................. Unknown........... No................ Unknown
GB Yellowtail Flounder......... Yes................ Yes............... Unknown........... Unknown
GB Winter Flounder............. No................. No................ No................ No
Pollock........................ No................. No................ No................ No
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Stock was approaching an overfished condition

3. Fishing Year 2015 U.S./Canada Quotas

As described in the proposed rule, eastern GB cod, eastern GB
haddock, and GB yellowtail flounder are jointly managed with Canada
under the U.S./Canada Resource Sharing Understanding. This action
adopts shared U.S./Canada quotas for these stocks for fishing year 2015
based on 2014 assessments and the recommendations of the Transboundary
Management Guidance Committee (TMGC) (Table 3). For a more detailed
discussion of the TMGC's 2015 catch advice, see the TMGC's guidance
document at: https://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/sustainable/species/multispecies/.

Table 3--Fishing Year 2015 U.S./Canada Quotas (mt, Live Weight) and Percent of Quota Allocated to Each Country
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quota Eastern GB Cod Eastern GB Haddock GB Yellowtail Flounder
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Shared Quota................. 650..................... 37,000.................. 354
U.S. Quota......................... 124 (19%)............... 17,760 (48%)............ 248 (70%)
Canada Quota....................... 526 (81%)............... 19,240 (52%)............ 106 (30%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The regulations implementing the U.S./Canada Resource Sharing
Understanding require that any overages of the U.S. quota for eastern
GB cod, eastern GB haddock, or GB yellowtail flounder be deducted from
the U.S. quota in the following fishing year. If fishing year 2014
catch information indicates that the U.S. fishery exceeded its quota
for any of the shared stocks, we must reduce the respective U.S. quota
for fishing year 2015 in a future management action, as close to May 1,
2015, as possible. If any fishery that is allocated a portion of the
U.S. quota exceeds its allocation, and causes an overage of the overall
U.S. quota, the overage reduction would only be applied to that
fishery's allocation in the following fishing year. This ensures that
catch by one component of the fishery does not negatively affect
another component of the fishery.

4. Fishing Years 2015-2017 Catch Limits

This action adopts fishing years 2015-2017 catch limits for GOM
cod, GOM haddock, GOM winter flounder, GB winter flounder, GB
yellowtail flounder (2015-2016 only), and pollock based on the 2014
assessments for these stocks. In addition, this action updates the 2015
catch limits for GB cod and GB haddock based on the U.S./Canada quotas
for the

[[Page 25112]]

portions of these stocks jointly managed with Canada. For all other
stocks, the overall catch limits included in this rule are the same as
those previously adopted in the final rules implementing Framework 50
and Framework 51 to the FMP, although small changes have been made to
the distribution of these catch limits to the various components of the
fishery. The catch limits implemented in this action, including
overfishing limits (OFLs), acceptable biological catches (ABCs), and
annual catch limits (ACLs), can be found in Tables 4 through 12. A
summary of how these catch limits were developed, including the
distribution to the various fishery components, was provided in the
proposed rule. Additional information on the development of these catch
limits is also provided in the Framework 53 Environmental Assessment
and its supporting appendices.
The sector and common pool catch limits implemented in this action
are based on potential sector contributions (PSCs) for fishing year
2015 and fishing year 2014 sector rosters. 2015 sector rosters will not
be finalized until May 1, 2015, because individual permit holders have
until the end of the 2014 fishing year (April 30, 2015) to drop out of
a sector and fish in the common pool fishery for 2015. Therefore, it is
possible that the sector and common pool catch limits in this action
may change due to changes in the sector rosters. If changes to the
sector rosters occur, updated catch limits will be announced as soon as
possible in the 2015 fishing year to reflect the final sector rosters
as of May 1, 2015. Sector specific allocations for each stock can be
found in the final rule for 2015-2016 Sector Operations Plans and
Contracts.
There are no catch limits adopted for fishing years 2016 or 2017
for most groundfish stocks. Stock assessment updates for all groundfish
stocks are scheduled for September 2015, and, based on these assessment
updates, catch limits will be set in a future action for fishing years
2016-2018. Given the timing of the stock assessments, the management
action for the 2016 fishing year is not expected to be completed by the
start of the fishing year. As a result, this action adopts default
catch limits that would be implemented on May 1, 2016, to prevent
disruption to the fishery (see the section ``6. Default Catch
Limits'').

Table 4--Fishing Years 2015-2017 Overfishing Limits and Acceptable Biological Catches
[mt, live weight]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2015 2016 2017
Stock -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OFL U.S. ABC OFL U.S. ABC OFL U.S. ABC
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GB Cod.................................................. 4,191 1,980 .............. .............. .............. ..............
GOM Cod................................................. 514 386 514 386 514 386
GB Haddock.............................................. 56,293 24,366 .............. .............. .............. ..............
GOM Haddock............................................. 1,871 1,454 2,270 1,772 2,707 2,125
GB Yellowtail Flounder.................................. .............. 248 .............. 354 .............. ..............
SNE/MA Yellowtail Flounder.............................. 1,056 700 .............. .............. .............. ..............
CC/GOM Yellowtail Flounder.............................. 1,194 548 .............. .............. .............. ..............
American Plaice......................................... 2,021 1,544 .............. .............. .............. ..............
Witch Flounder.......................................... 1,846 783 .............. .............. .............. ..............
GB Winter Flounder...................................... 3,242 2,010 3,383 2,107 3,511 2,180
GOM Winter Flounder..................................... 688 510 688 510 688 510
SNE/MA Winter Flounder.................................. 4,439 1,676 .............. .............. .............. ..............
Redfish................................................. 16,845 11,974 .............. .............. .............. ..............
White Hake.............................................. 6,237 4,713 6,314 4,645 .............. ..............
Pollock................................................. 21,538 16,600 21,864 16,600 24,598 16,600
N. Windowpane Flounder.................................. 202 151 .............. .............. .............. ..............
S. Windowpane Flounder.................................. 730 548 .............. .............. .............. ..............
Ocean Pout.............................................. 313 235 .............. .............. .............. ..............
Atlantic Halibut........................................ 198 100 .............. .............. .............. ..............
Atlantic Wolffish....................................... 94 70 .............. .............. .............. ..............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SNE/MA = Southern New England/Mid-Atlantic; CC = Cape Cod; N = Northern; S = Southern.
Note: An empty cell indicates no OFL/ABC is adopted for that year. These catch limits will be set in a future action.

Gulf of Maine Cod

A detailed summary of the GOM cod stock assessment, and the
development of catch limits for the 2015-2017 fishing years, was
provided in the proposed rule to this action, and is not repeated here.
In the proposed rule, we made a preliminary determination that an ABC
of 386 mt would meet necessary conservation objectives, but requested
additional comment on some aspects of this ABC. We received a number of
comments in response to this request, including additional catch
projections to better illustrate the potential biological impacts of
various catch scenarios. After considering public comment, supporting
analysis, and the best scientific information available, we have
determined that an ABC of 386 mt is appropriate and consistent with the
requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) and the National Standards. As
described below, this ABC balances other Magnuson-Stevens Act
objectives, including achieving optimum yield and taking into account
the needs of fishing communities, without compromising conservation
objectives to prevent overfishing and rebuild the stock. In light of
current stock conditions, this ABC is a 75-percent reduction compared
to 2014, which is in addition to the 80-percent reduction implemented
for fishing years 2013-2014. In total, the GOM cod catch limit has been
reduced by 95 percent over the last 5 years.
We are approving an ABC of 386 mt with the expectation that the
catch limits implemented in this final rule will be reviewed following
the September 2015 assessment for GOM cod. This assessment is intended
to be incorporated for fishing year 2016. Fishing years 2016-2018 catch
limits for GOM cod would be set based on the September 2015 assessment,
and would replace the 2016-2017 catch limits adopted in this final
rule. Uncertainties in catch projections can be exacerbated if 3-year
specifications are set and

[[Page 25113]]

remain unchecked without additional stock assessment information.
However, in this case, we determined that concerns for past
performance, and the risk of erring in setting the ABC, are largely
mitigated given the pending 2015 assessment. Therefore, our approval of
the GOM cod ABC is, effectively, only approval for the first year of
the remaining rebuilding time period.
As described more fully in the proposed rule, the SSC initially
recommended an OFL of 514 mt and a provisional ABC of 200 mt for
fishing years 2015-2017 based on catch scenarios that the Council's
Groundfish Plan Development Team (PDT) presented. One provision of the
ABC control rule in the FMP specifies that catch limits be based on 75
percent of FMSY or Frebuild, whichever is lower.
As part of the 2014 assessment, catch projections were updated, and
Frebuild was calculated as the constant F required to
rebuild the stock by 2024. The SSC's provisional ABC recommendation of
200 mt was the midpoint between the Frebuild catch for the
scenario in which natural mortality is 0.2 and the scenario in which
natural mortality increases, but returns to 0.2. This provisional ABC
did not incorporate the projection that assumes natural mortality
remains at 0.4, and that suggests rebuilding is not possible. As a
result, the SSC determined that this provisional ABC was not consistent
with its OFL recommendation, which was developed by averaging the 2015
FMSY catches from all three catch projections.
Following discussion about the rebuilding potential of GOM cod, and
the catch projection that indicates rebuilding is not possible, the SSC
requested that the PDT provide analysis of the incidental catch of GOM
cod. This request was in recognition of the ABC control rule that
specifies that, if a stock cannot rebuild in the specified rebuilding
period, even with no fishing, the ABC should be based on incidental
bycatch, including a reduction in the bycatch rate. Based on analysis
presented by the PDT, the SSC determined that the overall incidental
catch of GOM cod was approximately 500-600 mt for the 2013 fishing year
under the current operating conditions of the fishery. After
consideration of this information, and examination of the available
assessment information, the SSC recommended an ABC of 386 mt, which was
calculated by taking 75 percent of the OFL. This recommendation was an
attempt to balance the various natural mortality scenarios and catch
projections from the two assessment models with the various provisions
of the ABC control rule. Similar to our conditional approval of the
ABC, the SSC noted that it expected to revisit its catch advice for
fishing years 2016-2017 following the 2015 assessment update.
The PDT updated the catch projections following the SSC's final ABC
recommendation. These projections, along with the biological impacts
analysis, indicate that an ABC of 386 mt has a 6- to 33-percent
probability of overfishing in fishing year 2015. Although recognizing
that catch projections can be optimistic, these probabilities are well
below the median, and indicate that the ABC is sufficiently below the
OFL to prevent overfishing. Further, for the two projection scenarios
that indicate that rebuilding can occur, an ABC of 386 mt for fishing
years 2015-2017 would still rebuild the stock by 2024. All of the
available catch projections indicate that an ABC of 386 mt would result
in a fishing mortality rate of 0.13-0.11, which would be the lowest
fishing mortality rate in the assessment time series. This estimated
fishing mortality rate would be an 80-percent reduction from the
estimated 2014 fishing mortality rate, and a 90-percent reduction from
the fishing mortality rate estimated for 2013.
The catch projections that the PDT completed for the biological
impacts analysis indicate that rebuilding could still occur under a
386-mt ABC for the 2015-2017 fishing years. However, since we published
the proposed rule, we further examined various catch projection
scenarios to better understand the trade-offs associated with an ABC of
386 mt. Based on this evaluation, a catch of 386 mt in fishing year
2015 is expected to have little functional difference in future catches
and biomass compared to the 200-mt option that the SSC initially
considered, but did not recommend. This is, in part, because catches
would be lower under the 386-mt scenario in the out years of the
rebuilding period compared to those needed under a catch of 200 mt.
Considering this, we determined that an ABC of 386 mt would meet
conservation objectives, and allow rebuilding to occur by 2024, while
still trying to balance the need to achieve optimum yield for the
groundfish fishery, as well as mitigate the economic impacts of the GOM
cod catch limit, to the extent practicable.
An ABC of 386 mt is expected to have substantial economic impacts
on groundfish vessels, which are summarized later in this preamble.
These impacts are expected to be disproportionately distributed among
the groundfish fleet. The largest revenue reductions are expected for
small vessels less than 50 ft (15 m), and those fishing from
Gloucester, MA, and New Hampshire ports. The economic impacts of the
GOM cod ABC implemented in this final rule are expected to be
substantially greater than previous catch limit reductions for GOM cod
and other groundfish stocks.
Based on incidental catch information compiled by the PDT, an ABC
of 386 mt is below the estimate of incidental catch of GOM cod that
occurred in fishing year 2013. Incidental catch is largely a function
of the overall ACL given the AMs in place for groundfish vessels.
However, this information is illustrative of potential fishery
operations under an ABC of 386 mt, which are expected to be greatly
restricted, and in some cases eliminated.
In fishing year 2013, when the ACL was reduced by 80 percent,
incidental catch was estimated to be approximately 500-600 mt.
Beginning in fishing year 2013, sectors primarily used their GOM cod
allocation to access other groundfish stocks. Multiple sources of
information indicate a marked decline in directed fishing for GOM cod.
With an additional 75-percent reduction beginning in fishing year 2015,
the incentive to target GOM cod is virtually eliminated, and the
fishery will be, in effect, a ``bycatch-only'' fishery. The average GOM
cod allocation for a sector will be 23,000 lb (10,433 kg), and many
sectors will receive allocations less than 10,000 lb (4,536 kg). In
addition, the recreational fishery will be prohibited from possessing
GOM cod. Even under this incidental catch scenario, the GOM cod ABC is
expected to severely restrict catch of other groundfish stocks,
particularly GOM haddock, pollock, redfish, and some flatfish.
We remain concerned about GOM cod stock status, and will continue
to carefully consider management measures for this stock. The ABC we
are implementing in this action is a complex balance between
conservation objectives and other Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements. In
an effort to closely monitor stock indicators, we reviewed the recent
fall 2014 NEFSC bottom trawl survey indices. The fall survey indicated
a small increase compared to 2012 and 2013; however, the general trend
of survey indices, as well as recruitment, remains very low. While the
updated survey information may provide an initial, and potentially
positive, indication of improvement, it is difficult to anticipate the
results of the full 2015 assessment. We will continue to carefully
monitor stock indicators leading into the 2015

[[Page 25114]]

assessment to fully inform our re-evaluation of the GOM cod catch
limit, and the balancing of conservation and management objectives.
Further, one concern we raised during the development of Framework
53, and in the proposed rule, is the importance of controlling fishing
mortality to help ensure that conservation objectives are met.
Available analyses suggest that an extremely low catch limit for GOM
cod may create an economic incentive to misreport catch, and, if this
occurs, could reduce the accuracy of catch apportionment. Information
indicates that this incentive increases as the GOM cod catch limit is
further reduced. To help ensure correct catch apportionment and
compliance with the GOM cod ACL adopted in this action, we are also
implementing an additional reporting requirement for common pool and
sector vessels fishing in multiple broad stock areas on the same trip.
This additional reporting requirement is described in the section ``10.
Daily Catch Reporting for Commercial Groundfish Vessels.''

Table 5--Fishing Year 2015 Catch Limits
[mt, live weight]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Midwater State
Stock Total ACL groundfish Preliminary Preliminary Recreational trawl Scallop Small-mesh waters sub- Other sub-
fishery sector common pool fishery fishery fishery fisheries component component
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GB Cod....................................................... 1,886 1,787 1,753 34 ............ ........... ........... ........... 20 79
GOM Cod...................................................... 366 328 202 5 121 ........... ........... ........... 26 13
GB Haddock................................................... 23,204 21,759 21,603 156 ............ 227 ........... ........... 244 975
GOM Haddock.................................................. 1,375 1,329 949 9 372 14 ........... ........... 11 21
GB Yellowtail Flounder....................................... 240 195 192 3 ............ ........... 38 5 na 2
SNE/MA Yellowtail Flounder................................... 666 557 457 102 ............ ........... 66 ........... 14 28
CC/GOM Yellowtail Flounder................................... 524 458 442 16 ............ ........... ........... ........... 38 27
American Plaice.............................................. 1,470 1,408 1,381 27 ............ ........... ........... ........... 31 31
Witch Flounder............................................... 751 610 598 12 ............ ........... ........... ........... 23 117
GB Winter Flounder........................................... 1,952 1,891 1,876 15 ............ ........... ........... ........... na 60
GOM Winter Flounder.......................................... 489 392 375 18 ............ ........... ........... ........... 87 10
SNE/MA Winter Flounder....................................... 1,607 1,306 1,149 157 ............ ........... ........... ........... 117 184
Redfish...................................................... 11,393 11,034 10,974 60 ............ ........... ........... ........... 120 239
White Hake................................................... 4,484 4,343 4,311 32 ............ ........... ........... ........... 47 94
Pollock...................................................... 15,878 13,720 13,628 92 ............ ........... ........... ........... 996 1,162
N. Windowpane Flounder....................................... 144 98 na 98 ............ ........... ........... ........... 2 44
S. Windowpane Flounder....................................... 527 102 na 102 ............ ........... 183 ........... 55 186
Ocean Pout................................................... 220 195 na 195 ............ ........... ........... ........... 2 24
Atlantic Halibut............................................. 97 64 na 64 ............ ........... ........... ........... 30 3
Atlantic Wolffish............................................ 65 62 na 62 ............ ........... ........... ........... 1 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 6--Fishing Year 2016 Catch Limits
[mt, live weight]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Midwater State
Stock Total ACL groundfish Preliminary Preliminary Recreational trawl Scallop Small-mesh waters sub- Other sub-
fishery sector common pool fishery fishery fishery fisheries component component
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GOM Cod...................................................... 366 328 202 5 121 ........... ........... ........... 26 13
GOM Haddock.................................................. 1,675 1,620 1,155 12 453 16 ........... ........... 13 26
GB Yellowtail Flounder....................................... 343 278 274 4 ............ ........... 55 7 na 4
GB Winter Flounder........................................... 2,046 1,982 1,967 15 ............ ........... ........... ........... na 63
GOM Winter Flounder.......................................... 489 392 375 18 ............ ........... ........... ........... 87 10
White Hake................................................... 4,420 4,280 4,249 31 ............ ........... ........... ........... 46 93
Pollock...................................................... 15,878 13,720 13,628 92 ............ ........... ........... ........... 996 1,162
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 7--Fishing Year 2017 Catch Limits
[mt, live weight]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Midwater State
Stock Total ACL groundfish Preliminary Preliminary Recreational trawl waters sub- Other sub-
fishery sector common pool fishery fishery component component
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GOM Cod........................................ 366 328 202 5 121 ........... 26 13
GOM Haddock.................................... 2,009 1,943 1,386 14 543 20 15 31
GB Winter Flounder............................. 2,117 2,051 2,035 16 ............ ........... na 65
GOM Winter Flounder............................ 489 392 375 18 ............ ........... 87 10

[[Page 25115]]

Pollock........................................ 15,878 13,720 13,628 92 ............ ........... 996 1,162
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 8--Fishing Years 2015-2017 Common Pool Trimester Total Allowable Catches
[mt, live weight]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2015 2016 2017
Stock --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trimester 1 Trimester 2 Trimester 3 Trimester 1 Trimester 2 Trimester 3 Trimester 1 Trimester 2 Trimester 3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GB Cod............................. 8.6 12.7 13.1 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
GOM Cod............................ 1.3 1.7 1.8 1.3 1.7 1.8 1.3 1.7 1.8
GB Haddock......................... 42.0 51.3 62.2 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
GOM Haddock........................ 2.56 2.47 4.46 3.1 3.0 5.4 3.7 3.6 6.5
GB Yellowtail Flounder............. 0.6 0.9 1.6 0.9 1.4 2.3 ........... ........... ...........
SNE/MA Yellowtail Flounder......... 21.4 37.7 42.8 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
CC/GOM Yellowtail Flounder......... 5.5 5.5 4.7 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
American Plaice.................... 6.6 9.9 11.0 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
Witch Flounder..................... 3.4 3.8 5.2 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
GB Winter Flounder................. 1.2 3.5 10.1 1.2 3.7 10.5 1.3 3.8 10.9
GOM Winter Flounder................ 6.5 6.6 4.4 6.5 6.6 4.4 6.5 6.6 4.4
Redfish............................ 14.9 18.5 26.2 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
White Hake......................... 12.0 9.8 9.8 11.9 9.7 9.7 ........... ........... ...........
Pollock............................ 25.7 32.1 33.9 25.7 32.1 33.9 25.7 32.1 33.9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note. An empty cell indicates that no catch limit has been set yet for the stock. These catch limits will be set in a future management action.

Table 9--Fishing Years 2015-2016 Common Pool Incidental Total Allowable Catches
[mt, live weight]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of
Stock common pool 2015 2016
sub-ACL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GB Cod.......................................................... 2 0.69 na
GOM Cod......................................................... 1 0.05 0.05
GB Yellowtail Flounder.......................................... 2 0.06 0.09
CC/GOM Yellowtail Flounder...................................... 1 0.16 na
American Plaice................................................. 5 1.37 na
Witch Flounder.................................................. 5 0.62 na
SNE/MA Winter Flounder.......................................... 1 1.57 na
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 10--Percent of Incidental Total Allowable Catch Allocated to Each Special Management Program
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Closed Area I Eastern U.S./
Stock Regular B Days- hook gear Canada Haddock
at-Sea program Haddock SAP SAP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GB Cod.......................................................... 50 16 34
GOM Cod......................................................... 100 .............. ..............
GB Yellowtail Flounder.......................................... 50 .............. 50
CC/GOM Yellowtail Flounder...................................... 100 .............. ..............
American Plaice................................................. 100 .............. ..............
Witch Flounder.................................................. 100 .............. ..............
SNE/MA Winter Flounder.......................................... 100 .............. ..............
White Hake...................................................... 100 .............. ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SAP = Special Access Program.

Table 11--Fishing Years 2015-2016 Common Pool Incidental Total Allowable Catches for Each Special Management Program
[mt, live weight]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regular B Days-at-Sea program Closed Area I hook gear Eastern U.S./Canada Haddock
-------------------------------- Haddock SAP SAP
Stock ---------------------------------------------------------------
2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GB Cod.................................................. 0.34 na 0.11 na 0.23 na
GOM Cod................................................. 0.05 0.05 .............. .............. .............. ..............

[[Page 25116]]

GB Yellowtail Flounder.................................. 0.03 0.05 .............. .............. 0.03 0.05
CC/GOM Yellowtail Flounder.............................. 0.16 na .............. .............. .............. ..............
American Plaice......................................... 1.37 na .............. .............. .............. ..............
Witch Flounder.......................................... 0.62 na .............. .............. .............. ..............
SNE/MA Winter Flounder.................................. 1.57 na .............. .............. .............. ..............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 12--Fishing Year 2015 Closed Area I Hook Gear Haddock Special Access Program Total Allowable Catch
[mt, live weight]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Western GB Western GB Total allowable
Exploitable biomass B2015\1\ BYear/B2004 catch
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
169,027...................................................... 59,159 2.166 2,448
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The western GB exploitable biomass is assumed to be 35 percent of the total exploitable biomass.

5. Gulf of Maine Cod Protection Measures

This action re-configures the GOM rolling closures and prohibits
possession of GOM cod for the recreational fishery. The GOM cod
protection closures implemented in this final rule are summarized in
Table 13 and Figure 1. These closures apply to all federally permitted
commercial vessels, except for commercial vessels that are fishing with
exempted gear or in an exempted fishery. Additionally, these closures
do not apply to commercial vessels that are fishing exclusively in
state waters provided the vessel does not have a Federal multispecies
permit. As adopted in Amendment 16 to the FMP, sector vessels are
exempt from the closures in March and October. The March and October
closures also do not apply to Handgear A vessels, regardless of whether
the vessel was fishing in the common pool or in a sector.
Exempted gear, as defined in Sec. 648.2, is deemed to be not
capable of catching groundfish and currently includes: Pelagic hook and
line; pelagic longline; spears; rakes; diving gear; cast nets; tongs;
harpoons; weirs; dipnets; stop nets; pound nets; pelagic gillnets; pots
and traps; shrimp trawls (with a properly configured grate); and
surfclam and ocean quahog dredges. Based on the current list of
approved exempted fisheries defined in Sec. 648.80, the GOM cod
protection closures do not apply to vessels fishing in the Midwater
Trawl Gear Exempted Fishery, the Purse Seine Gear Exempted Fishery, the
Raised Footrope Trawl Exempted Whiting Fishery, the Small Mesh Area 2
Exemption Area, or the Scallop Dredge Exemption Area. Only the exempted
fisheries that overlap in time and area with the cod protection
closures are listed here. This list may change if any changes are made
to exempted fisheries, or the protection closures, in a future action.

Table 13--Gulf of Maine Cod Protection Closures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area Closures (30 minute
Month square)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
May.................................... All Vessels: 125 north of
42[deg]20' N. lat., 132, 133,
138, 139, 140.
June................................... All Vessels: 125 north of
42[deg]20' N. lat., 132, 139,
140, 146, 147.
July................................... None.
August................................. None.
September.............................. None.
October................................ Non-Sector Vessels: 124, 125.
November............................... All Vessels: Portion of 124,
125.
December............................... All Vessels: Portion of 124,
125.
January................................ All Vessels: Portion of 124,
125.
February............................... None.
March.................................. Non-Sector Vessels: 121, 122,
123.
April.................................. None.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Handgear A vessels are exempt from the same closures as sector
vessels.

The GOM cod closures are intended to protect spawning GOM cod,
reduce fishing mortality on GOM cod, and provide additional fishing
opportunities for groundfish vessels to target healthy groundfish
stocks in areas that were previously closed. These closures are subject
to review when the GOM cod spawning stock biomass reaches the minimum
biomass threshold (50 percent of SSBMSY). However, as we
noted in the proposed rule, the Council could review and modify these
closures at any time. Given the pending 2015 assessment, and additional
spawning research, reviewing these protection closures as new
information becomes available is likely more important than waiting for
the minimum biomass threshold to be met. We also highlight a number of
concerns below for April, and the Council could consider changes to GOM
area closures in light of these concerns. Additionally, as we described
in the proposed rule, given the extremely low GOM cod allocation, it is
difficult to predict how groundfish vessels will operate in 2015, and
we expect the number of active groundfish vessels could markedly
decline. We intend to monitor fishing effort following the
implementation of management measures for the 2015 fishing year to
ensure that any effort changes do not undermine the effectiveness of
the protection closures.
The protection closures are an additional tool the Council is using
to protect GOM cod, and are complementary to its requirement for
setting catch limits that will prevent overfishing and help rebuild the
stock. Based on the available information, protecting spawning GOM cod
could help improve the chances of successful spawning events, and, as a
result, help prevent failures of future year classes. Thus, the
biological objective of these closures is to help prevent further
biomass declines and improve the

[[Page 25117]]

likelihood of rebuilding GOM cod. In light of the low GOM cod catch
limit, the protection closures were also designed to balance these
biological objectives with access to healthy groundfish stocks.
We highlighted some concerns in the proposed rule for the re-
configuration of the GOM area closures. There are biological and
economic trade-offs associated with the new closures, and we considered
these trade-offs carefully. Available information suggests that once a
specific spawning aggregation is lost, there is little indication that
the aggregation could recover. As a result, we determined that the
addition of winter closures is important because there are currently no
protections for the winter spawning component. If the removal of April
closures was recommended in isolation, with no additional spring or
winter closures, we likely would have disapproved this measure. We
determined, however, that the closed area recommendations for the
winter and April time periods were presented as a package reflecting
the Council's balancing of conservation benefits and impacts on the
fishing industry, and, as such, could not be approved or disapproved
independent of each other without undermining the Council's intent.
With the approval of the new area closures for GOM cod, we
reiterate our concerns for the potential of the April opening to have
negative impacts on other groundfish stocks that spawn in the spring. A
number of these stocks are in poor condition (e.g., GOM winter
flounder, CC/GOM yellowtail flounder), and, for plaice, the second 10-
year rebuilding program was implemented in 2014 due to inadequate
rebuilding progress. As we noted previously in this rule, we also
remain concerned about GOM cod given its poor condition. The protection
closures implemented in this final rule are closely related to measures
under consideration in the Council's Habitat Omnibus Amendment 2. We
will continue to work with the Council to help ensure the goals and
objectives of that Amendment are met.
Recreational vessels are not subject to the GOM cod protection
closures and could continue to fish in these areas. Federally permitted
party and charter vessels are still required to obtain a letter of
authorization to fish in the GOM closed areas. In lieu of the
protection closures, this action adopts a prohibition on possession of
GOM cod for all private recreational vessels fishing in Federal waters,
and all federally permitted party and charter vessels. This is intended
to reduce recreational fishing mortality on GOM cod, by reducing the
incentive to target the stock, while still providing recreational
vessels the opportunity to target other healthy groundfish stocks.
Recent catch projections indicated that the recreational fishery would
still exceed its allocation for GOM cod in the 2015 fishing year, due
to bycatch, even with the prohibition on possession that is implemented
in this action. Therefore, in a separate rulemaking, we are adopting
additional recreational measures under our discretionary authority to
help ensure the recreational fishery does not exceed its allocation for
the 2015 fishing year.
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P

[[Page 25118]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01MY15.005

BILLING CODE 3510-22-C

6. Default Catch Limits

Mechanism for Setting Default Catch Limits

This action establishes a mechanism for setting default catch
limits in the event a future management action is delayed. If final
catch limits have not been implemented by the start of a fishing year
on May 1, then default catch limits will be set at 35 percent of the
previous year's catch limit. If this value exceeds the Council's
recommendation for the upcoming fishing year, the default catch limits
will be reduced to an amount equal to the Council's recommendation for
the upcoming fishing year. Because groundfish vessels are not able to
fish if final catch limits have not been implemented, this measure is
intended to prevent disruption to the groundfish fishery if final catch
limits are not in place by May 1.
Each time a specifications action is implemented, we intend to also
announce the default catch limits that would go into place for the out
year in the event a future management action is delayed. Once the
Council's recommendation is known for that year, we will determine if
any of the default catch limits previously set would exceed the
Council's recommendation. If so, we will reduce the default catch
limits consistent with the Council's recommendation, and will announce
this adjustment prior to the start of the fishing year on May 1. For
example, if a framework action sets catch limits for the 2016-2018
fishing year, we would

[[Page 25119]]

announce the default catch limits for fishing year 2019 in the same
final rule implementing the final 2016-2018 catch limits. If necessary,
prior to the start of the 2019 fishing year, we will evaluate whether
any of the default catch limits previously announced exceed the
Council's recommendation for 2019. If so, we would announce adjustments
to the 2019 default catch limits prior to May 1, 2019.
The default catch limits would be in place from May 1 through July
31, unless a final rule including finalized catch limits is implemented
prior to July 31 that replaces the default catch limits. If final catch
limits are not implemented by the end of the default specifications
period, then no catch limits would be in place beginning on August 1.
Under this scenario, commercial groundfish vessels would be unable to
fish until final catch limits and allocations were implemented for the
fishing year. All catch occurring while default catch limits are in
place will be attributed to the appropriate fishery allocation and the
final catch limits for the fishing year.
The default catch limits will be distributed to the various
components of the fishery based on the distribution adopted by the
Council for the previous fishing year. Additionally, this measure does
not change any of the existing AMs for any fishery. For example, if a
sector catches its entire allocation of redfish specified for the
default specifications time period, it will be prohibited from fishing
in the redfish stock area until final specifications were set, or it
leased additional allocation for this stock. The midwater trawl fishery
is the only non-groundfish fishery with an inseason AM for its
allocation of GOM and GB haddock. When the GOM or GB haddock catch cap
specified for the default specifications period is caught, the directed
herring fishery will be closed for all herring vessels fishing with
midwater trawl gear for the remainder of the default specifications
time period, unless final specifications were set prior to July 31. For
other non-groundfish fisheries that receive an allocation (e.g.,
scallop, small-mesh), this measure will not affect current operations
because these fisheries do not currently have inseason AMs.
If default catch limits are implemented for any fishing year,
groundfish sectors will not be subject to the 20-percent holdback of
the prior year's allocation. This holdback provision was implemented in
Amendment 16 to the FMP to allow time for processing end-of-year
transfers and determine whether any overage reductions are necessary.
However, the holdback provision will not be necessary under default
catch limits because additional precaution has already been built in
with the 65-percent reduction from the previous year's catch limits.
Although most FMPs implement default catch limits that are equal to
the previous year's catch limits, a more precautionary approach was
necessary for groundfish catch limits. In recent years, there have been
a number of substantial reductions in groundfish catch limits, up to 80
percent. Given the frequency of large reductions, default catch limits
equal to the previous year's catch limits could increase the risk of
overfishing during the time period which default catch limits are
implemented. As a result, reducing the default catch limits from the
previous year's catch limits is intended to help ensure that
overfishing does not occur during the default time period.

Default Catch Limits for Fishing Year 2016

Groundfish assessment updates are anticipated in September 2015,
and these assessments are expected to be used to set catch limits for
the 2016 fishing year beginning on May 1, 2016. However, due to the
timing of these assessments, the Council's management action that will
adopt the catch limits for the 2016 fishing year is not expected to be
completed in time to be implemented by May 1, 2016. As a result, this
action sets default limits for the 2016 fishing year that will become
effective May 1, 2016, unless otherwise replaced by final
specifications (Tables 14 and 15). This action only sets default catch
limits for those groundfish stocks that would not have final
specifications in place for 2016, absent another management action. If
the default catch limits exceed the Council's recommendation for
fishing year 2016, then they will be adjusted, as necessary, prior to
May 1, 2016.

Table 14--Fishing Year 2016 Default Specifications
[mt, live weight]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Preliminary
Stock U.S. ABC Total ACL Groundfish sub- Preliminary common pool Midwater trawl
ACL sector sub-ACL sub-ACL fishery
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GB Cod.................................................. 693 660 625 614 12 ..............
GB Haddock.............................................. 8,528 8,121 7,616 7,563 53 79
SNE/MA Yellowtail Flounder.............................. 245 232 151 124 27 ..............
CC/GOM Yellowtail Flounder.............................. 192 184 161 155 5 ..............
American Plaice......................................... 540 514 492 483 9 ..............
Witch Flounder.......................................... 274 263 213 209 4 ..............
SNE/MA Winter Flounder.................................. 587 563 457 402 56 ..............
Redfish................................................. 4,191 3,988 3,862 3,846 16 ..............
N. Windowpane Flounder.................................. 53 50 35 na 35 ..............
S. Windowpane Flounder.................................. 192 184 36 na 36 ..............
Ocean Pout.............................................. 82 77 68 na 68 ..............
Atlantic Halibut........................................ 35 34 22 na 22 ..............
Atlantic Wolffish....................................... 25 23 22 na 22 ..............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 15--Fishing Year 2016 Default Common Pool Trimester Total Allowable Catches
[mt, live weight]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stock Trimester 1 Trimester 2 Trimester 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GB Cod.......................................................... 3.0 4.4 4.5
GB Haddock...................................................... 14.2 17.4 21.1
SNE/MA Yellowtail Flounder...................................... 5.7 10.1 11.5

[[Page 25120]]

CC/GOM Yellowtail Flounder...................................... 1.9 1.9 1.6
American Plaice................................................. 2.2 3.3 3.7
Witch Flounder.................................................. 1.2 1.3 1.8
Redfish......................................................... 4.0 5.0 7.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7. Sector Carryover

Currently, sectors can carry over up to 10 percent of their unused
initial allocation into the next fishing year. However, a 2013 court
ruling in Conservation Law Foundation v. Pritzker, et al. (Case No.
1:13-CV-0821-JEB) determined that available sector carryover combined
with the total ACL for the upcoming fishing year, or total potential
catch, cannot exceed the ABC. As a result, this action specifies that
the maximum available carryover may be reduced if up to 10 percent of
the unused sector sub-ACL, plus the total ACL for the upcoming fishing
year, exceeds the ABC. For example, if 10 percent of sector carryover
from the previous year plus the total ACL for the upcoming year was
expected to exceed the ABC by 50 mt, then we would reduce the available
carryover for each sector. The overall reduction of available carryover
would be equal to 50 mt, and this amount would be applied to each
sector proportional to the total PSCs of the vessels/permits enrolled
in the sector. This measure is intended to reduce the risk of catches
exceeding the ABCs that the SSC recommends.

Sector Carryover From Fishing Year 2014 to 2015

Based on the catch limits implemented in this action, we evaluated
whether the total potential catch in fishing year 2015 would exceed the
proposed ABC if sectors carried over the maximum 10 percent of unused
allocation allowed from 2014 to 2015 (Table 16). Under this scenario,
total potential catch would exceed the 2015 ABC for all groundfish
stocks, except for GOM haddock. As a result, we expect we will need to
adjust the maximum amount of unused allocation that a sector can carry
forward from 2014 to 2015 (down from 10 percent). However, it is
possible that not all sectors will have 10 percent of unused allocation
at the end of the 2014 fishing year. We will make the final adjustment
to the maximum carryover possible for each sector based on final 2014
catch for the sectors, each sector's total unused allocation, and
proportional to the cumulative PSCs of vessels/permits participating in
the sector. We will announce this adjustment as close to May 1, 2015,
as possible.
Based on the catch limits adopted in this final rule, the de
minimis carryover amount for the 2015 fishing year will be set at the
default one percent of the 2015 overall sector sub-ACL. The overall de
minimis amount will be applied to each sector based on the cumulative
PSCs of vessels/permits participating in that sector. If the overall
ACL for any allocated stock is exceeded for the 2015 fishing year, the
allowed carryover harvested by a sector, minus its specified de minimis
amount, will be counted against its allocation to determine whether an
overage, subject to an AM, occurred.

Table 16--Evaluation of Maximum Carryover Allowed From Fishing Year 2014 to 2015
[mt, live weight]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
Potential potential Difference
carryover (10% catch (2015 between total
Stock 2015 U.S. ABC 2015 Total ACL of 2014 sector total ACL + potential
sub-ACL) potential catch and ABC
carryover)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GB Cod.......................... 1,980 1,886 174 2,060 80
GOM cod......................... 386 366 81 447 61
GB Haddock...................... 24,366 23,204 1,705 24,909 543
GOM Haddock..................... 1,454 1,375 43 1,418 -36
SNE Yellowtail Flounder......... 700 666 46 712 12
CC/GOM Yellowtail Flounder...... 548 524 46 570 22
Plaice.......................... 1,544 1,470 136 1,605 61
Witch Flounder.................. 783 751 60 811 28
GB Winter Flounder.............. 2,010 1,952 336 2,287 277
GOM Winter Flounder............. 510 489 68 558 48
SNE/MA Winter Flounder.......... 1,676 1,607 106 1,714 38
Redfish......................... 11,974 11,393 1,052 12,445 471
White Hake...................... 4,713 4,484 425 4,909 196
Pollock......................... 16,600 15,878 1,314 17,192 592
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note. Carryover of GB yellowtail flounder is not allowed because this stock is jointly managed with Canada.

8. 2015 Annual Measures Under Regional Administrator Authority

The FMP gives us authority to implement certain types of management
measures for the common pool fishery, the U.S./Canada Management Area,
and Special Management Programs on an annual basis, or as needed. This
action implemented a number of these management measures for the 2015
fishing year. These measures are not part of Framework 53, and were not
specifically proposed by the Council. We are implementing them in
conjunction with Framework 53 measures in this final rule for
expediency purposes, and because they

[[Page 25121]]

relate to the catch limits proposed in Framework 53.

Common Pool Trip Limits

The initial fishing year 2015 days-at-sea (DAS) possession limits
and maximum trip limits for common pool vessels are included in Tables
17 and 18. These possession limits were developed after considering
changes to the common pool catch limits, catch rates of each stock
during 2014, and other available information. During the fishing year,
we will adjust possession and trip limits, as necessary, to prevent
common pool catch limits from being exceeded.

Table 17--Initial Fishing Year 2015 Common Pool Possession and Trip
Limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stock Possession and trip limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GB Cod (outside Eastern U.S./Canada 2,000 lb (907 kg) per DAS, up
Area). to 20,000 lb (9,072 kg) per
trip.
GB Cod (inside Eastern U.S./Canada 100 lb (45 kg) per DAS, up to
Area). 500 lb (227 kg) per trip.
GOM Cod................................ 50 lb (23 kg) per DAS, up to
200 lb (91 kg) per trip.
GB Haddock............................. 25,000 lb (11,340 kg) per trip.
GOM Haddock............................ 50 lb (23 kg) per DAS, up to
200 lb (91 kg) per trip.
GB Yellowtail Flounder................. 100 lb (45 kg) per trip.
SNE/MA Yellowtail Flounder............. 2,000 lb (907 kg) per DAS, up
to 6,000 lb (2,722 kg) per
trip.
CC/GOM Yellowtail Flounder............. 1,500 lb (680 kg) per DAS up to
3,000 lb (1,361 kg) per trip.
American plaice........................ Unlimited.
Witch Flounder......................... 1,000 lb (454 kg) per trip.
GB Winter Flounder..................... 1,000 lb (454 kg) per trip.
GOM Winter Flounder.................... 1,000 lb (454 kg) per trip.
SNE/MA Winter Flounder................. 3,000 lb (1,361 kg) per DAS, up
to 6,000 lb (2,722 kg) per
trip.
Redfish................................ Unlimited.
White hake............................. 1,500 lb (680 kg) per trip.
Pollock................................ 10,000 lb (4,536 kg) per trip.
Atlantic Halibut....................... 1 fish per trip.
Windowpane Flounder.................... Possession Prohibited.
Ocean Pout............................. Possession Prohibited.
Atlantic Wolffish...................... Possession Prohibited.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 18--Initial Fishing Year 2015 Cod Trip Limits for Handgear A,
Handgear B, and Small Vessel Category Permits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Permit/Stock Trip limit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Handgear A--GOM Cod.................... 50 lb (23 kg) per trip.
Handgear A--GB Cod..................... 300 lb (136 kg) per trip.
Handgear B--GOM Cod.................... 25 lb (11 kg) per trip.
Handgear B--GB Cod..................... 75 lb (34 kg) per trip.
Small Vessel Category.................. 300 lb (136 kg) of cod,
haddock, and yellowtail
flounder combined; maximum of
50 lb (23 kg) of GOM cod and
50 lb (23 kg) of GOM haddock
within the 300-lb (136-kg)
combined trip limit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Closed Area II Yellowtail Flounder/Haddock Special Access Program

This action allocates zero trips for common pool vessels to target
yellowtail flounder within the Closed Area II Yellowtail Flounder/
Haddock Special Access Program (SAP) for fishing year 2015. Vessels
could still fish in this SAP in 2015 to target haddock, but must fish
with a haddock separator trawl, a Ruhle trawl, or hook gear. Vessels
will not be allowed to fish in this SAP using flounder nets. This SAP
is open from August 1, 2015, through January 31, 2016.
We have the authority to determine the allocation of the total
number of trips into the Closed Area II Yellowtail Flounder/Haddock SAP
based on several criteria, including the GB yellowtail flounder catch
limit and the amount of GB yellowtail flounder caught outside of the
SAP. The FMP specifies that no trips should be allocated to the Closed
Area II Yellowtail Flounder/Haddock SAP if the available GB yellowtail
flounder catch is insufficient to support at least 150 trips with a
15,000-lb (6,804-kg) trip limit (or 2,250,000 lb (1,020,600 kg)). This
calculation accounts for the projected catch from the area outside the
SAP. Based on the proposed fishing year 2015 GB yellowtail flounder
groundfish sub-ACL of 429,240 lb (194,700 kg), there is insufficient GB
yellowtail flounder to allocate any trips to the SAP, even if the
projected catch from outside the SAP area is zero. Further, given the
low GB yellowtail flounder catch limit, catch rates outside of this SAP
are more than adequate to fully harvest the 2015 GB yellowtail flounder
allocation.

9. Fishing Year 2015 Northern Windowpane Flounder Accountability
Measure

For data reported through April 14, 2015, estimated catch of
northern windowpane flounder is 239 mt, which is 166 percent of the
total ACL (144 mt) and 118 percent of the OFL (202 mt). Of this
estimated catch, the commercial groundfish fishery has caught 156 mt,
and the scallop fishery has caught 83 mt. This catch estimate does not
include catch from any other non-groundfish fisheries because inseason
catch information is not available. However, catch from these
components is typically very low.
We are required to implement an AM for northern windowpane flounder
in the year immediately following an overage if reliable data indicate
that the total ACL has been exceeded. As a result, this final rule
implements an AM for northern windowpane flounder for

[[Page 25122]]

fishing year 2015 based on the most recent catch information for 2014.
For fishing year 2015, common pool and sector vessels fishing on a
groundfish trip with trawl gear are required to use one of the approved
selective gears when fishing in the applicable AM area (haddock
separator trawl, Ruhle trawl, or rope separator trawl). Because the
overage is more than 20 percent, the large gear restricted area is
implemented for fishing year 2015 (Figure 2). There are no restrictions
on common pool or sector vessels fishing with longline or gillnet gear.
In addition, the AM will not affect any non-groundfish vessels because
northern windowpane is not allocated to any non-groundfish fishery
(e.g., scallop fishery).
An overview of the windowpane AM can be found here: https://www.nero.noaa.gov/sfd/sfdmulti.html. As a reminder, sectors cannot
request an exemption from this AM. The AM will remain in place for the
entire 2015 fishing year, unless modified through a future action. As
long as additional overages do not occur, the AM will be removed at the
start of the 2016 fishing year, beginning on May 1, 2016.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01MY15.006

10. Daily Catch Reporting for Commercial Groundfish Vessels

In the proposed rule, we highlighted our concern that the low GOM
cod catch limit could provide a strong incentive to misreport or
underreport catch on unobserved trips. Currently, commercial groundfish
vessels that declare their intent to fish in multiple broad stock areas
are required to submit trip-level catch reports via the VMS. However,
in the proposed rule, we noted that requiring daily VMS catch reports
was one potential tool that could help address our concerns for
misreporting. After further consideration, and based on public comments
we received, we are, through this final rule, requiring vessels to
submit a daily VMS catch report on trips declared into the GOM Broad
Stock Area and any other broad stock area (i.e., offshore GB or SNE) on
the same trip. This reporting requirement is effective on May 1, 2015.
In Amendment 16 to the FMP, the Council recommended requiring daily
VMS catch reports for vessels that declare their intent to fish in
multiple broad stock areas. Amendment 16 also gave NMFS the
discretionary authority to modify this reporting requirement, as we
determined was necessary to appropriately monitor the ACLs, while also
reducing unnecessary duplication. At the time we implemented Amendment
16, we determined that only trip-level catch reports were necessary for
vessels that declared their intent to fish in multiple broad stock
areas, and we implemented this requirement beginning for the 2010
fishing year.
In light of the GOM cod catch limit, we determined that daily VMS
catch reports for trips declared into the GOM and other broad stock
areas on the same trip will help ensure more accurate apportionment of
cod catch to the GOM and GB stock areas, help enforcement efforts, and
more effectively control mortality on the GOM cod stock. We also expect
that the daily VMS catch report may promote more accurate VMS trip
declarations because only vessels with a true intent of fishing in the
GOM will declare into this area given the daily reporting requirement.
Vessels subject to the daily VMS catch report requirement are not
required to also submit a trip-level catch report. The same information
currently required for trip-level catch reports will be required for
the daily catch reports, namely a good-faith estimate of the amount of
each regulated groundfish species retained (in pounds, landed weight)
and the total amount of all species retained (in pounds, landed
weight), including groundfish species and species managed by other
FMPs, from each broad stock area. For applicable trips, daily VMS catch
reports must be submitted for each calendar day of the trip (midnight
to midnight), and must be submitted by 0900 hr of the following day.
The requirement to submit a daily VMS catch report does not apply
to vessels that declare their intent to fish in multiple broad stock
areas, but not the GOM. These vessels are still only required to submit
a trip-level catch report. For example, if a vessel declares into the
offshore GB and SNE/MA Broad Stock Areas, it would only be subject to a
trip-level report. This is intended to prevent unnecessary duplication.
Most

[[Page 25123]]

of our current concerns for catch attribution and compliance are in
light of the GOM cod catch limit, and for trips fishing in both the GOM
and GB broad stock areas. As a result, we determined that requiring a
daily VMS catch report for vessels declared into multiple areas, but
not into the GOM, was not necessary at this time.

11. Regulatory Corrections Under Regional Administrator Authority

The following changes to the regulations are being made to correct
references, inadvertent deletions, and other minor errors.
In Sec. 648.14(k)(7), the reference to the GOM Cod Spawning
Protection Area (Whaleback) is corrected. This change was overlooked in
a previous management action.
In Sec. 648.14(k)(12) and (13), the introductory text is revised
to clarify that the general restrictions listed in these paragraphs
apply to any person.
In Sec. 648.87(b)(1)(i)(C)(2), the reference to the sector AM
provision is corrected.
In Sec. 648.89(f)(1), the reference to special provisions for
recreational catch evaluation for fishing years 2010 and 2011 are
removed. These provisions are no longer relevant.
In Sec. 648.90(a)(2)(i), the reference to a special provision for
the biennial review for 2008 and 2009 is removed. This provision is no
longer relevant.
In Sec. 648.90(a)(2)(viii), a reference is corrected that was
overlooked during the implementation of a previous FMP action.
In Sec. 648.90(a)(5)(i), this rule corrects a spelling error.

Comments and Responses on Measures Proposed in the Framework 53
Proposed Rule

We received 48 comments during the comment period on the Framework
53 proposed rule. Public comments were submitted by the Council, 2
state marine fisheries agencies, 5 commercial fishing organizations, 1
groundfish sector, 7 commercial fishermen, 1 recreational fishing
organization, 24 recreational fishermen, 4 non-governmental
organizations (NGOs), and 3 individuals. We requested specific comment
on several measures proposed in Framework 53, including some aspects of
the GOM cod catch limit and the GOM cod protection measures. Responses
to the comments received are below, and, when possible, responses to
similar comments on the proposed measures have been consolidated.

Status Determination Criteria

Comment 1: Two state marine fisheries agencies supported the
revised status determination criteria.
Response: We agree, and are implementing these changes in this
final rule. The revised status determination criteria for GB yellowtail
flounder, as well as the updated numerical estimates of the status
determination criteria for other groundfish stocks, incorporate the
results of the 2014 assessments for these stocks. As a result, these
revisions are based on the best scientific information available, and
will help ensure the appropriate catch limits are set for these stocks.

Fishing Year 2015 U.S./Canada Quotas

Comment 2: One state marine fisheries agency supported the fishing
year 2015 shared U.S./Canada quotas for eastern GB cod, eastern GB
haddock, and GB yellowtail flounder.
Response: We agree, and this final rule implements these quotas for
fishing year 2015. The 2015 shared U.S./Canada quotas are based on the
results of the 2014 Transboundary Resources Assessment Committee
assessment, which represents the best scientific information available.
These quotas are also consistent with the recommendations of the TMGC
and the SSC.

Fishing Year 2015-2017 Catch Limits (Excluding Gulf of Maine Cod)

Comment 3: Two state marine fisheries agencies, one commercial
fishing organization, two recreational fishermen, and one individual
supported the fishing years 2015-2017 catch limits for groundfish
stocks. One recreational fisherman reported catching much less GOM
winter flounder in recent years.
Response: We agree, and are implementing these catch limits for
fishing years 2015-2017. These catch limits are based on the 2014
assessments for these stocks, which represent the best scientific
information available, and are consistent with the SSC's
recommendations and conservation objectives. Assessment updates are
scheduled for 2015 for all of these stocks, which will provide the
opportunity to update the catch limits implemented in this final rule
for fishing year 2016 and beyond.
The results of the 2014 assessment update for GOM winter flounder
show large declines in the survey indices in recent years. Based on the
assessment, the GOM winter flounder catch limits in this action are a
50-percent reduction compared to 2014. This appears to corroborate the
commenter's observation of catching much less GOM winter flounder in
recent years. The assessment peer review panel expressed concerns that
recent biomass estimates substantially decreased despite relatively low
catch, and reasons for this apparent decline are not known. Available
catch information indicates that the majority of GOM winter flounder
catch comes from the same statistical areas as the majority of the GOM
cod catch. As a result, the substantial reduction in the GOM cod catch
limit is expected to affect catch of GOM winter flounder.
Comment 4: One commercial fishing organization, one groundfish
sector, and one commercial fisherman opposed the catch limits for GB
winter flounder, and noted that the catch limits are overly
restrictive. The commercial fishing organization also commented that
the Council adopted a 7-year rebuilding program for GB winter flounder
with the intention of extending it to 10 years, if necessary, and that
a 7-year trajectory is unnecessarily restrictive. The groundfish sector
commented that the large reduction will have a negative economic impact
on New Bedford.
Response: We recognize that the reduction in the catch limit for GB
winter flounder may be restrictive for groundfish vessels, particularly
in light of other substantial reductions for key groundfish stocks that
have been implemented in recent years. The economic impacts analysis
for this action predicts that GB winter flounder will generate the
third most revenue of all groundfish stocks for fishing year 2015
(following GB haddock and pollock, respectively), and that the
groundfish fishery will fully utilize its available GB winter flounder
quota. Although not fully captured in the economic analysis, selective
gear requirements for northern windowpane flounder may reduce
profitability for groundfish vessels targeting GB winter flounder.
However, the catch limits are based on the 2014 assessment update for
this stock, which is the best scientific information available, and are
consistent with the SSC's recommendation.
Amendment 16 to the FMP adopted a 7-year rebuilding program for GB
winter flounder with a 75-percent probability of rebuilding by 2017.
This shorter time period and higher probability were adopted to provide
additional flexibility in the event stock rebuilding lagged behind the
planned rebuilding trajectory. However, it is unclear whether this
would be the case for GB winter flounder.

[[Page 25124]]

Based on the results of the 2014 assessment, estimated biomass for
2013 is approximately 85 percent of the biomass target. Catch
projections also indicate that the stock has a 76-percent probability
of rebuilding by 2017 if catches for the next 3 years are set based on
Frebuild. Thus, it appears this stock is on its planned
rebuilding trajectory. The SSC recommended ABCs based on
Frebuild, and did not note any reason to depart from this
approach. Further, although the GB winter flounder rebuilding program
was not considered in Framework 53, given the retrospective pattern in
the assessment, the PDT noted that the conservative rebuilding approach
(higher probability) may be appropriate given the revised lower biomass
estimates from the 2014 assessment. In any event, we can only approve
or disapprove Framework 53 measures. Because the Council did not
consider, or approve, extending the rebuilding timeframe for GB winter
flounder in Framework 53, such a change is outside the scope and
authority of this action.
Comment 5: Although supportive of the GOM haddock catch limits
included in this action, one commercial fishing organization noted
concerns that strong year classes were down-weighted in the stock
assessment, and that GB/GOM stock mixing is largely unaccounted for as
well.
Response: We acknowledge uncertainties around recent year classes,
and the possibility of mixing between the GB and GOM haddock stocks.
However, these issues were examined in the 2014 benchmark assessment
for GOM haddock. The PDT and SSC also completed a review of haddock
stock mixing, and this analysis was reviewed during the 2014
assessment. Based on the examination of these issues, the 2014
assessment appropriately accounted for year class uncertainty and
mixing, and the peer review panel concluded this was the best
scientific information available.
The results of the 2014 stock assessment for GOM haddock indicate
that the 2012 year class is strong. However, the size of this
potentially large year class was identified as the largest source of
uncertainty in the assessment, primarily because it is based on only
two surveys. The final model did constrain recruitment estimates in the
last 3 years of the time series. This type of adjustment is intended to
offset uncertainties due to the low confidence in the survey
observations that are not yet substantiated by fishery-dependent data.
Although the 2012 year class appears strong, this estimate is still
highly uncertain, and the adjustment helps prevent overly optimistic
results that could occur from anomalous survey tows. The assessment did
explore sensitivity runs that further down-weighted this year class;
however, these sensitivity runs were not used to develop the fishing
years 2015-2017 catch limits implemented in this action.
We are closely monitoring stock indicators for GOM haddock to gauge
if initial indications of a strong 2012 year class are substantiated.
The fall 2014 survey indices have increased relative to 2013, and this
is likely a function of the signal from incoming year classes. We
expect that the 2015 assessment update for GOM haddock will provide
additional information about the absolute size of the 2012 year class.
However, recent survey indices appear to support the initial
indications of a strong 2012 year class.
While it is true that the assessment model does not account for
mixing, this issue was examined during the 2014 benchmark assessment.
The assessment examined multiple sources of evidence that indicated the
annual percent mixing from GB to GOM is low (less than 0.8 percent),
but there is considerable uncertainty regarding the degree of mixing.
Both the peer review panel and the SSC noted the significant risk to
GOM haddock that could occur if the wrong mixing rate is assumed, and
ultimately concluded that additional research is needed to determine
the stock movement rates before incorporating mixing into the
assessment model.

Gulf of Maine Cod Assessment

Comment 6: Two commercial fishing organizations opposed the process
used for the 2014 assessment update. The commenters noted that the
process was not transparent, and that we only secured an ad-hoc peer
review of the assessment after it had been completed. One commercial
fishing organization noted that Framework 53 was largely intended to
address northern windowpane flounder, and that the 2014 assessment for
GOM cod disrupted this work.
Response: We acknowledge that the 2014 assessment for GOM cod was
not scheduled, and that stakeholders did not expect to receive updated
stock information. In recent years, both the Council and stakeholders
have frequently requested more timely information on stock conditions,
as well as advanced notice when we see early indications of changes in
stock condition. As a result, we have undertaken a number of efforts to
develop a more efficient process for generating information on stock
status. In 2014, after examining the most recent survey data for GOM
cod, we determined that all major indicators of stock health appeared
to have deteriorated since the 2012 assessment. Catch and age data for
2012 and 2013 were also available at the time and used to conduct the
2014 stock assessment update. The intent of undertaking the update was
part of our larger effort to provide early indications of changes in
stock conditions. Once the preliminary results of the assessment update
were clear, we shared the information with the Council, and then sought
the Council's assistance to conduct a peer review of the stock
assessment.
We recognize that recent AMs for northern windowpane flounder have
reduced yield of other groundfish stocks on GB. The Council did
consider management measures for northern windowpane flounder in
Framework 53, including an allocation of this stock for the scallop
fishery. However, the Council ultimately took no action on these
measures because, as noted in the Council's analysis, it determined
that they would not have sufficiently addressed the goal of increasing
catch accountability for individual fishery components. Further, in
lieu of any changes in Framework 53, the Council set a 2015 priority to
review windowpane flounder management, and, depending on the outcome of
that review, the Council may potentially identify revisions to the
existing management measures.
Comment 7: One commercial fisherman, two recreational fishermen,
and two commercial fishing organizations commented that, although GOM
cod biomass is low, the 2014 assessment results are too pessimistic.
These commenters noted that fishermen are reporting an increase in
relative cod catch, and that they are catching more cod in areas not
recently known for cod.
Response: Throughout the development of Framework 53, we have
continued to hear from commercial fishermen that cod catches, while
still low, have increased relative to recent years. Analysis from the
PDT shows a few signs of high cod tows in the commercial fishery.
However, available catch data indicate that catch per unit effort has
continued to decline through 2014. These data also show that the
spatial re-distribution of cod catch patterns in 2013 and 2014 were
primarily the result of a spatial shift in fishing effort. Catch
efficiency of cod is greater in the western Gulf of Maine, and, in
response to catch limit reductions in fishing year 2013, many vessels
shifted effort east as one way to

[[Page 25125]]

avoid cod. Catch data indicate that the proportion of GOM cod caught
from the western GOM declined coincident with an easterly shift in
fishing effort. Although it is difficult to distinguish trends in catch
per unit effort from declining catch limits, the available data do not
appear to support an increased availability of GOM cod. However, if
there has been a recent increase in GOM cod, we expect that this
increase would be captured in the trawl surveys, and incorporated into
subsequent assessments.
Comment 8: One NGO commented that the 2014 assessment update did
not take a precautionary approach for estimating recruitment. Another
NGO commented on the potential for GOM cod to suffer depensation
effects at such low biomass levels.
Response: We disagree that the assessment did not take a
precautionary approach for estimating recruitment. One term of
reference for the peer review panel of the 2014 assessment was to
perform short-term catch projections that accounted for recent
recruitment. The peer review panel concluded that the recruitment
protocol for the 2014 assessment update was consistent with the
approved benchmark formulation, which assumes that recruitment success
is compromised under current SSB levels. Additionally, for the 2014
assessment, age-1 recruitment was estimated using the geometric mean of
the most recent 5 years (2009-2013), as opposed to the most recent 10
years, in further recognition of the lower recruitments in recent
years. These catch projections using the 5-year geometric mean were
used as the basis for the catch advice for fishing years 2015-2017 that
we are implementing in this final rule.
During the 2014 assessment, and the development of this action,
there was some discussion on the potential for depensation given the
very low biomass for GOM cod. Depensation can be caused by several
factors, including reduced recruitment at lower SSB levels, reduced egg
production or survival when age structure of the spawning population is
truncated, or increased predation. As noted above, the catch
projections do include the potential for recruitment to be compromised
under certain SSB levels. This adjustment was intended to help account
for possible depensation effects. Additionally, the 2014 assessment
noted the potential for further declines in biomass and truncation of
age-structure to affect future recruitment success, and that catch
projections could be optimistic. These uncertainties were considered in
the development of catch advice for GOM cod and additional protection
measures that are implemented in this final rule, as described
elsewhere in this preamble, as well as corresponding measures for
sectors that are implemented in the final rule for 2015 and 2016 Sector
Operations Plans and Contracts.
Comment 9: One commercial fishing organization noted concerns that
the stock assessment does not adequately capture the specific
geographic stock components for GOM cod.
Response: The 2012 benchmark assessment for GOM cod identified
multiple topics that warranted further investigation, including cod
stock structure. Since the 2012 benchmark assessment, a workshop was
held on stock structure of cod in the GOM region, and this workshop
concluded that there are three genetic stocks. Although some workshop
participants concluded there was sufficient evidence to indicate that
the current management units should be revised, the workshop was not
able to reach any conclusions on the most appropriate management
response. Following this workshop, additional information has become
available on cod stock structure, and the Council has also set a 2015
priority to examine how stock structure may affect management.
The peer review panel for the 2014 assessment update discussed all
of the available information on cod stock structure, and noted that
this issue should be further considered in a benchmark assessment. In
providing catch advice for fishing years 2015-2017, the SSC also
reiterated the importance of continuing the evaluation of cod stock
structure, and that this work should be completed as soon as possible.
Although recognizing that there are uncertainties in any stock
assessment, we determined that the assessments relied on for this
action are the best scientific information available. Cod stock
structure, along with other topics identified for the GOM cod
assessment, will continue to be examined. However, it should be noted
that, currently, the GOM cod assessment scheduled for September 2015 is
an operational assessment, and not a benchmark assessment.

Fishing Years 2015-2017 Gulf of Maine Cod Catch Limits

Comment 10: The Council, two state marine fisheries agencies, and
three commercial fishing organizations supported the proposed GOM cod
catch limits. Although supportive of the catch limit, one commercial
fishing organization disagreed with our interpretation that an ABC of
386 mt was not strictly based on an Frebuild approach. This
organization also commented that catch projections used to develop
catch advice assumed a catch of 1,470 mt for 2014, and the realized
2014 catch is likely lower than this value.
Response: For all of the reasons previously discussed in this
preamble, we are implementing an ABC of 386 mt in this final rule. We
recognize that there may be disagreements on how to characterize an ABC
of 386 mt relative to the various provisions of the ABC control rule.
However, based on the best scientific information available, and the
SSC's final report, we determined that an ABC of 386 mt is consistent
with Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements. Based on updated catch
projections, this ABC will end overfishing and will not jeopardize the
stock's ability to rebuild by 2024. Further, because no peer review
body has been able to conclude that any scenario is more plausible than
any other, an ABC of 386 mt appropriately incorporates all of the
available catch projections. The updated catch projections show little
difference in the future catches and biomass between an ABC of 386 mt
and an ABC of 200 mt, in part because catch limits would likely need to
be set lower under the 386-mt scenario in the out years of the
rebuilding period than those needed under 200 mt.
The PDT did explore the sensitivity of catch projections to the
2014 catch assumption. One sensitivity run was completed that assumed a
2014 catch of 1,000 mt instead of 1,470 mt. This sensitivity analysis
indicated that a lower 2014 catch would result in approximately 60 mt
more catch in 2015. The PDT did not evaluate the likelihood that catch
would be 1,000 mt, however, and this sensitivity analysis was not
generated for use in providing 2015 catch advice.
Comment 11: The Council and one state marine fisheries agency noted
concerns that we highlighted uncertainties and requested specific
comments on various aspects of the ABC in the proposed rule, and that
this appears to conflict with the SSC process for developing ABC
recommendations.
Response: We give great weight to the SSC's recommendation. The SSC
is charged with providing scientific advice to the Council, including
ABC recommendations that will meet Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements.
We recognize that the SSC considered its catch advice for GOM cod
carefully, and thoroughly reviewed the available information. However,
as specified in the Magnuson-Stevens Act, we must ensure that any
fishery management

[[Page 25126]]

plan is carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Act and
the National Standards. In order to make a final determination, and as
part of the public rulemaking process, we must carefully examine the
available information and seek any clarifications necessary to ensure
final measures are consistent with applicable requirements. In doing
this, it provides the public additional opportunity to comment on the
issues and respond to any concerns that we raise. We must then evaluate
all comments that we receive during the proposed rule comment period
together with the SSC's deliberations, analysis of the proposed
measures, and the best scientific information available. For these
reasons, we considered it appropriate to raise our concerns regarding
the SSC's recommendation in order to make a final determination on the
GOM cod catch limits adopted in this rule.
Comment 12: Three NGOs opposed an ABC of 386 mt, and instead
supported an ABC of 200 mt. These commenters asserted that an ABC of
386 mt was above the level associated with Frebuild, that it
would fail to rebuild the stock by the rebuilding plan end date of
2024, and, as a result, was not consistent with National Standard 1,
Amendment 16, and Sec. 304(e) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. These
commenters noted concerns about the retrospective pattern in the
assessment and the past performance of catch projections.
Response: We understand the concerns about GOM cod raised by the
commenters, and we noted many of these concerns in the proposed rule.
GOM cod stock status is poor and appropriate measures must be
implemented to ensure conservation objectives are met. As we
highlighted during the development of Framework 53, and in our approval
of an ABC of 386 mt, we remain concerned for GOM cod, and are
proceeding with the caveat that the ABC for the 2016 and 2017 fishing
years must be reevaluated in light of the September 2015 assessment for
this stock. The ABC adopted in this action is a complex balance between
conservation objectives and other Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements
that we must take into account.
The development of the ABC adopted in this action is described
earlier in the preamble of this rule, and the proposed rule, and is
only briefly summarized again here. During the 2014 assessment update,
rebuilding catch trajectories were updated based on the new rebuilding
program adopted in Framework 51 to the FMP with an end date of 2024.
These rebuilding catch projections assumed a constant F for the
remaining 9 years of the rebuilding plan. The PDT initially presented
these Frebuild projections completed for the 2014 assessment
update to the SSC, as well as an option to set a 200-mt constant catch,
which was based on the two projection scenarios that indicated
rebuilding was possible. The PDT updated the catch projections with the
200-mt constant ABC option, and these projections indicated the stock
would still rebuild by 2024. The SSC recommended this provisional ABC
of 200 mt, but noted that it was not consistent with the development of
the OFL, which incorporated all three catch projections. As a result,
the SSC requested additional information from the PDT to consider
incidental catch in its ABC recommendation in order to incorporate all
three plausible catch projection scenarios, as well as the control rule
provision that specifies the ABC should be based on incidental bycatch
if rebuilding cannot occur, even in the absence of fishing mortality.
Updated catch projections indicate that the stock can rebuild by
2024 under an ABC of 386 mt for fishing years 2015-2017. Based on our
examination of additional catch projections, we determined there is
likely little functional biological difference between 200 mt and 386
mt. This is, in part, because lower catches may be necessary in the out
years of the rebuilding program under the 386-mt ABC scenario compared
to the 200-mt scenario. Based on the available projections, and
analysis of the biological impacts of this action, we determined that
an ABC of 386 mt is sufficiently below the OFL to prevent overfishing,
and will not jeopardize rebuilding progress.
We recognize the recent changes in the perception of stock status
and uncertainties in groundfish catch projections. Multiple analyses
have been completed that highlight the past performance of groundfish
catch projections, and the SSC considers this information each time it
provides catch advice for groundfish stocks. In many instances, a
constant catch strategy has been used to help offset these
uncertainties, and provide an increasingly larger scientific
uncertainty buffer as the projections move further from the terminal
year of the assessment. The SSC applied this strategy to GOM cod in its
recommendation for fishing years 2015-2017. However, more importantly,
in providing its catch advice, the SSC noted that pending the results
of the 2015 assessment, it would reconsider its catch advice for
fishing year 2016 and beyond.
As we noted earlier in the preamble of this rule, we are approving
an ABC of 386 mt with the expectation that the catch limits in this
final rule will be reassessed for fishing years 2016 and beyond due to
the GOM cod assessment update scheduled for September 2015. When
considering all three of the available catch projection scenarios, an
ABC of 386 mt was a higher option than other catch outputs, most
notably the provisional recommendation of 200 mt. However, the 2015
assessment provides an opportunity to closely monitor the status of
this stock in order to make any necessary adjustments to the catch
limits adopted in this rule for future fishing years. Our approval of
the GOM cod ABC, therefore, is, in effect, only approval for the first
year (2015) of the remaining rebuilding time period. As a result, we
determined that the uncertainties in projection and concerns for the
past performance are mitigated given the pending assessment.
Although the Council could have considered, and recommended, an ABC
lower than the SSC's recommendation of 386 mt, a lower ABC would not
have mitigated economic impacts consistent with Magnuson-Stevens Act
national standards and other requirements. In this case, to ignore an
alternative that meets conservation objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens
Act, and that could help mitigate some of the substantial economic
impacts this action is expected to have, would not be consistent with
National Standard 8, and could jeopardize achieving optimum yield for
the groundfish fishery.
Further, analysis prepared for this action indicates that a lower
GOM cod catch limit may create an economic incentive to misreport
catch. This incentive may increase under a 200-mt ABC compared to an
ABC of 386 mt. Even a slight increase in misreporting could diminish
the benefits of a lower catch limit because of the relatively small
biological benefit expected from an ABC as low as 200 mt when compared
to 386 mt. We have continued to reiterate the importance of controlling
fishing mortality, and agree with commenters that this is necessary to
help ensure conservation objectives are met for GOM cod. As a result,
along with an ABC of 386 mt, we are also implementing an additional
reporting requirement for groundfish vessels to help ensure catch
remains within this limit, and have also made adjustments to sector
exemptions for fishing year 2015 in light of GOM cod stock status.
Comment 13: One NGO commented that the proposed rule and supporting

[[Page 25127]]

documents inadequately assess the biological impacts of the ABC (386
mt).
Response: We disagree. The final report for the 2014 assessment
update, supporting analyses developed by the PDT, Council and SSC
deliberations, and the Framework 53 Environmental Assessment provide a
thorough examination of the impacts of the ABC implemented in this
final rule. The development of a GOM cod ABC occurred over the course
of a peer review of the 2014 stock assessment, several PDT meetings,
two SSC meetings, two Groundfish Committee meetings, and two Council
meetings. All of this information, including summaries of the relevant
meetings, is publically available, and all of it was incorporated into
the Framework 53 Environmental Assessment, which was made available
with the proposed rule for this action.
Further, considering all of the available catch projections, there
was a wide range of potential catches and fishing mortality rates
examined in the supporting analyses. For example, the 2014 assessment
update completed catch projections for various catch alternatives
ranging from Frebuild to FMSY. Catch projections
from the 2014 assessment update also explored the sensitivity of the
projections to different recruitment assumptions to better ensure
projections reflected the recent lower observed recruitment.
Additionally, during the development of Framework 53, the SSC
provisionally recommended an ABC of 200 mt. Although this ABC was not
its final recommendation, the available catch projections provide a
comparison between an ABC of 200 mt and an ABC of 386 mt. The
biological impacts of 386 mt were also analyzed in the Framework 53
Environmental Assessment and catch projections were updated with an ABC
of 386 mt. This analysis also compared the biological impacts of 386 mt
to No Action. In the No Action alternative, groundfish vessels would
have been unable to fish because catch limits would not have been set
for a number of stocks. Under this scenario, catches would not be
completely eliminated because incidental bycatch would still occur in
other non-groundfish fisheries. However, the analysis concluded that
there was little difference between these two scenarios (200 mt and 386
mt), and that the future catches and biomass indicated from the catch
projections were relatively similar. The commenter offered no specific
reasons or evidence that contradicts this analysis.
Comment 14: Two individual fishermen, one state marine fisheries
agency, and three commercial fishing organizations reiterated concerns
for the socio-economic impact of the GOM cod ABC. The state marine
fisheries agency suggested that the predicted gross revenue losses are
likely severe underestimates, and that the economic impacts analysis
incorrectly assumed a fluid quota leasing market.
Response: We highlighted similar concerns in the proposed rule,
particularly our concern that this final rule will primarily impact
small vessels and ports north of Boston (Gloucester, MA, and New
Hampshire ports). Some measures are expected to provide marginal
economic relief that could increase the viability of the inshore fleet.
However, even measures designed to provide additional fishing
opportunities will not mitigate all of the substantial economic impacts
that are expected from the GOM cod ABC. The economic impacts analysis
of this action noted that gross revenue for the groundfish fishery has
declined in recent years (from $120 million in fishing year 2011 to $79
million in fishing year 2013). The predicted gross revenue losses for
fishing year 2015 (approximately 10 percent) may mask some of the
economic impacts to small vessels and ports. However, evaluation of the
past performance of the economic model used for analysis suggests that,
generally, the predicted gross revenues for a fishing year were
relatively close to the realized values. Of course, there are
uncertainties in the model, and although the model is intended to
capture fishery-wide behavior changes related to catch limit changes,
it can over-predict landings under a number of circumstances. With all
of this in consideration, the economic impacts analysis concluded that
the additional declines forecasted for fishing year 2015 would result
in impacts to the entire groundfish fishery even greater than previous
GOM cod catch limit reductions.
Reductions in the GOM cod catch limit implemented in previous years
resulted in economic losses; however, available information indicates
the sector fishery has been able to adapt to some degree. Despite some
ability to adapt under previous catch limit reductions, GOM cod was
constraining in fishing year 2013. The economic impacts analysis did
note that if it becomes difficult for fishermen to avoid GOM cod, the
predicted gross revenues could be serious overestimates. Further,
although the economic impacts analysis attempts to include the
possibility of high GOM cod tows, it does not fully capture these
risks. If observed trips encounter unexpected high GOM cod tows, these
trips could endanger fishing operations for the entire sector. The
quota leasing market, and potential changes in fishing year 2015, were
discussed in the full economic impacts analysis, and are not repeated
here. However, we recognize the comment that the analysis may not fully
capture the current quota leasing market.
Comment 15: One NGO commented that the management uncertainty
buffer should be increased to account for potential observer bias.
Another NGO commented that GOM cod needs realistic buffers, but didn't
specifically comment on whether the management uncertainty buffers for
GOM cod should be adjusted.
Response: Each time catch limits are set, the PDT reviews the
management uncertainty buffers used for each fishery component and
recommends any necessary adjustments. For Framework 53, the PDT
reviewed the current management uncertainty buffers, as well as
previous analysis completed in support of Framework 50 to the FMP,
which set GOM cod catch limits for fishing years 2013-2015.
Both the PDT and the Council have periodically discussed the
possibility of increasing the buffers due to evidence that fishing
behavior may differ on observed and unobserved trips, possibly
resulting in an underestimate of discards. However, to date the PDT has
been unable to estimate the amount of suspected bias of observed trips.
Further, the PDT concluded that the direction of the bias can change
year to year, for reasons that are unknown. As a result, the PDT has
been unable to determine whether any adjustments to the existing
buffers would be warranted to address potential bias. The PDT concluded
that no new information is available at this time that would warrant
any changes to the buffers previously adopted in Framework 50 to the
FMP, and recommended no changes to the management uncertainty buffers.
Comment 16: Multiple commenters suggested various types of
management approaches in light of GOM cod stock status and the fishing
year 2015 catch limit. Suggestions included splitting the GOM cod quota
into biannual allocations or trimester, implementing dynamic inseason
closures for bycatch avoidance, and banning all fishing for, or closing
the directed fishing for, GOM cod. One NGO requested that we initiate a
Secretarial amendment, and another has submitted a petition for
rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act to prohibit
commercial and recreational fishing for GOM cod and to limit catch to a
level consistent with rebuilding requirements.

[[Page 25128]]

Response: Other than the GOM cod possession restriction for the
recreational fishery, none of the measures suggested by commenters were
proposed in Framework 53, and so are beyond the scope and authority
relating to this action because we can only approve or disapprove
measures in a framework. In a future action, the Council could develop
any combination of management measures it determines are necessary to
meet the goals and objectives of the FMP. Additionally, sectors can
voluntarily develop GOM cod avoidance mechanisms at any time. In fact,
some sectors have already developed additional restrictions for member
vessels to help avoid GOM cod and stay within the available allocation
for the 2015 fishing year. Although it is still unclear how commercial
groundfish vessels will operate in 2015, we expect that the sector
fishery, to the extent possible, will continue to find ways to adapt to
the new GOM cod catch limit, and target other groundfish stocks.
With the initial 2013 reductions of the GOM cod catch limits, many
groundfish vessels were no longer targeting GOM cod, and instead, used
available GOM cod quota to access other stocks. Analysis indicates a
dramatic decline in targeted GOM cod trips beginning in the 2013
fishing year. As noted earlier in this rule, with an additional 75-
percent reduction in fishing year 2015, it is expected that the
incentive for sector vessels to take targeted GOM cod trips is
virtually eliminated given the extremely low GOM cod allocations that
each sector will receive. We are also setting the GOM cod trip limit
for the common pool fishery at 50 lb (23 kg) to reduce the incentive to
target GOM cod. The combination of commercial measures, along with a
prohibition on possession of GOM cod for the recreational fishery, is
expected to, in effect, result in a ``bycatch only'' fishery.
Section 304 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act provides the Secretary of
Commerce with the authority to prepare, and implement, a fishery
management plan if the Council fails to develop a plan after a
reasonable period of time, or fails to submit a plan that meets
necessary conservation and management objectives. We have carefully
considered the available information, and determined that all of the
management measures implemented in this final rule, along with
corresponding measures implemented through the final rule for 2015-2016
Sector Operations Plans and Contracts and 2015 recreational measures,
will provide sufficient protection for GOM cod to prevent overfishing
and contribute to rebuilding consistent with Magnuson-Stevens Act
requirements. Further, as already noted, we will continue to work with
the Council to ensure that GOM cod management measures are reviewed, or
updated, as needed. As a result, a Secretarial amendment, at this time,
is unnecessary and unwarranted.
The petition for rulemaking is under consideration, and we will
respond to this request consistent with the applicable requirements of
the Administrative Procedure Act.
Comment 17: Two NGOs, one state marine fisheries agency, and two
commercial fishing organizations noted concerns for monitoring the low
GOM cod catch limit in fishing year 2015. One NGO commented that
calculation of the at-sea monitoring coverage level should be at the
level of the individual vessel. The two commercial fishing
organizations highlighted the importance of electronic monitoring (EM),
and that this may provide a way to improve catch accounting. One
organization commented that we should implement a requirement to
restrict vessels to fishing in a single broad stock area on a trip. The
Council also commented in response to the concerns we raised in the
proposed rule, and noted that in Amendment 16 to the FMP, the Council
provided us with the authority to implement daily catch reporting at
any time we deem it necessary.
Response: We agree that adequate monitoring, accounting, and
enforcement are essential to help ensure catch limits are effective. A
description of at-sea monitoring coverage levels is provided in the
final rule for the 2015-2016 Sector Operations Plans and Contracts, and
is not repeated here.
We recognize that the low GOM cod catch limit may create an
economic incentive to misreport, which could reduce the accuracy of
catch apportionment. Although we implemented a single broad stock area
requirement in our initial 2014 interim action, this measure can
severely restrict some fishing operations, and reduce the ability for
groundfish vessels to target healthy groundfish stocks. In our 2014
interim action, we determined that, despite the potential negative
economic impacts, the single broad stock area requirement was necessary
as a mid-year adjustment for the fishery. The 2014 assessment indicated
that, if no action was taken, the measures in place for the 2014
fishing year would have resulted in substantial overfishing. The single
broad stock area requirement was intended to help minimize further
catch, and ensure the effectiveness of the interim measures. However, a
requirement to fish in a single broad stock area is not necessary to
ensure the effectiveness of the final measures in this rule. All of the
measures in this final rule, including a much lower catch limit, are
being implemented at the beginning of the 2015 fishing year, as opposed
to a mid-year implementation for the 2014 interim rule. These measures,
along with corresponding measures implemented through the final rule
for 2015-2016 Sector Operations Plans and Contracts, will provide
sufficient protection for GOM cod to prevent overfishing and contribute
to rebuilding consistent with Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements.
To address concerns for potential misreporting, we are implementing
a daily catch report requirement for vessels fishing in the GOM and
other broad stock areas. This requirement is intended to help ensure
accurate catch attribution and reduce the incentive for vessels to
misreport. As the Council noted in its comment, a daily reporting
requirement was recommended by the Council in Amendment 16 to the FMP.
Amendment 16 also delegated authority to us to modify the frequency of
reporting requirements, as necessary, to help ensure accurate catch
accounting. At the time we implemented Amendment 16, we determined that
daily reporting was not necessary, and implemented a trip-level
reporting requirement for vessels fishing in multiple broad stock
areas. However, for reasons described earlier in this rule, we
determined daily catch reports are now necessary to help ensure the
effectiveness of the measures implemented in this final rule.
We agree that EM has the potential to be an effective monitoring
tool in the groundfish fishery, but EM is not yet sufficiently
developed at this time. We are currently working to address the
challenges to implement EM, including legal requirements and data
processing, and are also examining costs associated with EM. We are
also working with several groundfish sectors for fishing year 2015 to
help address some of the remaining challenges to implement EM. If
successful, EM could be fully implemented as a monitoring program for a
portion of the groundfish fishery in fishing year 2016.
Comment 18: One commercial fishing organization commented that, in
considering incidental catch, the SSC has addressed concerns for
misreporting. The commenter noted that in trying to balance all of the
plausible scenarios from the assessment, incorporating incidental catch
information attempted to identify what level of catch may be required
to keep

[[Page 25129]]

the fishery open without directed cod fishing.
Response: We recognize that the SSC considered incidental catch
information to help develop its final ABC recommendation. An ABC of 386
mt for GOM cod is a considerable reduction from the incidental catch
estimates generated for fishing year 2013 (500-600 mt). Further, as
discussed in other sections of this rule, an ACL of 1,470 mt in fishing
year 2013 was constraining for groundfish vessels. Available analysis
indicates there was a marked decline in directed GOM cod trips
beginning in 2013. Although sector vessels were able to adapt to some
extent to this first substantial reduction for GOM cod, the additional
reduction in fishing year 2015 will be substantially more challenging.
Thus, we expect that an ABC of 386 mt will effectively remove the
incentive for commercial groundfish vessels to fish for this stock.
Nevertheless, with such a low GOM cod allocation, and in
considering the supporting analysis, the economic incentive to
misreport could still be high, particularly if groundfish vessels
continue to report an uptick in cod availability. As a result, as
previously described, we are implementing an additional reporting
requirement for commercial groundfish vessels to help ensure accurate
catch attribution.

Gulf of Maine Cod Protection Measures

Protection Closures
Comment 19: One state marine fisheries agency and two commercial
fishing organizations supported the GOM cod protection closures. The
state marine fisheries agency disagreed with our concerns for April,
but noted that it expected we would closely monitor the fishery to
understand the consequences of opening April. All of these commenters
highlighted the importance of providing GOM cod protections while still
affording access to healthy groundfish stocks. One other commercial
fishing organization supported all of the closures, but noted concerns
for the opening of April closures.
Response: We generally agree with all of these comments, and as
described earlier in this preamble, we approved the new GOM cod
protection measures. There are some biological and economic trade-offs
with the addition of winter and May-June closures and removal of April
closures. We recognize the importance of providing access to healthy
stocks, and support this objective of the cod closures, as long as it
does not result in unanticipated consequences. However, we remain
concerned for GOM cod stock status, and the potential negative impact
on other groundfish stocks as a result of opening April. We will
continue to urge the Council to reconsider April closures in light of
these concerns.
We agree with the commenters that it is important to monitor the
effectiveness of these closures, and we intend to closely monitor any
potential effort shifts to help ensure the overall conservation
objectives for these measures are met. To the extent possible, these
closures should also be reviewed as new information becomes available
to help identify any potential adjustments to these closures. We expect
additional spawning research may also provide more information on
spawning locations for GOM cod that the Council could use in its
decision-making process.
Comment 20: Two NGOs opposed the GOM cod protection closures and
commented that the protection closures should be more expansive. One of
these NGOs also commented that the protection closures are inadequate
under the Magnuson-Stevens Act because they would fail to end
overfishing. One commercial fishing organization noted concerns for the
opening of April closures.
Response: We share some of the concerns noted by commenters, and we
have described these concerns in our approval of the protection
closures in this final rule. However, we disagree that the protection
closures are inadequate under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. As we described
earlier in this rule, updated catch projections indicate that the GOM
cod ABC of 386 mt will end overfishing and rebuild the stock. The new
protection closures are complementary to this ABC, and are measures in
addition to the ACLs and AMs adopted for GOM cod. The additional
closures are intended to enhance the effectiveness of these
conservation measures by further reducing fishing mortality on spawning
aggregations. Any additional benefits realized from the area closures
are important, particularly for the benefit of the winter spawning
component of GOM cod. While more closures always have the potential for
increasing the probability of meeting various conservation objectives,
we determined that the closures, along with other management measures
adopted for fishing year 2015, are sufficient to prevent overfishing
and provide for rebuilding.
The GOM cod protection measures, which include the area closures
and the recreational possession restriction, were developed by the
Council as a package. In developing these measures, the commercial
closures were intended to balance biological and economic objectives
resulting from the recommended actions. If the opening of April
closures was recommended in isolation, with no additional spring or
winter closures, we likely would have disapproved this measure. As
stated in the preamble, however, we determined that we could not
independently approve or disapprove the recommendations for winter and
April without undermining the Council's intent to balancing
conservation benefits and impacts on the fishing industry. The addition
of winter closures is important because there are currently no
protections for this spawning component, and some information suggests
that a spawning aggregation is not likely to recover once lost. Despite
our concerns for GOM cod with the removal of April closures, there are
May and June closures, so the removal of April does not completely
eliminate protection of the spring spawning component.
Some of the comments from an NGO noted that the protection closures
adopted in this final rule would provide less protection than the
status quo in a number of instances. In reviewing and analyzing the
impacts of the protection closures, the status quo measures must be put
in context for the commercial groundfish fishery. With the adoption of
Amendment 16, sector vessels were exempt from a number of the GOM
rolling closures because sectors are limited by stock-specific
allocations and AMs. As noted in the supporting analysis for this
document, although a number of closures are being removed, many of
these closures only applied to the common pool fishery, which accounts
for less than 2 percent of the fishery. In these instances, the impact
of removing the closures is expected to be minimal because the sector
fishery is already allowed access to these areas.
Given our concerns for the status of GOM cod, we intend to closely
monitor stock indicators and fishery operations. We will continue to
work with the Council to ensure that the most appropriate GOM cod
protection measures are in place. We expect that the Industry Based
Survey for GOM Cod will restart at some point in 2015, and that this
survey could provide additional information on cod spawning that the
Council could use in the future. Additionally, the protection closures
developed and implemented in this action overlap with the Council's
Habitat Omnibus Amendment. The Council is working to complete this

[[Page 25130]]

Amendment, and we will continue to help the Council in this effort to
ensure that the goals and objectives of this Amendment are met.
Comment 21: Another commercial fishing organization opposed the
closure of block 138 in May because it would restrict haddock and
pollock catches, and suggested that this closure should be disapproved,
or that only a portion of this block should be closed in May. This
organization also commented that true spawning areas can only be
identified through acoustic telemetry and passive acoustic monitoring.
Response: As described earlier, the objectives of the protection
closures were to reduce fishing mortality and protect spawning
aggregations for GOM cod while allowing access to healthy groundfish
stocks. The protection measures were designed to re-configure the
existing GOM rolling closures. Although available information on
spawning was used to help develop the protection closures in this final
rule, other information was also used to evaluate the potential
biological and economic trade-offs associated with the final measures.
Block 138 was closed in the previous GOM rolling closures, and based on
the available information, no change was recommended for this closure
in Framework 53. Because the Council recommended that the entire block
138 be closed in May, we cannot modify this closure in any way, or only
partially approve a portion of the closure, and still be consistent
with the Council's intent. However, in a future action, the Council
could reconsider this closure, and make any modifications, if
warranted.
We disagree that spawning areas can only be identified through
acoustic telemetry and passive acoustic monitoring. The Framework 53
Environmental Assessment describes the analytical techniques used to
identify times and location of spawning for GOM cod. Identification of
times and areas of potential spawning was not based on a single source
of information. Multiple sources of information and analytical
approaches were used to identify and corroborate spawning locations.
The analyses note that the NEFSC and MA Division of Marine
Fisheries trawl surveys have narrow seasonal coverage, which limits
their applicability to spawning cod. However, the Industry Based Survey
for GOM cod was specifically designed to study stock distribution and
demographics of cod, and also recorded spawning condition of cod
caught. As a result, the peer review of the Industry Based Survey
concluded that one of the primary uses of the survey data was to
describe spawning activity of GOM cod. The Framework 53 analyses did
note some caveats with the use of the ichthyoplankton survey data,
particularly due to the time period of this survey. However, these data
were determined to be useful because the areas highlighted as potential
spawning locations were similar to the areas identified using trawl
survey data.
Comment 22: One NGO commented that it is generally supportive of
time-area management for GOM cod, but cautioned that the final
protection measures should be supported by the available data. The NGO
also noted that we should commit to review the protection closures at a
specific time to help ensure that effort shifts from the final measures
does not undermine the effectiveness of these measures, or any measures
developed by Take Reduction Teams.
Response: We generally agree with this comment. As noted earlier in
the preamble of this rule, we have some concerns for the removal of
April closures, particularly due to potential effort shifts, and the
potential impact on other groundfish stocks. Although the protection
measures are subject to review once the GOM cod biomass reaches the
biomass threshold, we will continue to urge the Council to reconsider
these closures in light of their potential negative impacts on other
groundfish stocks, and in light of GOM cod stock status. These closures
should also be reviewed as more information becomes available for GOM
cod. The 2015 assessment update will provide new information on the
status of GOM cod, and we expect additional spawning research will be
available in the near future that could help further identify areas
important to cod spawning.
Regulations to reduce the potential of serious injury and death of
marine mammal species will be in place for the western Gulf of Maine
regardless of the GOM cod protection closures. The Harbor Porpoise and
Atlantic Right Whale Take Reduction Plans are not predicated on the
existence of groundfish closed areas, or the GOM cod protection
closures. As a result, it is only necessary to amend these Take
Reduction Plans if new information indicates that additional
interaction risks to marine mammal species are occurring. The Harbor
Porpoise and Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Teams meet regularly
to monitor the implementation of the final Take Reduction Plans for
these species. These teams monitor any changes in the interaction rates
and fishing behavior that may result from management actions. Based on
this review, the Take Reduction Teams determine if modifications to the
Take Reduction Plans are warranted in order to meet the requirements of
the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Endangered Species Act.
Comment 23: One commercial fishing organization commented that hook
gear should be allowed in the protection closures because it does not
interfere with spawning.
Response: We disagree that hook gear should be allowed in the
protection closures. As we noted in the proposed rule, the available
research on GOM cod spawning indicates that fishing on spawning cod may
affect spawning activity beyond just the removal of fish. Fishing
activity may disrupt spawning signals, and, as a result, can reduce
spawning success. Additionally, information indicates that if a
spawning aggregation is disrupted by fishing activity, it will scatter
and not return. Groundfish vessels fishing with hook gear are capable
of interrupting spawning aggregations because they are capable of
catching cod. Further, the protection closures are also intended to
help reduce fishing mortality for GOM cod, and applying these closures
to all commercial groundfish vessels was necessary to help ensure this
objective is met. Additionally, it is important to note that Handgear A
vessels were afforded similar flexibilities as sector vessels,
regardless of whether they are fishing in the common pool or a sector.
Handgear A vessels are exempt from both the March and October common
pool closures.
As indicated in the response to the next comment, we have similar
concerns for the potential for other gear types to disrupt spawning,
and would support the Council in reconsidering the fisheries and gears
that are allowed to fish in the protection areas.
Comment 24: Two commercial fishing organizations and one NGO noted
that the list of exempted fisheries allowed into the GOM cod protection
closures should be reviewed. One NGO also opposed allowing recreational
groundfish vessels into these closure areas.
Response: We highlighted similar concerns in the proposed rule
relative to the gears that are allowed in these protection closures.
Because fishing activity may disrupt spawning success, we noted that
there is a potential for these exempted fisheries to diminish the
additional spawning protection that the closures are intended to
provide. We would support the Council reviewing the fisheries allowed
into these protection closures, and, if warranted, to

[[Page 25131]]

remove the exception for some of these other fisheries and gears.
Alternatively, the Council could also consider including other
fisheries and gears for a subset of these protection closures to better
protect GOM cod spawning while still providing these fisheries with
some flexibility.
As discussed earlier in this rule, the recreational fishery may
still fish in these protection closures, similar to the previous GOM
rolling closures. Instead, this action implements a prohibition on
possession of GOM cod for the recreational fishery to help control
fishing mortality of GOM cod for this fishery. The intent of this trade
off was to help ensure the recreational fishery continued to have
access to healthy groundfish stocks. Because most of the protection
closures are inshore, it was expected that recreational vessels would
largely not have been able to adjust to these closures due to business
operations and safety concerns. Applying these protection closures to
the commercial groundfish fishery is an important start to ensuring
that spawning aggregations of GOM cod are protected. However, we would
support the Council reconsidering whether protection closures, or a
subset, should be applied to the recreational fishery.
Recreational Fishery Prohibition on Possession of Gulf of Maine Cod
Comment 25: One commercial fishing organization, two NGOs, one
state marine fisheries agency, and one recreational fisherman supported
a prohibition on possession of GOM cod for the recreational fishery.
The recreational fisherman noted that survival rates of recreational
released GOM cod are relatively high. Other comments highlighted that
outreach is essential to ensure this measure is effective.
Response: We agree on all of these points, and have approved this
measure in this final rule. Updated catch projections indicated that if
no adjustment was made to possession restrictions, recreational catch
of GOM cod would have exceeded the recreational allocation by 400
percent. During the development of Framework 53, analysis also
indicated that non-compliance in the recreational fishery could be as
high as 50 percent. In response to this, we have initiated a number of
new recreational outreach efforts to help inform recreational anglers
of the existing management measures.
Despite the possession restriction implemented in this final rule,
projections indicated that the recreational fishery would still likely
exceed its GOM cod allocation unless additional measures are
implemented. These projections may overestimate the potential
recreational effort in 2015, and, if so, could also overestimate GOM
cod catch. However, to help ensure that the recreational fishery does
not exceed its allocations, we are implementing additional measures
under our discretionary authority in a separate rulemaking.
Available information does indicate that the discard mortality of
recreationally caught GOM cod is low. Based on the 2012 benchmark
assessment, 70 percent of the GOM cod discards from the recreational
fishery were expected to survive. A recently conducted study provides
additional information that suggests survival rates of released cod
could be higher (85 percent).
Comment 26: Eighteen recreational fishermen opposed a prohibition
on possession of GOM cod for the recreational fishery. These commenters
noted that the recreational fishery has little impact on the GOM cod
stock, and that the commercial fishery, particularly draggers, have led
to the current GOM cod stock status. Many of these commenters supported
a small bag limit for GOM cod, and a few comments supported a bag limit
of at least 10 fish. Commenters also expressed concern for the socio-
economic impact of this measure.
Response: We disagree. Both the recreational and the commercial
groundfish fishery receive an allocation of GOM cod. Both fisheries
have AMs, and we must implement management measures that will help
ensure that each fishery stays within its allocation. Updated catch
projections indicate that, even under zero possession, the recreational
fishery would still exceed its allocation for GOM cod in fishing year
2015, unless additional measures are implemented. Additionally, catch
projections that assumed a status quo bag limit (9 fish) indicated that
recreational catch would exceed the 2015 allocation by more than 400
percent.
We understand concerns for the socio-economic impact of zero
possession for the recreational fishery. Other measures for the
recreational fishery were considered for this action to help protect
GOM cod. However, these measures would not have mitigated economic
impacts to the recreational fishery compared to zero possession. The
GOM cod closures, if applied to the recreational fishery, would likely
have had even greater economic impacts on the fishery. These closures
are mainly inshore, and recreational vessels may have been unable to
move to alternative areas to fish for other groundfish stocks. Analysis
indicated that the total steam time to fish further offshore, around
the closures, would have exceeded the standard party/charter trip of 4
or 6 hours.
Zero possession will help ensure that fishing mortality by the
recreational fishery is reduced for GOM cod, while still ensuring the
recreational fishery has access to other healthy groundfish stocks. The
Council can review this measure in any future action, and if warranted
could implement different management measures for the recreational
fishery, as long as they would still meet conservation objectives, and
help ensure that the recreational fishery does not exceed its
allocation.
Comment 27: We received six comments from recreational fishermen
about various aspects of recreational management measures for the 2015
fishing year, including opposition to the survival rates current used
for the recreational caught GOM cod and haddock, the GOM haddock bag
limit, the recreational rulemaking process, and recreational gear
requirements.
Response: None of these measures were specifically proposed in
Framework 53, and therefore are beyond the scope and authority relating
to this action. Although this action implements zero possession of GOM
cod for the recreational fishery, we are implementing all other
recreational measures, including GOM haddock measures, in a separate
rulemaking under our discretionary authority to adjustment recreational
measures. These measures are intended to prevent the recreational
fishery from exceeding its allocations of GOM cod and GOM haddock for
the 2015 fishing year. The issues raised by the commenters will be
addressed in our separate rule implementing final recreational measures
for fishing year 2015.

Default Catch Limits

Comment 28: One state marine fisheries agency and one commercial
fishing organization supported the mechanism to establish default catch
limits in years when a management action is delayed. The commercial
fishing organization commented that default catch limits set at 35
percent of the previous year's value would be extremely restrictive for
groundfish vessels, but this was better than the alternative of no
catch limits.
Response: We agree, and are implementing this measure in this final
rule. We recognize that default catch limits, if implemented, may be

[[Page 25132]]

extremely restrictive for groundfish vessels. Although the 2015
assessment schedule is expected to delay implementation of the
management action for fishing year 2016, this measure is not intended
to allow lengthy delays in implementation of final measures. Default
catch limits are available as a management tool to prevent disruption
to the groundfish fishery, but any default specifications time period
should not be allowed to languish. To help ensure that management
actions are still implemented as quickly as possible, the default
specifications time period is only from May 1 through July 31. If
default catch limits were allowed to languish beyond this period, the
severely restricted catch limits could prevent optimum yield in the
fishery.

Sector Carryover Provision

Comment 29: One state marine fisheries agency supported this change
to the carryover provision.
Response: We agree and are implementing the revision to the sector
carryover provision in this final rule. The measure is necessary to
comply with a recent court ruling, and ensure that the total potential
catch does not exceed the ABC for any stock.
Comment 30: One commercial fishing organization expressed concern
that the ever changing rules regarding carryover makes it difficult to
stabilize business plans, as does the ability for the carryover amount
to change year to year.
Response: The revision to the sector carryover provision in this
final rule is in response to a recent court ruling, as previously
described. We have determined that the carryover provision is now
consistent with Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements, and will help ensure
that total potential catch does not exceed the ABC for any stock. As a
result, we do not anticipate any further modifications of the sector
carryover provision, unless the Council chooses to revisit this measure
in a future action.
We recognize some of the difficulties that sectors face in trying
to plan. To help offset some of the uncertainty, we specified that the
default de minimis amount is 1 percent of the overall sector sub-ACL
for the upcoming fishing year. If it is necessary to change the default
de minimis amount, we will announce this to sectors as soon as we know
the recommended ABCs for the upcoming year. Similarly, once ABC
recommendations are known for the upcoming year, we will announce the
possibility that the maximum carryover amount may need to be adjusted.
We cannot make a final determination on the maximum carryover amount
until we have final catch information for sectors; however, the initial
determination that assumed a maximum of 10-percent carryover provides
sectors with an upper bound. We also expect that the years with the
greatest uncertainty will be years in which catch limits are
dramatically reduced, as we would most likely have to adjust the
maximum carryover allowed in those years.

Common Pool Management Measures

Comment 31: One state marine fisheries agency supported the common
pool trip limits.
Response: We agree, and are implementing these initial common pool
trip limits for fishing year 2015. We will closely monitor common pool
catch, and, if necessary, will make appropriate adjustments to the
possession and trip limits for common pool vessels. Each year, it is
difficult to predict common pool effort, and there is a possibility
that some vessels may drop out of a sector and fish in the common pool
for fishing year 2015. If this occurs, we may make adjustments to the
trip limits to reflect any increases in the number of common pool
vessels that are actively fishing.
Comment 32: One commercial fisherman opposed a GOM cod trip limit
of 50 lb (23 kg), and instead supported a trip limit of at least 100 lb
(45 kg). The commenter noted that a 50-lb (23-kg) trip limit would
result in high discards.
Response: We disagree that the GOM cod trip limit should be set at
100 lb (45 kg). The trimester TAC for GOM cod is less than 2 mt for
each trimester in fishing year 2015. In previous years, when we set the
GOM cod trip limit at 100 lb (45 kg), common pool vessels continued to
target the stock, and the GOM area was prematurely closed before the
end of the trimester. A 50-lb (23-kg) trip limit will help create an
incentive to avoid GOM cod. This trip limit will also help provide
continued access to other groundfish stocks by helping to prevent a
premature closure of the trimester.
Comment 33: A number of commercial fishermen commented on common
pool management measures. Comments included opposition to the current
trimester TAC system used for the common pool, the trimester TACs
should be divided among trimesters based on recent landings, and that
the common pool fishery should receive 10 percent carryover similar to
sectors.
Response: None of these measures were considered in Framework 53,
and they are beyond the scope and authority relating to this action.
Any changes to the existing common pool management measures would have
to be developed through the Council process in a future management
action. The Council could reconsider common pool management measures at
any time provided these measures still met the necessary conservation
requirements. For example, the trimester TAC AM system is only one type
of reactive AM that the Council may use for the common pool fishery.
The allocation of the common pool sub-ACL was developed as part of
Amendment 16, and was based on landings through fishing year 2009.
These distributions have been unchanged since the implementation of
Amendment 16. However the Council can adjust the trimester TAC
distribution in a framework action based on landings from the most
recent 5 years. Again, any changes to the trimester TAC provision would
have to be developed through the Council in a future management action.

National Environmental Policy Act and Associated Analyses

Comment 34: One NGO commented that Framework 53 does not meet the
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) because it
failed to include a reasonable range of alternatives for the GOM cod
protection closures. The commenter noted that Framework 53 should have
included the 2014 interim closures as one alternative, as well as an
additional alternative that was developed by the PDT.
Response: We disagree that this action does not meet the
requirements of NEPA. Any comments about the sufficiency of the NEPA
analysis of this framework must be considered in the context of the
ongoing set of measures that adapt to changing conditions and
information affecting the overall FMP, and the many different
alternatives that have been analyzed over the years. Within this
context, Framework 53 does include a reasonable range of alternatives
for the GOM cod area closures that represented various combinations of
closures based on the available information. The Purpose and Need of
Framework 53 related to the area closures was to enhance spawning
protection for GOM cod, help reduce fishing mortality of GOM cod, and
to minimize the economic impact of the closures by providing access to
healthy groundfish stocks.
Although some of the area closures implemented in our 2014 interim
action for GOM cod were intended to protect spawning aggregations, area
closures were also used as a mechanism to reduce overfishing in lieu of
reducing

[[Page 25133]]

the catch limit inseason. As a result, it was apparent that the 2014
interim closures would not have met the Purpose and Need of Framework
53 to provide access to healthy groundfish stocks because the interim
closures were not designed, or intended, to meet this objective.
Further, because the interim closures were designed to reduce
overfishing in lieu of an ACL reduction, these closures would have been
overly restrictive for fishing year 2015 once the GOM cod catch limit
was reduced based on the 2014 assessment result.
The PDT option that the commenter referenced closely resembled the
2014 interim action closures, and in some cases, was more restrictive
than the interim closures. Because the protection closures are
complementary to the GOM cod catch limit, the option presented by the
PDT would likely have been overly restrictive. Further, this option
would have virtually shut down the inshore GOM to the groundfish
fishery for eight months of the year, and small inshore vessels would
likely have been unable to adapt to these closures. Therefore, although
the PDT presented this option to the Council's Groundfish Oversight
Committee, the Committee did not advance this option for consideration
in Framework 53 because it clearly would not have met all of the goals
and objectives of the action.

Changes From the Proposed Rule

We made one change from the proposed rule in this action. After
further consideration of the available information and public comments,
we are implementing a daily VMS catch report requirement for commercial
groundfish vessels that declare their intent to fish in the GOM and any
other broad stock area on the same trip. Given concerns for the low GOM
cod catch limit and the potential incentive to misreport, we determined
that daily VMS catch reports will help ensure more accurate catch
apportionment and compliance with the cod catch limits.

Classification

Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the
NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that the management
measures implemented in this final rule are necessary for the
conservation and management of the Northeast groundfish fishery and
consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law.
This final rule has been determined to be significant for purposes
of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866.
This final rule does not contain policies with Federalism or
``takings'' implications as those terms are defined in E.O. 13132 and
E.O. 12630, respectively.
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries finds good cause, under
authority contained in 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), to waive the 30-day delayed
effectiveness of this action. The effective date of this action affects
a parallel rulemaking approving sector operations plans for the start
of the 2015 fishing year on May 1, 2015. In addition, this action sets
fishing year 2015 catch limits for several groundfish stocks, revises
GOM cod management measures to provide additional protection for the
stock, and adopts other measures to improve the management of the
groundfish fishery. This final rule must be in effect at the beginning
of 2015 fishing year to fully capture the conservation and economic
benefits of Framework 53 measures and the 2015 sector operations plans.
During the development of the Framework 53, updated stock
information for GOM cod became available. As a result of this updated
stock information, the Council had to include additional measures in
Framework 53 to respond to this information and increase protection for
GOM cod given its poor status. As a result, this rulemaking could not
be completed further before this date. Therefore, in order to have this
action effective at the beginning of the 2015 fishing year, which
begins on May 1, 2015, it is necessary to waive the 30-day delayed
effectiveness of this rule.
Failure to waive the 30-day delayed effectiveness would result in
no catch limits being specified for a number of groundfish stocks.
Without an allocation for these groundfish stocks, sector vessels would
be unable to fish beginning on May 1, 2015. This would severely disrupt
the fishery, and could result in foregone yield and revenue reductions.
The groundfish fishery already faced substantial cuts in the catch
limits for many key groundfish stocks beginning in 2013, and this final
rule implements additional catch limit reductions. However, if sector
vessels were unable to fish beginning on May 1, 2015, the negative
economic impacts would exceed any negative economic impacts anticipated
from this action. Any further disruption to the fishery that would
result from a delay of this final rule could worsen the severe economic
impacts to the groundfish fishery. This action includes specifications
that would increase the catch limit for haddock, and re-configures GOM
closed areas to increase fishing opportunities on healthy groundfish
stocks. These measures are intended to help mitigate the economic
impacts of the reductions in catch limits for several key groundfish
stocks. A delay in implementation of this action would greatly diminish
any benefits of these specifications and other approved measures. For
these reasons, a 30-day delay in the effectiveness of this rule is
impracticable and contrary to the public interest.

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

Section 604 of the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 604, requires Federal agencies to
prepare a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) for each final
rule. The FRFA describes the economic impact of this action on small
entities. The FRFA includes a summary of significant issues raised by
public comments, the analyses contained in Framework 53 and its
accompanying Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review/Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), the IRFA summary in the
proposed rule, as well as the summary provided below. A description of
the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this
action are contained in Framework 53 and in the preamble to the
proposed rule, as well as this final rule, and are not repeated here. A
copy of the full analysis is available from the NMFS (see ADDRESSES).

A Summary of the Significant Issues Raised by the Public in Response to
the IRFA, a Summary of the Agency's Assessment of Such Issues, and a
Statement of Any Changes Made in the Final Rule as a Result of Such
Comments

Our responses to all of the comments received on the proposed rule,
including those that raised significant issues with the proposed
action, or commented on the economic analyses summarized in the IRFA,
can be found in the Comments and Responses section of this rule. As
outlined in that section, significant issues were raised by the public
with respect to:
GOM cod catch limits for the 2015-2017 fishing years;
GOM cod protection closures; and
The prohibition on possession of GOM cod for recreational
fishing vessels.
Comments 14 and 26 discussed the economic impacts of this action.
Comment 14 noted that the GOM cod reduction would have severe negative
impacts on the commercial groundfish fishery, and one of these
commenters suggested that the analysis may have underestimated the
predicted gross revenue losses as a result of the GOM cod reduction.
Comment 26 highlighted

[[Page 25134]]

concerns that the GOM cod possession restriction for the recreational
fishery would have severe socio-economic impacts. There were no other
comments directly related to the IRFA.

Description and Estimate of Number of Small Entities to Which the Rule
Would Apply

The Small Business Administration defines a small business as one
that is:
independently owned and operated;
not dominant in its field of operation;
has annual receipts that do not exceed--
[cir] $20.5 million in the case of commercial finfish harvesting
entities (NAICS \1\ 114111)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) is
the standard used by Federal statistical agencies in classifying
business establishments for the purpose of collecting, analyzing,
and publishing statistical data related to the U.S. business
economy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[cir] $5.5 million in the case of commercial shellfish harvesting
entities (NAICS 114112)
[cir] $7.5 million in the case of for-hire fishing entities (NAICS
114119); or
has fewer than--
[cir] 500 employees in the case of fish processors
[cir] 100 employees in the case of fish dealers.
This final rule affects commercial and recreational fish harvesting
entities engaged in the groundfish fishery, the small-mesh multispecies
and squid fisheries, the midwater trawl herring fishery, and the
scallop fishery. Individually-permitted vessels may hold permits for
several fisheries, harvesting species of fish that are regulated by
several different FMPs, even beyond those impacted by the proposed
action. Furthermore, multiple-permitted vessels and/or permits may be
owned by entities affiliated by stock ownership, common management,
identity of interest, contractual relationships, or economic
dependency. For the purposes of the RFA analysis, the ownership
entities, not the individual vessels, are considered to be the
regulated entities.
Ownership entities are defined as those entities with common
ownership personnel as listed on the permit application. Only permits
with identical ownership personnel are categorized as an ownership
entity. For example, if five permits have the same seven persons listed
as co-owners on their permit application, those seven persons would
form one ownership entity, that hold 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.
On June 1 of each year, ownership entities are identified based on
a list of all permits for the most recent complete calendar year. The
current ownership data set used for this analysis is based on calendar
year 2013 and contains average gross sales associated with those
permits for calendar years 2011 through 2013. In addition to
classifying a business (ownership entity) as small or large, a business
can also be classified by its primary source of revenue. A business is
defined as being primarily engaged in fishing for finfish if it obtains
greater than 50 percent of its gross sales from sales of finfish.
Similarly, a business is defined as being primarily engaged in fishing
for shellfish if it obtains greater than 50 percent of its gross sales
from sales of shellfish.
A description of the specific permits that are likely to be
impacted by this action is provided below, along with a discussion of
the impacted businesses, which can include multiple vessels and/or
permit types.

Regulated Commercial Fish Harvesting Entities

Table 19 describes the total number of commercial business entities
potentially affected by the proposed action. As of May 1, 2014, there
were 1,386 commercial business entities potentially affected by this
action. These entities participate in, or are permitted for, the
groundfish, small-mesh multispecies, herring midwater trawl, and
scallop fisheries. For the groundfish fishery, this action directly
regulates potentially affected entities through catch limits and other
management measures designed to achieve the goals and objectives of the
FMP. For the non-groundfish fisheries, this action includes allocations
for groundfish stocks caught as bycatch in these fisheries. For each of
these fisheries, there are AMs that are triggered if their respective
allocations are exceeded. As a result, the likelihood of triggering an
AM is a function of changes to the ACLs each year.

Table 19--Commercial Fish Harvesting Entities Regulated by this Final
Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Classified as
Type Total number small businesses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primarily finfish................. 813 813
Primarily shellfish............... 573 549
-------------------------------------
Total......................... 1,386 1,362
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Limited Access Groundfish Fishery
This action will directly impact entities engaged in the limited
access groundfish fishery. The limited access groundfish fishery
consists of those enrolled in the sector program and those in the
common pool. Both sectors and the common pool are subject to catch
limits, and AMs that prevent fishing in a respective stock area when
the entire catch limit has been caught. Additionally, common pool
vessels are subject to DAS restrictions and trip limits. All permit
holders are eligible to enroll in the sector program; however, many
vessels remain in the common pool because they have low catch histories
of groundfish stocks, which translate into low PSCs. Low PSCs would
limit a vessel's viability in the sector program. In general,
businesses enrolled in the sector program rely more heavily on sales of
groundfish species than vessels enrolled in the common pool.
As of May 1, 2014 (beginning of fishing year 2014), there were
1,046 individual limited access permits. Of these, 613 were enrolled in
the sector program, and 433 were in the common pool. For fishing year
2013, which is the most recent complete fishing year, 708 of these
limited access permits had landings of any species, and 360 of these
permits had landings of groundfish species.
Of the 1,046 individual limited access multispecies permits
potentially impacted by this action, there are 868 distinct ownership
entities. Of these, 855 are categorized as small entities, and 13 are
categorized as large entities.

[[Page 25135]]

However, these totals may mask some diversity among the entities. Many,
if not most, of these ownership entities maintain diversified harvest
portfolios, obtaining gross sales from many fisheries and not dependent
on any one. However, not all are equally diversified. This action is
most likely to affect those entities that depend most heavily on sales
from harvesting groundfish species. There are 114 entities that are
groundfish-dependent, all of which are small, and all of which are
finfish commercial harvesting businesses. Of these groundfish-dependent
entities, 102 have some level of participation in the sector program,
and 12 operate exclusively in the common pool.
Limited Access Scallop Fisheries
The limited access scallop fisheries include limited access scallop
permits and Limited Access General Category (LAGC) scallop permits.
Limited access scallop businesses are subject to a mixture of DAS
restrictions and dedicated area trip restrictions. LAGC scallop
businesses are able to acquire and trade LAGC scallop quota, and there
is an annual cap on quota/landings. The scallop fishery receives an
allocation for GB and SNE/MA yellowtail flounder and southern
windowpane flounder. If these allocations are exceeded, AMs are
implemented in a subsequent fishing year. These AMs close certain areas
of high groundfish bycatch to scallop fishery, and the length of the
closure depends on the magnitude of the overage.
Of the total commercial business entities potentially affected by
this action (1,386), there are 171 scallop fishing entities. The
majority of these entities are defined as shellfish businesses (167).
However, four of these entities are defined as finfish businesses, all
of which are small. Of the total scallop fishing entities, 149 entities
are classified as small entities.
Midwater Trawl Fishery
There are four categories of permits for the herring fishery. Three
of these permit categories are limited access, and vary based on the
allowable herring possession limits and areas fished. The fourth permit
category is open access. Although there is a large number of open
access permits issued each year, this category is subject to fairly low
possession limits for herring, account for a very small amount of the
herring landings, and derive relatively little revenue from the
fishery. The midwater trawl herring fishery receives an allocation of
GOM and GB haddock. Once the entire allocation for either stock has
been caught, the directed herring fishery is closed in the respective
area for the remainder of the fishing year. Additionally, if the
midwater trawl fishery exceeds its allocation, the overage is deducted
from its allocation in the following fishing year.
Of the total commercial business entities potentially regulated by
this action (1,386), there are 71 herring fishing entities. Of these,
43 entities are defined as finfish businesses, all of which are small.
There are 28 entities that are defined as shellfish businesses, and 21
of these are considered small. For the purposes of this analysis, squid
is classified as shellfish. Thus, because there is some overlap with
the herring and squid fisheries, it is likely that these shellfish
entities derive most of their revenues from the squid fishery.
Small-Mesh Fisheries
The small-mesh exempted fishery allows vessels to harvest species
in designated areas using mesh sizes smaller than the minimum mesh size
required by the Northeast Multispecies FMP. To participate in the
small-mesh multispecies (whiting) fishery, vessels must hold either a
limited access multispecies permit or an open access multispecies
permit. Limited access multispecies permit holders can only target
whiting when not fishing under a DAS or a sector trip, and while
declared out of the fishery. A description of limited access
multispecies permits was provided above. Many of these vessels target
both whiting and longfin squid on small-mesh trips and, therefore, most
of them also have open access or limited access squid, mackerel, and
butterfish permits. As a result, squid, mackerel, and butterfish
permits were not handled separately in this analysis.
The small-mesh fisheries receive an allocation of GB yellowtail
flounder. If this allocation is exceeded, an AM is triggered for a
subsequent fishing year. The AM requires small-mesh vessels to use
selective trawl gear when fishing on GB. This gear restriction is only
implemented for one year as a result of an overage, and is removed as
long as additional overages do not occur.
Of the total commercial harvesting entities potentially affected by
this action, there are 570 small-mesh entities. However, this is not
necessarily informative because not all of these entities are active in
the whiting fishery. Based on the most recent information, 25 of these
entities are considered active, with at least 1 lb of whiting landed.
Of these entities, 7 are defined as finfish businesses, all of which
are small. There are 18 entities that are defined as shellfish
businesses, and 17 of these are considered small. Because there is
overlap with the whiting and squid fisheries, it is likely that these
shellfish entities derive most of their revenues from the squid
fishery.

Regulated Recreational Party/Charter Fishing Entities

The charter/party permit is an open access groundfish permit that
can be requested at any time, with the limitation that a vessel cannot
have a limited access groundfish permit and an open access party/
charter permit concurrently. There are no qualification criteria for
this permit. Charter/party permits are subject to recreational
management measures, including minimum fish sizes, possession
restrictions, and seasonal closures.
During calendar year 2014, 732 party/charter permits were issued.
Of these, 267 party/charter permit holders reported catching and
retaining any groundfish species on at least one for-hire trip. In
addition, 204 party/charter permit holders reported catching at least
one cod in 2014. While all party/charter fishing businesses that catch
cod may be affected by the proposed action, the recreational groundfish
fishery only receives an allocation for the GOM stock. Of the 204
party/charter businesses that reported to have caught cod, 106 reported
catching cod in the GOM.
A 2013 report indicated that, in the northeast United States, the
mean gross sales was approximately $27,650 for a charter business and
$13,500 for a party boat. Based on the available information, no
business approached the $7.5 million large business threshold.
Therefore, the 267 potentially regulated party/charter entities are all
considered small businesses.

Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements

This action contains a change to an information collection
requirement, which has been approved by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) under OMB Control Number 0648-0605: Northeast Multispecies
Amendment 16 Data Collection. The revision requires vessels that
declare trips into the GOM Broad Stock Area and any other broad stock
area (i.e., GB or SNE/MA) on the same trip to submit a daily catch
report via VMS. Vessels fishing in multiple broad stock areas are
currently required to submit a trip-level VMS catch report, so this
change only increases the frequency of submission for certain trips.
The daily catch report is estimated to take 15 minutes to complete, and
cost $2.08 per submission. Based on trips to

[[Page 25136]]

multiple broad stock areas taken during the 2013 fishing year, the
average trip length for vessels that fish in multiple broad stock areas
on a single trip is 5 days. If vessels take 7 trips per year, the
burden estimate for daily trip reports is 8 hours and $73.
Public comment is sought regarding whether this collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the agency, including whether the information shall have practical
utility; the accuracy of the burden estimate; ways to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information, including
through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology. Send comments on these or any other aspects of
the collection of information to NMFS and to OMB (see ADDRESSES).
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is
required to respond to, and no person shall be subject to penalty for
failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act, unless that collection of
information displays a currently valid OMB control number.

Description of the Steps the Agency Has Taken To Minimize the
Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities Consistent With the
Stated Objectives of Applicable Statutes

The economic impacts of the measures implemented in this action are
summarized below and are discussed in more detail in sections 7.4 and
8.11 of the Framework 53 Environmental Assessment. Although small
entities are defined based on gross sales of ownership groups, not
physical characteristics of the vessel, it is reasonable to assume that
larger vessels are more likely to be owned by large entities. The
economic impacts of this action are anticipated to result in aggregate
gross revenue losses of approximately $4 million in fishing year 2015,
compared to predicted revenues for fishing year 2014. However, these
losses are expected to be absorbed primarily by small businesses. Some
vessel size classes and ports are predicted to have 50- to 80-percent
declines in revenues from groundfish, and many vessels may be forced to
relocate to Southern New England ports, or stop fishing altogether.
Because predicted losses are expected to primarily affect small
businesses, this action has the potential to place small entities at a
competitive disadvantage relative to large entities. This is mainly
because large entities may have more flexibility to adjust to, and
accommodate, the measures. However, as discussed in more detail below,
the additional declines in gross revenues expected as a result of this
action will pose serious difficulties for all groundfish vessels and
their crew.

Status Determination Criteria

This action changes the GB yellowtail flounder status, relative to
reference points, to unknown. In addition, this action updates the
numerical estimates of the status determination criteria for GOM cod,
GOM haddock, GOM winter flounder, GB winter flounder, and pollock.
These updates result in lower values of MSY. For some of these, the
lower values of MSY result in lower ACLs in the short-term, which is
expected to have negative economic impacts (i.e., lower net revenues).
However, the updates to the status determination criteria are expected
to have positive stock benefits by helping to prevent overfishing.
Thus, in the long-term, the changes to status determination criteria
are expected to result in higher and more sustainable landings when
compared to the No Action option. All of the revisions are based on the
2014 assessments for the respective stocks, and are therefore based on
the best scientific information available.
Status determination criteria are formulaic based on the results of
a stock assessment. As a result, the only other alternative considered
for this action was the No Action option, which would not update the
status determination criteria for any groundfish stocks based on the
2014 assessments. This option would not incorporate the best scientific
information available, and would not be consistent with Magnuson-
Stevens Act requirements, and, as a result, was not selected. This
option would not have any immediate economic impacts. However if this
option resulted in overfishing in the long-term, then it would have
severe negative economic impacts for the fisheries affected by this
action.

Annual Catch Limits

This action sets catch limits for eastern GB cod and haddock, GOM
cod, GOM haddock, GB yellowtail flounder, GOM winter flounder, and
Pollock, and has the potential to affect groundfish (including small-
mesh), midwater trawl, and scallop-dependent small entities.
For the commercial groundfish fishery, the catch limits are
expected to result in a 7-percent decrease in gross revenues on
groundfish trips, or $6 million, compared to predicted gross revenues
for fishing year 2014. However, as described later, the aggregate
predicted revenues for 2015 also depend on the other measures adopted
in this action. The negative impacts of the approved catch limits are
not expected to be uniformly distributed across vessels size classes.
Vessels in the 30-50 ft (9-15 m) category are predicted to incur the
largest decrease in gross revenues compared to 2014. Based only on the
approved catch limits, vessels in this category could incur revenue
losses of 33 percent, and aggregate losses are expected to be more as a
result of other measures in this action. Larger vessel classes are not
expected to be affected as heavily by the catch limits in this action.
Based only on the approved catch limits, 50-75-ft (15-23-m) vessels are
predicted to incur losses of 16 percent, and the largest vessels (75 ft
(23 m) and greater) are predicted to incur losses of 3 percent.
For the scallop, midwater trawl, and small-mesh fisheries, the
catch limits implemented in this action include allocations for bycatch
of groundfish species that occurs in these fisheries. The GB yellowtail
flounder allocation for both the scallop and small-mesh fisheries would
be a decrease in 2015 compared to 2014, which could increase the
likelihood of triggering AMs. However, based on recent catch
performance, AMs for GB yellowtail flounder have never been implemented
for these fisheries as a result of an overage. Additionally, based on
scallop management measures that are proposed for 2015, it is not
expected that scallop effort will increase on GB relative to recent
years. Although the reduction for GB yellowtail flounder could have
negative economic impacts, these fisheries are not expected to exceed
their respective allocations in 2015, and no AMs are expected to be
triggered.
For the midwater trawl fishery, the allocations for GOM and GB
haddock are both expected to increase in 2015 relative to 2014.
However, in fishing year 2013, the AM for GB haddock was triggered. As
a result, it is possible that this could occur again in 2015 depending
on catch rates of herring and haddock. If the AM for GB haddock is
triggered, there could be negative economic impacts that result from
foregone herring yield. The magnitude of these negative impacts would
depend on how much herring quota remained at the time the AM was
implemented, and whether other herring management areas were open for
directed herring fishing.
The catch limits are based on the latest stock assessment
information, which is considered the best scientific information
available, and the

[[Page 25137]]

applicable requirements in the FMP and the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The
only other possible alternatives to the catch limits implemented in
this action that would mitigate negative impacts would be higher catch
limits. Alternative, higher catch limits, however, are not permissible
under the law because they would not be consistent with the goals and
objectives of the FMP, or the Magnuson-Stevens Act, particularly the
requirement to prevent overfishing. The Magnuson-Stevens Act, and case
law, prevent implementation of measures that conflict with conservation
requirements, even if it means negative impacts are not mitigated. The
catch limits implemented in this action are the highest allowed given
the best scientific information available, the SSC's recommendations,
and requirements to end overfishing and rebuild fish stocks. The only
other legally available alternatives to the catch limits in this action
would be lower limits, which would not mitigate the economic impacts of
this action to the fishery.
Under the No Action option, no catch limits would be specified for
the U.S./Canada stocks, GB winter flounder, GOM winter flounder, or
pollock. In this scenario, sector vessels would be unable to fish in
the respective stock areas at the start of the 2015 fishing year if no
allocations were specified. This would result in greater negative
economic impacts for vessels compared to the proposed action due to
lost revenues as a result of being unable to fish. The proposed action
is predicted to result in approximately $77 million in gross revenues
from groundfish trips. All of this revenue would be lost if no action
was taken to specify catch limits. As a result, this alternative was
not selected because if would fail to meet the Magnuson-Stevens Act
requirements to achieve optimum yield and consider the needs of fishing
communities.

Gulf of Maine Cod Protection Measures

This action re-configures the GOM rolling closures for commercial
vessels and adopts a prohibition on possession of GOM cod for the
recreational fishery. For the commercial groundfish fishery, this
action is expected to result in less severe negative economic impacts
than the approved catch limits alone. Based on predicted leasing
practices, the negative economic impacts of the selected alternative
are estimated to be greater compared to other alternatives considered
that would have adopted additional GOM cod spawning closures. However,
the aggregate economic impacts of the spawning closures that were
considered for this action, but not adopted, are largely driven by the
flow of quota from smaller inshore vessels, which would be unable to
fish, to larger offshore vessels. Although analysis indicated that the
selected action would have greater negative impacts compared to these
other alternatives, the negative impacts to small vessels are masked by
the predicted aggregate gross revenues. The approved action would add
closures in some months, while removing other closures, largely in the
month of April. Removing closures in April was intended to provide
vessels access to healthy groundfish stocks. As a result, the approved
action is expected to improve the viability of the inshore fleet, and
help mitigate the economic impacts of the approved catch limits,
compared to other closure alternatives considered in the action that
included different time-area combinations, and that would have
maintained April closures.
The ability of the approved action to provide increased spawning
protection would largely dictate the long-term economic impacts of this
action. If the approved action enhances spawning protection, which
translates into increased stock rebuilding, then the long-term economic
impacts would be positive. However, if the approved action does not
enhance spawning protection or translate into increased stock
rebuilding, then the long-term economic impacts would be similar to the
status quo, or negative.
For the recreational fishery, the prohibition on GOM cod possession
is expected to result in short-term negative economic impacts, as it
will likely result in some recreational anglers not booking party/
charter trips. However, if the prohibition results in a decrease in
fishing mortality relative to the status quo, then it could contribute
to stock rebuilding. If this occurs, the long-term economic impacts of
the prohibition could be positive if demand for party/charter fishing
trips increase as the stock rebuilds. Further, in the long-term, the
recreational fishery would benefit from the commercial closures
discussed above if they successfully enhance spawning protection and
increase stock rebuilding.
Adopting a possession restriction for the recreational fishery, in
lieu of time and area closures to protect GOM cod, mitigated economic
impacts for the recreational fishery to the extent practicable. The GOM
cod protection closures that were considered in this action, but not
adopted, would likely have had even greater economic impacts on the
recreational fishery. These closures are mainly inshore, and analysis
indicated that the total steam time to fish further offshore, around
the closures, would have exceeded the standard party/charter trip of 4
or 6 hours. As a result, recreational vessels may have been unable to
move to alternative areas to fish for other groundfish stocks.

Default Groundfish Specifications

This action establishes a mechanism for setting default catch
limits in the event a management action is delayed. This is expected to
have positive economic benefits, primarily for sector vessels, compared
to the No Action option. Sector vessels are not allowed to fish without
an allocation, so if no catch limits are specified for the fishing
year, there would be severe negative economic impacts to the groundfish
fishery. The default groundfish specifications are expected to prevent
the situation that would otherwise occur if no action was taken.

Sector Carryover

This action modifies the provision that allows sectors to carryover
unused allocation from one fishing year into the next fishing year. The
economic impacts of the carryover provision are likely minor, and
similar to the status quo. In any fishing year, if the maximum
available sector carryover is reduced from 10 percent, this could have
a negative economic impact. However, the approved action does not
modify the AM for sectors that requires any overages, even overages
that result from harvesting available carryover, must be paid back. As
a result, the approved action is not expected to largely change sector
operations compared to the No Action alternative.

Small Entity Compliance Guide

Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
Act of 1996 states that, for each rule or group of related rules for
which an agency is required to prepare a FRFA, the agency shall publish
one or more guides to assist small entities in complying with the rule,
and shall designate such publications as ``small entity compliance
guides.'' The agency shall explain the actions a small entity is
required to take to comply with a rule or group of rules. As part of
this rulemaking process, a small entity compliance guide will be sent
to all holders of Federal permits issued for the Northeast multispecies
fisheries, as well as the scallop and herring fisheries that receive an
allocation of some groundfish stocks. In addition, copies of this final
rule and guides (i.e., information bulletins) are available from NMFS
at

[[Page 25138]]

the following Web site: https://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648

Fisheries, Fishing, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

Dated: April 23, 2015.
Eileen Sobeck,
Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries
Service.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, NMFS amends 50 CFR part 648
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. 648.2:
0
a. Lift the suspension of the definition for ``Gillnet gear capable of
catching multispecies'' and revise it; and
0
b. Remove the definition for ``Gillnet gear capable of catching
multispecies (for purposes of the interim action)''.
The revision reads as follows:

Sec. 648.2 Definitions.

* * * * *
Gillnet gear capable of catching multispecies means all gillnet
gear except pelagic gillnet gear specified at Sec. 648.81(f)(5)(ii)
and pelagic gillnet gear that is designed to fish for and is used to
fish for or catch tunas, swordfish, and sharks.
* * * * *

Sec. 648.10 [Amended]

0
3. In Sec. 648.10, revise paragraph (k)(2) and remove paragraphs
(k)(3)(i)(A) and (B).
The revision reads as follows:

Sec. 648.10 VMS and DAS requirements for vessel owners/operators.

* * * * *
(k) * * *
(2) Reporting requirements for NE multispecies vessel owners or
operators fishing in more than one broad stock area per trip. Unless
otherwise provided in this paragraph (k)(2), the owner or operator of
any vessel issued a NE multispecies limited access permit that has
declared its intent to fish within multiple NE multispecies broad stock
areas, as defined in paragraph (k)(3) of this section, on the same trip
must submit a hail report via VMS providing a good-faith estimate of
the amount of each regulated species retained (in pounds, landed
weight) and the total amount of all species retained (in pounds, landed
weight), including NE multispecies and species managed by other FMPs,
from each broad stock area. This reporting requirement is in addition
to the reporting requirements specified in paragraph (k)(1) of this
section and any other reporting requirements specified in this part.
The report frequency is detailed in paragraphs (k)(2)(i) and (ii) of
this section.
(i) Vessels declaring into GOM Stock Area and any other stock area.
A vessel declared to fish in the GOM Stock Area, as defined in
paragraph (k)(3)(i), and any other stock area defined in (k)(3)(ii)
through (iv) of this section, must submit a daily VMS catch report in
24-hr intervals for each day by 0900 hr of the following day. Reports
are required even if groundfish species caught that day have not yet
been landed.
(ii) Vessels declaring into multiple broad stock areas not
including GOM Stock Area. A vessel declared into multiple stock areas
defined in (k)(3)(ii) through (iv) of this section, not including the
GOM Stock Area I defined in (k)(3)(i), must submit a trip-level report
via VMS prior to crossing the VMS demarcation line, as defined in Sec.
648.10, upon its return to port following each fishing trip on which
regulated species were caught, as instructed by the Regional
Administrator.
(iii) The Regional Administrator may adjust the reporting frequency
specified in paragraph (k)(2) of this section.
(iv) Exemptions from broad stock area VMS reporting requirements.
(A) A vessel is exempt from the reporting requirements specified in
paragraph (k)(2) of this section if it is fishing in a special
management program, as specified in Sec. 648.85, and is required to
submit daily VMS catch reports consistent with the requirements of that
program.
(B) The Regional Administrator may exempt vessels on a sector trip
from the reporting requirements specified in this paragraph (k)(2) if
it is determined that such reporting requirements would duplicate those
specified in Sec. 648.87(b).
* * * * *

0
4. In Sec. 648.14:
0
a. Lift the suspension of paragraphs (k)(6)(i)(E), (k)(7)(i)(A) and
(B), (k)(12)(v)(E) and (F), (k)(12)(v)(K) and (L), (k)(13)(i)(D)(1)
through (4), (k)(13)(ii)(B) through (D), (k)(13)(ii)(K) through (M),
(k)(14)(viii), and (k)(16)(iii)(A) through (F);
0
b. Revise paragraph (k)(6)(i)(E);
0
c. Remove paragraph (k)(6)(i)(H);
0
d. Revise paragraphs (k)(7)(i)(A) and (B);
0
e. Remove paragraphs (k)(7)(i)(H) through (J);
0
f. Revise paragraph (k)(12)(i) introductory text;
0
g. Remove paragraphs (k)(12)(v)(K) through (N);
0
h. Revise paragraph (k)(13)(i) introductory text;
0
i. Remove paragraphs (k)(13)(i)(D)(5) and (6), (k)(13)(ii)(K) through
(P), and (k)(14)(xii);
0
j. Revise paragraphs (k)(16) introductory text and (k)(16)(iii)(A) and
(B); and
0
k. Remove paragraphs (k)(16)(iii)(D) through (H).
The revisions read as follows:

Sec. 648.14 Prohibitions.

* * * * *
(k) * * *
(6) * * *
(i) * * *
(E) Use, set, haul back, fish with, possess on board a vessel,
unless stowed and not available for immediate use as defined in Sec.
648.2, or fail to remove, sink gillnet gear and other gillnet gear
capable of catching NE multispecies, with the exception of single
pelagic gillnets (as described in Sec. 648.81(f)(5)(ii)), in the areas
and for the times specified in Sec. 648.80(g)(6)(i) and (ii), except
as provided in Sec. 648.80(g)(6)(i) and (ii), and Sec.
648.81(f)(5)(ii), or unless otherwise authorized in writing by the
Regional Administrator.
* * * * *
(7) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) Enter, be on a fishing vessel in, or fail to remove gear from
the EEZ portion of the areas described in Sec. 648.81(d)(1), (e)(1),
(f)(4), and (g)(1), except as provided in Sec. 648.81(d)(2), (e)(2),
(f)(5), (g)(2), and (i).
(B) Fish for, harvest, possess, or land regulated species in or
from the closed areas specified in Sec. 648.81(a) through (f) and (n),
unless otherwise specified in Sec. 648.81(c)(2)(iii), (f)(5)(i),
(f)(5)(iv), (f)(5)(viii) and (ix), (i), (n)(2)(i), or as authorized
under Sec. 648.85.
* * * * *
(12) * * *
(i) It is unlawful for any person to:
* * * * *
(13) * * *
(i) It is unlawful for any person to:
* * * * *
(16) Recreational and charter/party requirements. It is unlawful
for the owner or operator of a charter or party boat issued a valid
Federal NE multispecies permit, or for a recreational vessel, as
applicable, unless otherwise specified in Sec. 648.17, to do any of
the following if fishing under the recreational or charter/party
regulations:
* * * * *

[[Page 25139]]

(iii) * * *
(A) Fail to comply with the applicable restrictions if transiting
the GOM Regulated Mesh Area with cod on board that was caught outside
the GOM Regulated Mesh Area.
(B) Fail to comply with the requirements specified in Sec.
648.81(f)(5)(v) when fishing in the areas described in Sec.
648.81(d)(1), (e)(1), and (f)(4) during the time periods specified.
* * * * *

0
5. In Sec. 648.80:
0
a. Lift the suspension of paragraphs (a)(3)(vi), (a)(3)(viii),
(a)(4)(iii), (a)(4)(ix), and (g)(6)(i) and (ii);
0
b. Remove paragraphs (a)(3)(viii) and (ix) and (a)(4)(ix) and (x);
0
c. Revise paragraphs (g)(6)(i) and (ii); and
0
d. Remove paragraphs (g)(6)(iii) and (iv).
The revisions read as follows:

Sec. 648.80 NE multispecies regulated mesh areas and restrictions on
gear and methods of fishing.

* * * * *
(g) * * *
(6) * * *
(i) Requirements for gillnet gear capable of catching NE
multispecies to reduce harbor porpoise takes. In addition to the
requirements for gillnet fishing identified in this section, all
persons owning or operating vessels in the EEZ that fish with sink
gillnet gear and other gillnet gear capable of catching NE
multispecies, with the exception of single pelagic gillnets (as
described in Sec. 648.81(f)(5)(ii)), must comply with the applicable
provisions of the Harbor Porpoise Take Reduction Plan found in Sec.
229.33 of this title.
(ii) Requirements for gillnet gear capable of catching NE
multispecies to prevent large whale takes. In addition to the
requirements for gillnet fishing identified in this section, all
persons owning or operating vessels in the EEZ that fish with sink
gillnet gear and other gillnet gear capable of catching NE
multispecies, with the exception of single pelagic gillnets (as
described in Sec. 648.81(f)(5)(ii)), must comply with the applicable
provisions of the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan found in
Sec. 229.32 of this title.
* * * * *

0
6. In Sec. 648.81:
0
a. Lift suspension of paragraphs (d)(1) through (4), (e)(1) and (2),
(f)(1) and (2), (g)(1)(i), (o)(1)(iii), (iv) and (viii) through (x),
and (o)(2)(iv);
0
b. Revise paragraph (d)(2);
0
c. Remove paragraphs (d)(3) through (6);
0
d. Revise paragraph (e)(2);
0
e. Remove paragraphs (e)(3) and (4);
0
f. Revise paragraph (f);
0
g. Remove paragraph (g)(1)(vii);
0
h. Revise paragraphs (g)(2) introductory text, (g)(2)(i), and (i); and
0
i. Remove paragraph (o).
The revisions read as follows:

Sec. 648.81 NE multispecies closed areas and measures to protect EFH.

* * * * *
(d) * * *
(2) Unless otherwise restricted under the EFH Closure(s) specified
in paragraph (h) of this section, paragraph (d)(1) of this section does
not apply to persons on fishing vessels or fishing vessels that meet
the criteria in paragraphs (f)(5)(ii) through (v) of this section.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(2) Unless otherwise restricted under paragraph (h) of this
section, paragraph (e)(1) of this section does not apply to persons on
fishing vessels or fishing vessels that meet the criteria in paragraphs
(f)(5)(ii) through (v) of this section consistent with the requirements
specified under Sec. 648.80(a)(5).
* * * * *
(f) GOM Cod Protection Closures. (1) Unless otherwise allowed in
this part, no fishing vessel or person on a fishing vessel may enter,
fish in, or be in; and no fishing gear capable of catching NE
multispecies may be in, or on board a vessel in GOM Cod Protection
Closures I through V as described, and during the times specified, in
paragraphs (f)(4)(i) through (v) of this section.
(2) Any vessel subject to a GOM cod protection closure may transit
the area, provided it complies with the requirements specified in
paragraph (i) of this section.
(3) The New England Fishery Management Council shall review the GOM
Cod Protection Closures Areas specified in this section when the
spawning stock biomass for GOM cod reaches the minimum biomass
threshold specified for the stock (50 percent of SSBMSY).
(4) GOM Cod Protection Closure Areas. Charts depicting these areas
are available from the Regional Administrator upon request.
(i) GOM Cod Protection Closure I. From May 1 through May 31, the
restrictions specified in paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section
apply to GOM Cod Protection Closure I, which is the area bounded by the
following coordinates connected in the order stated by straight lines:

GOM Cod Protection Closure I
[May 1-May 31]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point N. latitude W. longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CPCI 1......................... 43[deg]30' N \(1)\
CPCI 2......................... 43[deg]30' N 69[deg]30' W
CPCI 3......................... 43[deg]00' N 69[deg]30' W
CPCI 4......................... 43[deg]00' N 70[deg]00' W
CPCI 5......................... 42[deg]30' N 70[deg]00' W
CPCI 6......................... 42[deg]30' N 70[deg]30' W
CPCI 7......................... 42[deg]20' N 70[deg]30' W
CPCI 8......................... 42[deg]20' N \(2) (3)\
CPCI 1......................... 43[deg]30' N \(1) (3)\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The intersection of 43[deg]30' N latitude and the coastline of
Maine.
\2\ The intersection of 42[deg]20' N latitude and the coastline of
Massachusetts.
\3\ From Point 8 back to Point 1 following the coastline of the United
States.

(ii) GOM Cod Protection Closure II. From June 1 through June 30,
the restrictions specified in paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section
apply to GOM Cod Protection Closure II, which is the area bounded by
the following coordinates connected in the order stated by straight
lines:

GOM Cod Protection Closure II
[June 1-June 30]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point N. latitude W. longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CPCII 1........................ \(1)\ 69[deg]30' W
CPCII 2........................ 43[deg]30' N 69[deg]30' W
CPCII 3........................ 43[deg]30' N 70[deg]00' W
CPCII 4........................ 42[deg]30' N 70[deg]00' W
CPCII 5........................ 42[deg]30' N 70[deg]30' W
CPCII 6........................ 42[deg]20' N 70[deg]30' W
CPCII 7........................ 42[deg]20' N \(2) (3)\
CPCII 8........................ 42[deg]30' N \(4) (3)\
CPCII 9........................ 42[deg]30' N 70[deg]30' W
CPCII 10....................... 43[deg]00' N 70[deg]30' W
CPCII 11....................... 43[deg]00' N \(5) (6)\
CPCII 1........................ \(1)\ 69[deg]30' W \6\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The intersection of 69[deg]30' W longitude and the coastline of
Maine.
\2\ The intersection of 42[deg]20' N latitude and the coastline of
Massachusetts.
\3\ From Point 7 to Point 8 following the coastline of Massachusetts.
\4\ The intersection of 42[deg]30' N latitude and the coastline of
Massachusetts.
\5\ The intersection of 43[deg]00' N latitude and the coastline of New
Hampshire.
\6\ From Point 11 back to Point 1 following the coastlines of New
Hampshire and Maine.

(iii) GOM Cod Protection Closure III. From November 1 through
January 31, the restrictions specified in paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of
this section apply to GOM Cod Protection Closure III, which is the area
bounded by the following coordinates connected in the order stated by
straight lines:

[[Page 25140]]

GOM Cod Protection Closure III
[November 1-January 31]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point N. latitude W. longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CPCIII 1....................... 42[deg]30' N \(1)\
CPCIII 2....................... 42[deg]30' N 70[deg]30' W
CPCIII 3....................... 42[deg]15' N 70[deg]30' W
CPCIII 4....................... 42[deg]15' N 70[deg]24' W
CPCIII 5....................... 42[deg]00' N 70[deg]24' W
CPCIII 6....................... 42[deg]00' N \(2) (3)\
CPCIII 1....................... 42[deg]30' N \(1) (3)\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The intersection of 42[deg]30' N latitude and the Massachusetts
coastline.
\2\ The intersection of 42[deg]00' N latitude and the mainland
Massachusetts coastline at Kingston, MA.
\3\ From Point 6 back to Point 1 following the coastline of
Massachusetts.

(iv) GOM Cod Protection Closure IV. From October 1 through October
31, the restrictions specified in paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this
section apply to GOM Cod Protection Closure IV, which is the area
bounded by the following coordinates connected in the order stated by
straight lines:

GOM Cod Protection Closure IV
[October 1-October 31]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point N. latitude W. longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CPCIV 1........................ 42[deg]30' N \(1)\
CPCIV 2........................ 42[deg]30' N 70[deg]00' W
CPCIV 3........................ 42[deg]00' N 70[deg]00' W
CPCIV 4........................ 42[deg]00' N \(2) (3)\
CPCIV 1........................ 42[deg]30' N \(1) (3)\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The intersection of 42[deg]30' N latitude and the Massachusetts
coastline
\2\ The intersection of 42[deg]00' N latitude and the mainland
Massachusetts coastline at Kingston, MA
\3\ From Point 4 back to Point 1 following the coastline of
Massachusetts

(v) GOM Cod Protection Closure V. From March 1 through March 31,
the restrictions specified in paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section
GOM Cod Protection Closure V, which is the area bounded by the
following coordinates connected in the order stated by straight lines:

GOM Cod Protection Closure V
[March 1-March 31]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point N. latitude W. longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CPCV 1......................... 42[deg]30' N 70[deg]00' W
CPCV 2......................... 42[deg]30' N 68[deg]30' W
CPCV 3......................... 42[deg]00' N 68[deg]30' W
CPCV 4......................... 42[deg]00' N 70[deg]00' W
CPCV 1......................... 42[deg]30' N 70[deg]00' W
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(5) The GOM cod protection closures specified in this section do
not apply to persons aboard fishing vessels or fishing vessels that
meet any of the following criteria:
(i) That have not been issued a multispecies permit and that are
fishing exclusively in state waters;
(ii) That are fishing with or using exempted gear as defined under
this part, except for pelagic gillnet gear capable of catching NE
multispecies, unless fishing with a single pelagic gillnet not longer
than 300 ft (91.4 m) and not greater than 6 ft (1.83 m) deep, with a
maximum mesh size of 3 inches (7.6 cm), provided that:
(A) The net is attached to the boat and fished in the upper two-
thirds of the water column;
(B) The net is marked with the owner's name and vessel
identification number;
(C) There is no retention of regulated species; and
(D) There is no other gear on board capable of catching NE
multispecies;
(iii) That are fishing in the Midwater Trawl Gear Exempted Fishery
as specified in Sec. 648.80(d);
(iv) That are fishing in the Purse Seine Gear Exempted Fishery as
specified in Sec. 648.80(e);
(v) That are fishing under charter/party or recreational
regulations specified in Sec. 648.89, provided that:
(A) For vessels fishing under charter/party regulations in a GOM
cod protection closure described under paragraph (f)(4) of this
section, it has on board a letter of authorization issued by the
Regional Administrator, which is valid from the date of enrollment
through the duration of the closure or 3 months duration, whichever is
greater; for vessels fishing under charter/party regulations in the
Cashes Ledge Closure Area or Western GOM Area Closure, as described
under paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section, respectively, it has on
board a letter of authorization issued by the Regional Administrator,
which is valid from the date of enrollment until the end of the fishing
year;
(B) Fish species managed by the NEFMC or MAFMC that are harvested
or possessed by the vessel, are not sold or intended for trade, barter
or sale, regardless of where the fish are caught;
(C) The vessel has no gear other than rod and reel or handline on
board; and
(D) The vessel does not use any NE multispecies DAS during the
entire period for which the letter of authorization is valid;
(vi) That are fishing with or using scallop dredge gear when
fishing under a scallop DAS or when lawfully fishing in the Scallop
Dredge Fishery Exemption Area as described in Sec. 648.80(a)(11),
provided the vessel does not retain any regulated NE multispecies
during a trip, or on any part of a trip; or
(vii) That are fishing in the Raised Footrope Trawl Exempted
Whiting Fishery, as specified in Sec. 648.80(a)(15), or in the Small
Mesh Area II Exemption Area, as specified in Sec. 648.80(a)(9);
(viii) That are fishing on a sector trip, as defined in this part,
and in the GOM Cod Protection Closures IV or V, as specified in
paragraphs (f)(4)(iv) and (v) of this section; or
(ix) That are fishing under the provisions of a Northeast
multispecies Handgear A permit, as specified at Sec. 648.82(b)(6), and
in the GOM Cod Protection Closures IV or V, as specified in paragraphs
(f)(4)(iv) and (v) of this section .
(g) * * *
(2) Paragraph (g)(1) of this section does not apply to persons on
fishing vessels or to fishing vessels that meet any of the following
criteria:
(i) That meet the criteria in paragraphs (f)(5)(i), (ii), or (iii)
of this section;
* * * * *
(i) Transiting. Unless otherwise restricted or specified in this
paragraph (i), a vessel may transit CA I, the Nantucket Lightship
Closed Area, the Cashes Ledge Closed Area, the Western GOM Closure
Area, the GOM Cod Protection Closures, the GB Seasonal Closure Area,
the EFH Closure Areas, and the GOM Cod Spawning Protection Area, as
defined in paragraphs (a)(1), (c)(1), (d)(1), (e)(1), (f)(4), (g)(1),
(h)(1), and (n)(1), of this section, respectively, provided that its
gear is stowed and not available for immediate use as defined in Sec.
648.2. A vessel may transit CA II, as defined in paragraph (b)(1) of
this section, in accordance with paragraph (b)(2)(iv) of this section.
Private recreational or charter/party vessels fishing under the
Northeast multispecies provisions specified at Sec. 648.89 may transit
the GOM Cod Spawning Protection Area, as defined in paragraph (n)(1) of
this section, provided all bait and hooks are removed from fishing
rods, and any regulated species on board have been caught outside the
GOM Cod Spawning Protection Area and has been gutted and stored.
* * * * *

Sec. 648.82 [Amended]

0
7. In Sec. 648.82, lift the suspension of paragraphs (b)(5) through
(8), and remove paragraphs (b)(7) through (10).

Sec. 648.85 [Amended]

0
8. In Sec. 648.85, lift the suspension of paragraphs (b)(6)(iv)(D) and
(K) and remove paragraphs (b)(6)(iv)(K) and (L).

[[Page 25141]]

Sec. 648.86 [Amended]

0
9. In Sec. 648.86, lift the suspension of paragraphs (b)(1) through
(7) and remove paragraphs (b)(5) through (10).

0
10. In Sec. 648.87:
0
a. Lift the suspension of paragraphs (b)(1)(v)(A), (b)(1)(ix),
(b)(1)(x), (c)(2)(i), (c)(2)(ii)(A) and (B), (c)(2)(ii)(E), and
(c)(2)(iii);
0
b. Revise paragraphs (b)(1)(i)(C) and (b)(1)(iii)(C);
0
c. Remove paragraphs (b)(1)(v)(C) and (b)(1)(x) and (xi);
0
d. Revise paragraphs (c)(2)(i) and (c)(2)(ii)(B); and
0
e. Remove paragraphs (c)(2)(ii)(E) through (G) and (c)(2)(iii) and
(iv).
The revisions read as follows:

Sec. 648.87 Sector allocation.

* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) * * *
(C) Carryover. (1) With the exception of GB yellowtail flounder, a
sector may carryover an amount of ACE equal to 10 percent of its
original ACE for each stock that is unused at the end of one fishing
year into the following fishing year, provided that the total unused
sector ACE plus the overall ACL for the following fishing year does not
exceed the ABC for the fishing year in which the carryover may be
harvested. If this total exceeds the ABC, NMFS shall adjust the maximum
amount of unused ACE that a sector may carryover (down from 10 percent)
to an amount equal to the ABC of the following fishing year. Any
adjustments made would be applied to each sector based on its total
unused ACE and proportional to the cumulative PSCs of vessels/permits
participating in the sector for the particular fishing year, as
described in paragraph (b)(1)(i)(E) of this section.
(i) Eastern GB Stocks Carryover. Any unused ACE allocated for
Eastern GB stocks in accordance with paragraph (b)(1)(i)(B) of this
section shall contribute to the carryover allowance for each stock, as
specified in this paragraph (b)(1)(i)(C)(1), but shall not increase
individual sector's allocation of Eastern GB stocks during the
following year.
(ii) This carryover ACE remains effective during the subsequent
fishing year even if vessels that contributed to the sector allocation
during the previous fishing year are no longer participating in the
same sector for the subsequent fishing year.
(2) Carryover accounting. (i) If the overall ACL for a particular
stock is exceeded, the allowed carryover of a particular stock
harvested by a sector, minus the NMFS-specified de minimis amount,
shall be counted against the sector's ACE for purposes of determining
an overage subject to the AM in paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this section.
(ii) De Minimis Carryover Amount. The de minimis carryover amount
is one percent of the overall sector sub-ACL for the fishing year in
which the carryover would be harvested. NMFS may change this de minimis
carryover amount for any fishing year through notice consistent with
the Administrative Procedure Act. The overall de minimis carryover
amount would be applied to each sector proportional to the cumulative
PSCs of vessels/permits participating in the sector for the particular
fishing year, as described in paragraph (b)(1)(i)(E) of this section.
* * * * *
(iii) * * *
(C) ACE buffer. At the beginning of each fishing year, NMFS shall
withhold 20 percent of a sector's ACE for each stock for a period of up
to 61 days (i.e., through June 30), unless otherwise specified by NMFS,
to allow time to process any ACE transfers submitted at the end of the
fishing year pursuant to paragraph (b)(1)(viii) of this section and to
determine whether the ACE allocated to any sector needs to be reduced,
or any overage penalties need to be applied to individual permits/
vessels in the current fishing year to accommodate an ACE overage by
that sector during the previous fishing year, as specified in paragraph
(b)(1)(iii) of this section. NMFS shall not withhold 20 percent of a
sector's ACE at the beginning of a fishing year in which default
specifications are in effect, as specified in Sec. 648.90(a)(3).
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) Regulations that may not be exempted for sector participants.
The Regional Administrator may not exempt participants in a sector from
the following Federal fishing regulations: Specific times and areas
within the NE multispecies year-round closure areas; permitting
restrictions (e.g., vessel upgrades, etc.); gear restrictions designed
to minimize habitat impacts (e.g., roller gear restrictions, etc.);
reporting requirements; AMs specified in Sec. 648.90(a)(5)(i)(D). For
the purposes of this paragraph (c)(2)(i), the DAS reporting
requirements specified in Sec. 648.82; the SAP-specific reporting
requirements specified in Sec. 648.85; and the reporting requirements
associated with a dockside monitoring program are not considered
reporting requirements, and the Regional Administrator may exempt
sector participants from these requirements as part of the approval of
yearly operations plans. For the purpose of this paragraph (c)(2)(i),
the Regional Administrator may not grant sector participants exemptions
from the NE multispecies year-round closures areas defined as Essential
Fish Habitat Closure Areas as defined in Sec. 648.81(h); the
Fippennies Ledge Area as defined in paragraph (c)(2)(i)(A) of this
section; Closed Area I and Closed Area II, as defined in Sec.
648.81(a) and (b), respectively, during the period February 16 through
April 30; and the Western GOM Closure Area, as defined at Sec.
648.81(e), where it overlaps with GOM Cod Protection Closures I through
III, as defined in Sec. 648.81(f)(4). This list may be modified
through a framework adjustment, as specified in Sec. 648.90.
* * * * *
(ii) * * *
(B) The GOM Cod Protection Closures IV and V specified in Sec.
648.81(f)(4)(iv) and (v) and the GB Seasonal Closed Area specified in
Sec. 648.81(g)(1);
* * * * *

Sec. 648.88 [Amended]

0
11. In Sec. 648.88, lift the suspension of paragraphs (a)(1) and (3),
and remove paragraphs (a)(3) and (4).

0
12. In Sec. 648.89:
0
a. Lift the suspension of paragraphs (b)(3), (c)(1) and (2), (c)(8),
and (e)(1) through (4);
0
b. Revise paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2)(i);
0
c.. Remove paragraphs (c)(2)(v) and (c)(8) and (9);
0
c. Revise paragraph (e)(1);
0
d. Remove paragraphs (e)(4) through (7); and
0
e. Revise paragraph (f).
The revisions read as follows:

Sec. 648.89 Recreational and charter/party vessel restrictions.

* * * * *
(c) Possession Restrictions--(1) Recreational fishing vessels. (i)
Each person on a private recreational vessel may possess no more than
10 cod per day in, or harvested from, the EEZ when fishing outside of
the GOM Regulated Mesh Area specified in Sec. 648.80(a)(1).
(ii) When fishing in the GOM Regulated Mesh Area specified in Sec.
648.80(a)(1), persons aboard private recreational fishing vessels may
not fish for or possess any cod with the exception that private
recreational vessels in possession of cod caught outside the GOM
Regulated Mesh Area specified in Sec. 648.80(a)(1) may transit this
area, provided all bait and hooks

[[Page 25142]]

are removed from fishing rods and any cod on board has been gutted and
stored.
(iii) For purposes of counting fish, fillets will be converted to
whole fish at the place of landing by dividing the number of fillets by
two. If fish are filleted into a single (butterfly) fillet, such fillet
shall be deemed to be from one whole fish.
(iv) Cod harvested by recreational fishing vessels in or from the
EEZ with more than one person aboard may be pooled in one or more
containers. Compliance with the possession limit will be determined by
dividing the number of fish on board by the number of persons on board.
If there is a violation of the possession limit on board a vessel
carrying more than one person, the violation shall be deemed to have
been committed by the owner or operator of the vessel.
(v) Cod must be stored so as to be readily available for
inspection.
(2) Charter/party vessels. (i) Persons aboard charter/party fishing
vessels permitted under this part and not fishing under the NE
multispecies DAS program or on a sector trip that are fishing in the
GOM Regulated Mesh Area specified in Sec. 648.80(a)(1) may not fish
for, possess, or land any cod with the exception that charter/party
vessels in possession of cod caught outside the GOM Regulated Mesh Area
specified in Sec. 648.80(a)(1) may transit this area, provided all
bait and hooks are removed from fishing rods and any cod on board has
been gutted and stored.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(1) GOM Closed Areas. (i) A vessel fishing under charter/party
regulations may not fish in the GOM closed areas specified in Sec.
648.81(d)(1), (e)(1), and (f)(4) during the time periods specified in
those paragraphs, unless the vessel has on board a valid letter of
authorization issued by the Regional Administrator pursuant to Sec.
648.81(f)(5)(v) and paragraph (e)(3) of this section. The conditions
and restrictions of the letter of authorization must be complied with
for a minimum of 3 months if the vessel fishes or intends to fish in
the GOM cod protection closures; or for the rest of the fishing year,
beginning with the start of the participation period of the letter of
authorization, if the vessel fishes or intends to fish in the year-
round GOM closure areas.
(ii) A vessel fishing under charter/party regulations may not fish
in the GOM Cod Spawning Protection Area specified at Sec. 648.81(n)(1)
during the time period specified in that paragraph, unless the vessel
complies with the requirements specified at Sec. 648.81(n)(2)(iii).
* * * * *
(f) Recreational fishery AM--(1) Catch evaluation. As soon as
recreational catch data are available for the entire previous fishing
year, the Regional Administrator will evaluate whether recreational
catches exceed any of the sub-ACLs specified for the recreational
fishery pursuant to Sec. 648.90(a)(4). When evaluating recreational
catch, the components of recreational catch that are used shall be the
same as those used in the most recent assessment for that particular
stock. To determine if any sub-ACL specified for the recreational
fishery was exceeded, the Regional Administrator shall compare the 3-
year average of recreational catch to the 3-year average of the
recreational sub-ACL for each stock.
(2) Reactive AM adjustment. (i) If it is determined that any
recreational sub-ACL was exceeded, as specified in paragraph (f)(1) of
this section, the Regional Administrator, after consultation with the
New England Fishery Management Council, shall develop measures
necessary to prevent the recreational fishery from exceeding the
appropriate sub-ACL in future years. Appropriate AMs for the
recreational fishery, including adjustments to fishing season, minimum
fish size, or possession limits, may be implemented in a manner
consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act, with final measures
published in the Federal Register no later than January when possible.
Separate AMs shall be developed for the private and charter/party
components of the recreational fishery.
(ii) The Regional Administrator shall not adjust the possession
limit for GOM cod, under the reactive AM authority specified in
paragraph (f)(2)(i) of this section, as long as possession of this
stock is prohibited for the recreational fishery, as specified in
paragraph (c) of this section.
(3) Proactive AM adjustment. (i) When necessary, the Regional
Administrator, after consultation with the New England Fishery
Management Council, may adjust recreational measures to ensure the
recreational fishery achieves, but does not exceed any recreational
fishery sub-ACL in a future fishing year. Appropriate AMs for the
recreational fishery, including adjustments to fishing season, minimum
fish size, or possession limits, may be implemented in a manner
consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act, with final measures
published in the Federal Register prior to the start of the fishing
year where possible. In specifying these AMs, the Regional
Administrator shall take into account the non-binding prioritization of
possible measures recommended by the Council: for cod, first increases
to minimum fish sizes, then adjustments to seasons, followed by changes
to bag limits; and for haddock, first increases to minimum size limits,
then changes to bag limits, and then adjustments to seasons.
(ii) The Regional Administrator shall not adjust the possession
limit for GOM cod, under the proactive AM authority specified in
paragraph (f)(3)(i) of this section, as long as possession of this
stock is prohibited for the recreational fishery, as specified in
paragraph (c) of this section.

0
13. In Sec. 648.90, revise paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and (viii), (a)(3),
and (a)(5)(i) introductory text to read as follows:

Sec. 648.90 NE multispecies assessment, framework procedures and
specifications, and flexible area action system.

* * * * *
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) The NE multispecies PDT shall meet on or before September 30
every other year to perform a review of the fishery, using the most
current scientific information available provided primarily from the
NEFSC. Data provided by states, ASMFC, the USCG, and other sources may
also be considered by the PDT. Based on this review, the PDT will
develop ACLs for the upcoming fishing year(s) as described in paragraph
(a)(4) of this section and develop options for consideration by the
Council if necessary, on any changes, adjustments, or additions to DAS
allocations, closed areas, or other measures necessary to rebuild
overfished stocks and achieve the FMP goals and objectives.
* * * * *
(viii) If the Regional Administrator concurs in the Council's
recommendation, a final rule shall be published in the Federal Register
on or about April 1 of each year, with the exception noted in paragraph
(a)(2)(vii) of this section. If the Council fails to submit a
recommendation to the Regional Administrator by February 1 that meets
the FMP goals and objectives, the Regional Administrator may publish as
a proposed rule one of the options reviewed and not rejected by the
Council, provided that the option meets the FMP objectives and is
consistent with other applicable law. If, after considering public
comment, the Regional Administrator decides to

[[Page 25143]]

approve the option published as a proposed rule, the action will be
published as a final rule in the Federal Register.
* * * * *
(3) Default OFLs, ABCs, and ACLs. (i) Unless otherwise specified in
this paragraph (a)(3), if final specifications are not published in the
Federal Register for the start of a fishing year, as outlined in
paragraph (a)(4) of this section, specifications for that fishing year
shall be set at 35 percent of the previous year's specifications for
each NE multispecies stock, including the U.S./Canada shared resources,
for the period of time beginning on May 1 and ending on July 31, unless
superseded by the final rule implementing the current year's
specifications.
(ii) If the default specifications exceed the Council's
recommendations for any stock for the current year, the specifications
for that stock shall be reduced to the Council's recommendation through
notice consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act.
(iii) These specifications shall be subdivided among the various
sub-components of the fishery consistent with the ABC/ACL distribution
adopted for the previous year's specifications.
* * * * *
(5) * * *
(i) AMs for the NE multispecies commercial and recreational
fisheries. If the catch of regulated species or ocean pout by a sub-
component of the NE multispecies fishery (i.e., common pool vessels,
sector vessels, or private recreational and charter/party vessels)
exceeds the amount allocated to each sub-component, as specified in
paragraph (a)(4)(iii)(H) of this section, then the applicable AM for
that sub-component of the fishery shall take effect, pursuant to
paragraphs (a)(5)(i)(A) through (C) of this section. In determining the
applicability of AMs specified for a sub-component of the NE
multispecies fishery in paragraphs (a)(5)(i)(A) through (C) of this
section, the Regional Administrator shall consider available
information regarding the catch of regulated species and ocean pout by
each sub-component of the NE multispecies fishery, plus each sub-
component's share of any overage of the overall ACL for a particular
stock caused by excessive catch by vessels outside of the FMP, exempted
fisheries, or the Atlantic sea scallop fishery, as specified in this
paragraph (a)(5), as appropriate.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2015-09952 Filed 4-30-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.