Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northeast Groundfish Fishery; Framework Adjustment 55, 15003-15033 [2016-06186]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 54 (Monday, March 21, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 15003-15033]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-06186]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 648

[Docket No. 151211999-6209-01]
RIN 0648-BF62


Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 
Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northeast 
Groundfish Fishery; Framework Adjustment 55

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

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes approval of, and regulations to 
implement, Framework Adjustment 55 to the Northeast Multispecies 
Fishery Management Plan. This rule would set 2016-2018 catch limits for 
all 20 groundfish stocks, adjust the groundfish at-sea monitoring 
program, and adopt several sector measures. This action is necessary to 
respond to updated scientific information and achieve the goals and 
objectives of the Fishery Management Plan. The proposed measures are 
intended to help prevent overfishing, rebuild overfished stocks, 
achieve optimum yield, and ensure that management measures are based on 
the best scientific information available.

DATES: Comments must be received by April 5, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2016-0019, 
by either of the following methods:
     Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public 
comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal.
    1. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2016-0019;
    2. Click the ``Comment Now!'' icon and complete the required 
fields; and
    3. Enter or attach your comments.
     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 the Proposed Rule for Groundfish Framework Adjustment 
55.''
    Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other 
address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, 
may not be considered by us. All comments

[[Page 15004]]

received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted 
for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal 
identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential 
business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted 
voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. We will accept 
anonymous comments (enter ``N/A'' in the required fields if you wish to 
remain anonymous).
    Copies of Framework Adjustment 55, including the draft 
Environmental Assessment, the Regulatory Impact Review, and the Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis prepared by the New England Fishery 
Management Council in support of this action are available from Thomas 
A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council, 50 
Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950. 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.
    Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other 
aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this 
rule should be submitted to the Regional Administrator at the address 
above and to the Office of Management and Budget by email at 
OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov, or fax to (202) 395-7285.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Aja Szumylo, Fishery Policy Analyst, 
phone: 978-281-9195; email: Aja.Szumylo@noaa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

1. Summary of Proposed Measures
2. Status Determination Criteria
3. 2016 Fishing Year Shared U.S./Canada Quotas
4. Catch Limits for the 2016-2018 Fishing Years
5. Default Catch Limits for the 2019 Fishing Year
6. Groundfish At-Sea Monitoring Program Adjustments
7. Other Framework 55 Measures
8. Sector Measures for the 2016 Fishing Year
9. 2016 Fishing Year Annual Measures Under Regional Administrator 
Authority
10. Regulatory Corrections Under Regional Administrator Authority

1. Summary of Proposed Measures

    This action would implement the management measures in Framework 
Adjustment 55 to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan 
(FMP). The Council deemed the proposed regulations consistent with, and 
necessary to implement, Framework 55, in a February 25, 2016, letter 
from Council Chairman E.F. ``Terry'' Stockwell to Regional 
Administrator John Bullard. Under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 
Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), we are required 
to publish proposed rules for comment after preliminarily determining 
whether they are consistent with applicable law. The Magnuson-Stevens 
Act permits us to approve, partially approve, or disapprove measures 
proposed by the Council based only on whether the measures are 
consistent with the fishery management plan, plan amendment, the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act and its National Standards, and other applicable 
law. Otherwise, we must defer to the Council's policy choices. We are 
seeking comment on the Council's proposed measures in Framework 55 and 
whether they are consistent with the Northeast Multispecies FMP and 
Amendment 16, the Magnuson-Stevens Act and its National Standards, and 
other applicable law. Through Framework 55, the Council proposes to:
     Set 2016-2018 specifications for all 20 groundfish stocks;
     Set fishing year 2016 shared U.S./Canada quotas for 
Georges Bank (GB) yellowtail flounder and Eastern GB cod and haddock;
     Modify the industry-funded sector at-sea monitoring 
program to make the program more cost-effective, while still ensuring 
that groundfish catch is reliably monitored;
     Create a new sector;
     Modify the sector approval process so that new sectors 
would not have to be approved through a Council framework or amendment 
process;
     Adjust gear requirements to improve the enforceability of 
selective trawl gear;
     Remove the general Gulf of Maine (GOM) cod prohibition for 
recreational anglers established in Framework 53 (other recreational 
measures will be implemented in a separate rulemaking); and
     Allow sectors to transfer GB cod quota from the eastern 
U.S./Canada Area to the western area.
    This action also proposes a number of other measures that are not 
part of Framework 55, but that may be considered and implemented under 
our authority specified in the FMP. We are proposing these measures in 
conjunction with the Framework 55 proposed measures for expediency 
purposes, and because these measures are related to the catch limits 
proposed as part of Framework 55. The additional measures proposed in 
this action are listed below.
     Management measures necessary to implement sector 
operations plans--this action proposes one new sector regulatory 
exemption and annual catch entitlements for 19 sectors for the 2016 
fishing year.
     Management measures for the common pool fishery--this 
action proposes fishing year 2015 trip limits for the common pool 
fishery.
     Other regulatory corrections--we propose several 
administrative revisions to the regulations to clarify their intent, 
correct references, remove unnecessary text, and make other minor 
edits. Each proposed correction is described in the section ``10. 
Regulatory Corrections Under Regional Administrator Authority.''

2. Status Determination Criteria

    The Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) conducted 
operational stock assessment updates in 2015 for all 20 groundfish 
stocks. The final report for the operational assessment updates is 
available on the NEFSC Web site: https://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/groundfish/operational-assessments-2015/. This action proposes to revise status 
determination criteria, as necessary, and provide updated numerical 
estimates of these criteria, in order to incorporate the results of the 
2015 stock assessments. Table 1 provides the updated numerical 
estimates of the status determination criteria, and Table 2 summarizes 
changes in stock status based on the 2015 assessment updates. Stock 
status did not change for 15 of the 20 stocks, worsened for 2 stocks 
(Southern New England/Mid-Atlantic (SNE/MA) yellowtail flounder and GB 
winter flounder), improved for 1 stock (Northern windowpane flounder), 
and became more uncertain for 2 stocks (GB cod and Atlantic halibut).
    As described in more detail below, status determination relative to 
reference points is no longer possible for GB cod and Atlantic halibut. 
However, the proposed changes do not affect the rebuilding plans for 
these stocks. The rebuilding plan for GB cod has an end date of 2026, 
and the rebuilding plan for halibut has an end date of 2056. Although 
numerical estimates of status determination criteria are currently not 
available, to ensure that rebuilding progress is made, catch limits 
will continue to be set at levels that the Council's Scientific and 
Statistical Committee (SSC) determines will prevent overfishing. 
Additionally, at whatever point the stock assessment for GB cod and 
halibut can provide biomass estimates, these estimates will be used to 
evaluate progress towards the rebuilding targets.

[[Page 15005]]



                          Table 1--Numerical Estimates of Status Determination Criteria
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Maximum fishing
                Stock                 Biomass target  (SSBMSY    mortality threshold            MSY (mt)
                                           or Proxy (mt))          (FMSY or Proxy)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GB Cod..............................  NA.....................  NA.....................  NA
    M=0.2 Model.....................  40,187.................  0.185..................  6,797
GOM Cod
    Mramp Model.....................  59,045.................  0.187..................  10,043
GB Haddock..........................  108,300................  0.39...................  24,900
GOM Haddock.........................  4,623..................  0.468..................  1,083
GB Yellowtail Flounder..............  NA.....................  NA.....................  NA
SNE/MA Yellowtail Flounder..........  1,959..................  0.35...................  541
CC/GOM Yellowtail Flounder..........  5,259..................  0.279..................  1,285
American Plaice.....................  13,107.................  0.196..................  2,675
Witch Flounder......................  9,473..................  0.279..................  1,957
GB Winter Flounder..................  6,700..................  0.536..................  2,840
GOM Winter Flounder.................  NA.....................  0.23 exploitation rate.  NA
SNE/MA Winter Flounder..............  26,928.................  0.325..................  7,831
Acadian Redfish.....................  281,112................  0.038..................  10,466
White Hake..........................  32,550.................  0.188..................  5,422
Pollock.............................  105,226................  0.277..................  19,678
Northern Windowpane Flounder........  1.554 kg/tow...........  0.45 c/i...............  700
Southern Windowpane Flounder........  0.247 kg/tow...........  2.027 c/i..............  500
Ocean Pout..........................  4.94 kg/tow............  0.76 c/i...............  3,754
Atlantic Halibut....................  NA.....................  NA.....................  NA
Atlantic Wolffish...................  1,663..................  0.243..................  244
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SSB = Spawning Stock Biomass; MSY = Maximum Sustainable Yield; F = Fishing Mortality; M = Natural Mortality.
Note. A brief explanation of the two assessment models for GOM cod is provided in the section ``4. Catch Limits
  for the 2016-2018 Fishing Years.''


                                   Table 2--Summary of Changes to Stock Status
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Previous assessment                 2015 Assessment
                    Stock                    -------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Overfishing?     Overfished?      Overfishing?     Overfished?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GB Cod......................................             Yes              Yes              Yes              Yes
GOM Cod.....................................             Yes              Yes              Yes              Yes
GB Haddock..................................              No               No               No               No
GOM Haddock.................................              No               No               No               No
GB Yellowtail Flounder......................         Unknown          Unknown          Unknown          Unknown
SNE/MA Yellowtail Flounder..................              No               No              Yes              Yes
CC/GOM Yellowtail Flounder..................             Yes              Yes              Yes              Yes
American Plaice.............................              No               No               No               No
Witch Flounder..............................             Yes              Yes              Yes              Yes
GB Winter Flounder..........................              No               No              Yes              Yes
GOM Winter Flounder.........................              No          Unknown               No          Unknown
SNE/MA Winter Flounder......................              No              Yes               No              Yes
Acadian Redfish.............................              No               No               No               No
White Hake..................................              No               No               No               No
Pollock.....................................              No               No               No               No
Northern Windowpane Flounder................             Yes              Yes               No              Yes
Southern Windowpane Flounder................              No               No               No               No
Ocean Pout..................................              No              Yes               No              Yes
Atlantic Halibut............................              No              Yes               No              Yes
Atlantic Wolffish...........................              No              Yes               No              Yes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Georges Bank Cod Status Determination Criteria

    The 2015 assessment update for GB cod was an update of the existing 
2012 benchmark assessment (available at: https://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/saw/
). The 2012 benchmark assessment determined that the stock is 
overfished, and that overfishing is occurring. The peer review panel 
for the 2015 assessment update concluded that the updated assessment 
model was not acceptable as a scientific basis for management advice. 
Several model performance-indicators suggested that the problems in the 
2012 benchmark assessment are worse in the 2015 assessment update. 
There was a strong retrospective pattern in the benchmark assessment 
that worsened considerably in the assessment update. The retrospective 
pattern causes the model to overestimate stock biomass and 
underestimate fishing mortality. Neither assessment could definitively 
identify the cause of the retrospective pattern, but both cited 
uncertainty in the estimates of catch and/or natural mortality 
assumptions used in the assessments. The 2012 benchmark assessment 
accounted for the retrospective pattern using a retrospective 
adjustment. However, when the retrospective adjustment was applied in 
the 2015 assessment update to generate short-term catch projections, 
the assessment model failed. Based on this, and other indications that 
the model is no longer a good fit for the

[[Page 15006]]

available data, the review panel recommended that an alternative 
approach should be used to provide management advice.
    Although the review panel concluded that GB cod catch advice should 
be based on an alternative approach, it recommended that the 2012 
benchmark assessment is the best scientific information for stock 
status determination. All information available in the 2015 assessment 
update indicates that stock size has not increased, and that the 
condition of the stock is still poor. As a result, based on the 2015 
assessment update, the stock remains overfished and overfishing is 
occurring. However, because the assessment model was not accepted 
during the 2015 assessment, there are no longer numerical estimates of 
the status determination criteria.

Atlantic Halibut Status Determination Criteria

    This 2015 assessment update for Atlantic halibut is an operational 
update of the existing 2010 benchmark assessment and a 2012 assessment 
update (both available at: https://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/saw/). The 
previous assessments determined that the stock was overfished but that 
overfishing was not occurring. Though the previous assessments were 
used to provide catch advice and make status determinations for this 
stock, the review panel for the 2015 assessment update saw a number of 
limitations in the model and concluded it was no longer an appropriate 
basis for management advice. All information available for the 2015 
assessment indicates that the stock has not increased, and that the 
condition of the stock is still poor. However, the results of the 
assessment model indicated that the stock is near or above its unfished 
biomass and could support a directed fishery. The review panel noted 
that the model is very simplistic and uses a number of assumptions 
(e.g., no immigration or emigration from the stock) that are likely not 
true for the stock. As a result, the review panel recommended a 
benchmark assessment to develop a new Atlantic halibut stock assessment 
model and explore stock boundaries. In the interim, the peer review 
panel recommended that an alternative approach should be used to 
provide management advice.

3. 2016 Fishing Year U.S./Canada Quotas

Management of Transboundary Georges Bank Stocks

    Eastern GB cod, eastern GB haddock, and GB yellowtail flounder are 
jointly managed with Canada under the United States/Canada Resource 
Sharing Understanding. Each year, the Transboundary Management Guidance 
Committee (TMGC), which is a government-industry committee made up of 
representatives from the U.S. and Canada, recommends a shared quota for 
each stock based on the most recent stock information and the TMGC's 
harvest strategy. The TMGC's harvest strategy for setting catch levels 
is to maintain a low to neutral risk (less than 50 percent) of 
exceeding the fishing mortality limit for each stock. The harvest 
strategy also specifies that when stock conditions are poor, fishing 
mortality should be further reduced to promote stock rebuilding. The 
shared quotas are allocated between the U.S. and Canada based on a 
formula that considers historical catch (10-percent weighting) and the 
current resource distribution (90-percent weighting).
    For GB yellowtail flounder, the SSC also recommends an acceptable 
biological catch (ABC) for the stock, which is typically used to inform 
the U.S. TMGC's discussions with Canada for the annual shared quota. 
Although the stock is jointly managed with Canada, and the TMGC 
recommends annual shared quotas, the United States may not set catch 
limits that would exceed the SSC's recommendation. The SSC does not 
recommend ABCs for eastern GB cod and haddock because they are 
management units of the total GB cod and haddock stocks. The SSC 
recommends overall ABCs for the total GB cod and haddock stocks. The 
shared U.S./Canada quota for eastern GB cod and haddock is accounted 
for in these overall ABCs, and must be consistent with the SSC's 
recommendation for the total GB stocks.

2016 U.S./Canada Quotas

    The Transboundary Resources Assessment Committee (TRAC) conducted 
assessments for the three transboundary stocks in July 2015, and 
detailed summaries of these assessments can be found at: https://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/saw/trac/. The TMGC met in September 2015 to 
recommend shared quotas for 2016 based on the updated assessments, and 
the Council adopted the TMGC's recommendations in Framework 55. The 
proposed 2016 shared U.S./Canada quotas, and each country's allocation, 
are listed in Table 3.

 Table 3--Proposed 2016 Fishing Year U.S./Canada Quotas (mt, live weight) and Percent of Quota Allocated to Each
                                                     Country
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Eastern GB       GB Yellowtail
                         Quota                             Eastern GB Cod        Haddock            Flounder
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Shared Quota.....................................                625             37,000                354
U.S. Quota.............................................          138 (22%)       15,170 (41%)          269 (76%)
Canada Quota...........................................          487 (78%)       21,830 (59%)           85 (24%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Council's proposed 2016 U.S. quota for eastern GB haddock would 
be a 15-percent reduction compared to 2015. This reduction is due to a 
reduction in the amount of the shared quota that is allocated to the 
U.S. The Council's proposed U.S. quotas for eastern GB cod and GB 
yellowtail flounder would be an 11-percent and 9-percent increase, 
respectively, compared to 2015, which are a result of an increase in 
the amounts allocated to the U.S. For a more detailed discussion of the 
TMGC's 2016 catch advice, see the TMGC's guidance document at: https://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/sustainable/species/multispecies/. Additionally, the proposed 2016 catch limit 
for GB yellowtail flounder is discussed in more detail in section ``4. 
Catch Limits for the 2016-2018 Fishing Years.''
    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 catch information for 
the 2015 fishing year indicates that the U.S. fishery exceeded its 
quota for any of the shared stocks, we will reduce the respective U.S. 
quotas for the 2016 fishing year in a future management action, as 
close to May 1, 2016, as possible. If any fishery

[[Page 15007]]

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. Catch Limits for the 2016-2018 Fishing Years

Summary of the Proposed Catch Limits

    The catch limits proposed by the Council in this action can be 
found in Tables 4 through 11. A brief summary of how these catch limits 
were developed is provided below. More details on the proposed catch 
limits for each groundfish stock can be found in Appendix III to the 
Framework 55 Environmental Assessment (see ADDRESSES for information on 
how to get this document).
    Through Framework 55, the Council proposes to adopt catch limits 
for all 20 groundfish stocks for the 2016-2018 fishing years based on 
the 2015 operational assessment updates. In addition, the Council 
proposes to update the 2016 catch limits for GB cod and haddock based 
on the proposed U.S./Canada quotas for the portions of these stocks 
managed jointly with Canada. Catch limit increases are proposed for 10 
stocks; however, for a number of stocks, the catch limits proposed in 
this action are substantially lower than the catch limits set for the 
2015 fishing year (with decreases ranging from 14 to 67 percent). Table 
4 details the percent change in the 2016 catch limit compared to the 
2015 fishing year.

Overfishing Limits and Acceptable Biological Catches

    The overfishing limit (OFL) serves as the maximum amount of fish 
that can be caught in a year without resulting in overfishing. The OFL 
for each stock is calculated using the estimated stock size and 
FMSY (i.e., the fishing mortality rate that, if applied over 
the long term, would result in maximum sustainable yield). The OFL does 
not account for scientific uncertainty, so the SSC typically recommends 
an ABC that is lower than the OFL in order to account for this 
uncertainty. Usually, the greater the amount of scientific uncertainty, 
the lower the ABC is set compared to the OFL. For GB cod, GB haddock, 
and GB yellowtail flounder, the total ABC is then reduced by the amount 
of the Canadian quota (see Table 3 for the Canadian share of these 
stocks). Additionally, although GB winter flounder and Atlantic halibut 
are not jointly managed with Canada, there is some Canadian catch of 
these stocks. Because the total ABC must account for all sources of 
fishing mortality, expected Canadian catch of GB winter flounder (87 
mt) and Atlantic halibut (34 mt) is deducted from the total ABC. The 
U.S. ABC is the amount available to the U.S. fishery after accounting 
for Canadian catch. Additional details about the Council's proposed 
ABCs for SNE/MA yellowtail flounder and witch flounder are provided 
below.

                             Table 4--Proposed Fishing Years 2016-2018 Overfishing Limits and Acceptable Biological Catches
                                                                    [mt, live weight]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       2016                                            2017                            2018
                  Stock                  -------------------------------- Percent change ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                OFL          U.S. ABC        from 2015          OFL          U.S. ABC           OFL          U.S. ABC
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GB Cod..................................           1,665             762            -62%           1,665           1,249           1,665           1,249
GOM Cod.................................             667             500             30%             667             500             667             500
GB Haddock..............................         160,385          56,068            130%         258,691          48,398         358,077          77,898
GOM Haddock.............................           4,717           3,630            150%           5,873           4,534           6,218           4,815
GB Yellowtail Flounder..................         Unknown             269              8%         Unknown             354  ..............  ..............
SNE/MA Yellowtail Flounder..............         Unknown             267            -62%         Unknown             267         Unknown             267
CC/GOM Yellowtail Flounder..............             555             427            -22%             707             427             900             427
American Plaice.........................           1,695           1,297            -16%           1,748           1,336           1,840           1,404
Witch Flounder..........................             521             460            -41%             732             460             954             460
GB Winter Flounder......................             957             668            -67%           1,056             668           1,459             668
GOM Winter Flounder.....................           1,080             810             59%           1,080             810           1,080             810
SNE/MA Winter Flounder..................           1,041             780            -53%           1,021             780           1,587             780
Redfish.................................          13,723          10,338            -14%          14,665          11,050          15,260          11,501
White Hake..............................           4,985           3,754            -20%           4,816           3,624           4,733           3,560
Pollock.................................          27,668          21,312             28%          32,004          21,312          34,745          21,312
N. Windowpane Flounder..................             243             182             21%             243             182             243             182
S. Windowpane Flounder..................             833             623             14%             833             623             833             623
Ocean Pout..............................             220             165            -30%             220             165             220             165
Atlantic Halibut........................             210             124             24%             210             124             210             124
Atlantic Wolffish.......................             110              82             17%             110              82             110              82
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

Southern New England/Mid-Atlantic Yellowtail Flounder

    The 2015 operational assessment results suggest a dramatic decline 
in condition of the SNE/MA yellowtail flounder stock compared to the 
2012 benchmark assessment (available at: https://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/saw/
). Based on the results of the 2012 assessment, we declared the stock 
rebuilt. However, the results of the 2015 operational assessments 
suggest that the stock is overfished and that overfishing is occurring. 
There was also a major retrospective pattern in the 2015 operational 
assessment. In advance of the operational assessments, guidelines were 
defined for the assessments, one of

[[Page 15008]]

which required the application of an adjustment to the terminal year 
biomass in assessments with major retrospective patterns. However, for 
SNE/MA yellowtail flounder, the assessment peer review panel did not 
accept the retrospective adjustment because the adjustment led to 
failures in the short-term catch projections, and because the model had 
no other apparent issues. The peer review panel ultimately accepted the 
assessment without the retrospective adjustment.
    The SSC recognized that the stock is in poor condition, and that a 
substantial reduction in catch is necessary. The SSC expressed 
concerned that the assessment for SNE/MA yellowtail flounder did not 
follow the established guidelines and discussed whether it should not 
have passed peer review. However, the SSC recognized that the 
assessment guidelines did not address cases where a retrospective 
adjustment resulted in model failure. Given this scientific 
uncertainty, the SSC concluded that the catch projections from the 
assessment should not be used as the sole basis for catch advice. The 
SSC ultimately recommended a 3-year constant ABC of 276 mt based on the 
average of the assessment catch projections and the estimate of 2015 
catch, and recommended that the OFL be specified as unknown. In support 
of this recommendation, it noted that this compromise approach uses the 
assessment outcome as one bound for ABC advice, but does not adhere too 
strongly to those outcomes in light of the substantial uncertainties 
and procedural issues. The Council's proposed ABC is a 62-percent 
decrease from the 2015 ABC.

Witch Flounder

    The 2015 operational assessment update for witch flounder 
determined that the stock is overfished, and overfishing is occurring. 
The stock status is unchanged from the 2012 assessment update and 2008 
benchmark assessment for this stock. Witch flounder is under a 7-year 
rebuilding plan that has a target end date of 2017. Based on the 2015 
assessment update, the 2014 spawning stock biomass is at only at 22 
percent of the biomass target, and the stock is not expected to reach 
the 2017 rebuilding target even in the absence of fishing mortality. An 
important source of uncertainty for this assessment is a major 
retrospective pattern, which causes the model to underestimate fishing 
mortality and overestimate stock biomass and recruitment; the 
assessment was unable to identify the cause of the retrospective 
pattern.
    The SSC initially recommended a witch flounder OFL of 513 mt, and 
an ABC of 394 mt, based on 75 percent of FMSY. At its 
December 2015 meeting, the Council recommended the SSC's initial witch 
flounder OFL and ABC recommendations. The 394-mt ABC represented a 50-
percent decrease from the 2015 ABC. Industry members raised strong 
concern for the poor performance of the assessment model and that the 
reduction in the witch flounder ABC has the potential to severely limit 
the groundfish fishery in all areas (Southern New England, Gulf of 
Maine, and Georges Bank). In response to these concerns, the Council 
requested that the SSC reconsider the witch flounder ABC using 
additional information about incidental, non-target catch of the stock 
by groundfish vessels that was not available to the SSC when it made 
its initial ABC recommendation. The Council noted that it would be 
willing to accept the temporary risk associated with an ABC that equals 
the OFL of 513 mt.
    The SSC met on January 20, 2016, to review the biological and 
economic impacts of increasing the witch flounder ABC above its initial 
recommendation. The Groundfish Plan Development Team also updated the 
2015 catch estimate for witch flounder, which slightly increased the 
OFL estimate to 521 mt, and the 75 percent of FMSY estimate 
to 399 mt.
    The SSC acknowledged that an ABC closer to the OFL would be 
expected to result in higher rates of fishing mortality, higher 
probabilities of overfishing, and lower resulting biomass in 2017 
compared to its initial ABC recommendation. The SSC also cautioned that 
a history of overly optimistic biomass projections and the risk of 
overestimating the OFL likely mean higher biological risks with higher 
ABCs. Biomass projections out to 2018, however, suggest minimal 
biological difference between the initial ABC recommendation and the 
OFL because of the short timeframe and relatively small differences in 
the recommended catch amounts. In each instance, however, biomass is 
expected to increase from the level estimated in the 2015 assessment.
    An economic model of groundfish fishery suggested no overall 
increase in revenue with increases in the witch flounder ABC up to the 
OFL due to the likelihood that low quotas for other key stocks (GOM 
cod, GB cod, and SNE/MA yellowtail flounder) would be more restrictive. 
Industry members disagreed with the economic model results. They noted 
that the results are overly optimistic given current fishery 
conditions, and that they do not reflect the impact of a reduced witch 
flounder ABC on individual sectors.
    The SSC noted that it is possible that a lower ABC for witch 
flounder could show economic benefits at the fishery-wide level, but 
could still impose economic costs at the vessel or community level. 
After weighing the uncertainties in the biological and economic 
information, the SSC ultimately recommended that that the Council set 
the ABC no higher than 500 mt. The SSC's discussion of its revised 
witch flounder ABC recommendation is available here: https://s3.amazonaws.com/nefmc.org/1_SSC_response_witchflounder_Jan2016_FINAL.pdf.
    The Council discussed the SSC's revised witch flounder ABC 
recommendation on January 27, 2016, and recommended a witch flounder 
ABC of 460 mt, which is the midpoint between the initial ABC 
recommendation of 399 mt and the OFL of 521 mt, for the 2016-2018 
fishing years. This recommendation is 40 mt lower that the SSC's upper 
limit for the ABC, and was recommended by the Council to reduce the 
risk of overfishing while providing some flexibility for groundfish 
vessels to prosecute other healthy groundfish stocks such as haddock, 
redfish, and pollock.
    An important factor in the revised ABC recommendation for witch 
flounder ABC is that a benchmark assessment for witch flounder will be 
conducted in fall of 2016, in time to re-specify witch flounder catch 
limits for the 2017 fishing year. This new stock assessment information 
is also expected to provide additional information on the rebuilding 
potential for witch flounder and potential adjustments to the 
rebuilding plan. Thus, although the Council proposes a 3-year constant 
ABC, the catch limits adopted are expected to be in place for only 1 
year.

Annual Catch Limits

Development of Annual Catch Limits
    The U.S. ABC for each stock is divided among the various fishery 
components to account for all sources of fishing mortality. First, an 
estimate of catch expected from state waters and the ``other'' sub-
component (i.e., non-groundfish fisheries) is deducted from the U.S. 
ABC. These sub-components are not subject to specific catch controls by 
the FMP. As a result, the state waters and other sub-components are not 
allocations, and these components of the fishery are not subject to 
accountability measures if the catch limits are exceeded. After the 
state and

[[Page 15009]]

other sub-components are deducted, the remaining portion of the U.S. 
ABC is distributed to the fishery components that receive an allocation 
for the stock. Components of the fishery that receive an allocation are 
subject to accountability measures if they exceed their respective 
catch limit during the fishing year.
    Once the U.S. ABC is divided, sub-annual catch limits (sub-ACLs) 
are set by reducing the amount of the ABC distributed to each component 
of the fishery to account for management uncertainty. Management 
uncertainty is the likelihood that management measures will result in a 
level of catch greater than expected. For each stock and fishery 
component, management uncertainty is estimated using the following 
criteria: Enforceability and precision of management measures, adequacy 
of catch monitoring, latent effort, and catch of groundfish in non-
groundfish fisheries. The total ACL is the sum of all of the sub-ACLs 
and ACL sub-components, and is the catch limit for a particular year 
after accounting for both scientific and management uncertainty. 
Landings and discards from all fisheries (commercial and recreational 
groundfish fisheries, state waters, and non-groundfish fisheries) are 
counted against the ACL for each stock.
Sector and Common Pool Allocations
    For stocks allocated to sectors, the commercial groundfish sub-ACL 
is further divided into the non-sector (common pool) sub-ACL and the 
sector sub-ACL, based on the total vessel enrollment in sectors and the 
cumulative Potential Sector Contributions (PSCs) associated with those 
sectors. The preliminary sector and common pool sub-ACLs proposed in 
this action are based on fishing year 2016 PSCs and fishing year 2015 
sector rosters. Sector specific allocations for each stock can be found 
in this rule in section ``8. Sector Administrative Measures.''
Common Pool Total Allowable Catches
    The common pool sub-ACL for each stock (except for SNE/MA winter 
flounder, windowpane flounder, ocean pout, Atlantic wolffish, and 
Atlantic halibut) is further divided into trimester total allowable 
catches (TACs). The distribution of the common pool sub-ACLs into 
trimesters was adopted in Amendment 16 to the FMP and is based on 
recent landing patterns. Once we project that 90 percent of the 
trimester TAC is caught for a stock, the trimester TAC area for that 
stock is closed for the remainder of the trimester to all common pool 
vessels fishing with gear capable of catching the pertinent stock. Any 
uncaught portion of the TAC in Trimester 1 or Trimester 2 will be 
carried forward to the next trimester. Overages of the Trimester 1 or 
Trimester 2 TAC will be deducted from the Trimester 3 TAC. Any overages 
of the total common pool sub-ACL will be deducted from the following 
fishing year's common pool sub-ACL for that stock. Uncaught portions of 
the Trimester 3 TAC may not be carried over into the following fishing 
year. Table 8 summarizes the common pool trimester TACs proposed in 
this action.
    Incidental catch TACs are also specified for certain stocks of 
concern (i.e., stocks that are overfished or subject to overfishing) 
for common pool vessels fishing in the special management programs 
(i.e., special access programs (SAPs) and the Regular B Days-at-Sea 
(DAS) Program), in order to limit the catch of these stocks under each 
program. Tables 9 through 11 summarize the proposed Incidental Catch 
TACs for each stock and the distribution of these TACs to each special 
management program.
Closed Area I Hook Gear Haddock Special Access Program
    Overall fishing effort by both common pool and sector vessels in 
the Closed Area I Hook Gear Haddock SAP is controlled by an overall TAC 
for GB haddock, which is the target species for this SAP. The maximum 
amount of GB haddock that may be caught in any fishing year is based on 
the amount allocated to this SAP for the 2004 fishing year (1,130 mt), 
and adjusted according to the growth or decline of the western GB 
haddock biomass in relationship to its size in 2004. Based on this 
formula, the Council's proposed GB Haddock TAC for this SAP is 2,448 mt 
for the 2015 fishing year. Once this overall TAC is caught, the Closed 
Area I Hook Gear Haddock SAP will be closed to all groundfish vessels 
for the remainder of the fishing year.
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P

[[Page 15010]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MR16.006


[[Page 15011]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MR16.007


[[Page 15012]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MR16.008


[[Page 15013]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MR16.009

BILLING CODE 3510-22-C

[[Page 15014]]



               Table 9--Proposed Common Pool Incidental Catch TACs for the 2016-2018 Fishing Years
                                                [mt, live weight]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Percentage of
                      Stock                         common pool        2016            2017            2018
                                                      sub-ACL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GB Cod..........................................               2            0.26            0.43            0.43
GOM Cod.........................................               1            0.08            0.08            0.08
GB Yellowtail Flounder..........................               2            0.08            0.11            0.00
CC/GOM Yellowtail Flounder......................               1            0.16            0.16            0.16
American Plaice.................................               5            1.13            1.17            1.22
Witch Flounder..................................               5            0.42            0.42            0.42
SNE/MA Winter Flounder..........................               1            0.71            0.71            0.71
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


          Table 10--Percentage of Incidental Catch TACs Distributed to Each Special Management Program
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Closed Area I
                              Stock                                Regular B DAS     Hook Gear     Eastern US/CA
                                                                      Program       Haddock SAP     Haddock 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  ..............  ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


      Table 11--Proposed Fishing Years 2016-2018 Incidental Catch TACs for Each Special Management Program
                                                [mt, live weight]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Regular B DAS Program     Closed Area I Hook Gear      Eastern U.S./Canada
                                ---------------------------        Haddock SAP                Haddock SAP
             Stock                                         -----------------------------------------------------
                                   2016     2017     2018     2016     2017     2018     2016     2017     2018
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GB Cod.........................     0.13     0.22     0.22     0.04     0.07     0.07     0.09     0.15     0.15
GOM Cod........................     0.08     0.08     0.08      n/a      n/a      n/a      n/a      n/a      n/a
GB Yellowtail Flounder.........     0.04     0.05     0.00      n/a      n/a      n/a     0.04     0.05     0.00
CC/GOM Yellowtail Flounder.....     0.16     0.16     0.16      n/a      n/a      n/a      n/a      n/a      n/a
American Plaice................     1.13     1.17     1.22      n/a      n/a      n/a      n/a      n/a      n/a
Witch Flounder.................     0.42     0.42     0.42      n/a      n/a      n/a      n/a      n/a      n/a
SNE/MA Winter Flounder.........     0.71     0.71     0.71      n/a      n/a      n/a      n/a      n/a      n/a
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Default Catch Limits for the 2019 Fishing Year

    Framework 53 established 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 are set at 35 percent of the 
previous year's catch limit, effective until July 31 of that fishing 
year. 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 was established to 
prevent disruption to the groundfish fishery. Additional description of 
the default catch limit mechanism is provided in the preamble to the 
Framework 53 final rule (80 FR 25110; May 1, 2015). The default catch 
limits for 2019 are summarized in Table 12.
    This rule announces default catch limits for the 2019 fishing year 
that will become effective May 1, 2019, until July 31, 2019, unless 
otherwise replaced by final specifications. The preliminary sector and 
common pool sub-ACLs in Table 12 are based on existing 2015 sector 
rosters, and will be adjusted based on rosters from the 2018 fishing 
year. In addition, prior to the start of the 2019 fishing year, we will 
evaluate whether any of the default catch limits announced in this rule 
exceed the Council's recommendations for 2019. If necessary, we will 
announce adjustments prior to May 1, 2019.

[[Page 15015]]



                                               Table 12--Default Specifications for the 2019 Fishing Year
                                                                    [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..................................................             583             437             465             455              10  ..............
GOM Cod.................................................             233             175             204             127               4  ..............
GB Haddock..............................................         125,327          27,264           5,007           4,963              44              51
GOM Haddock.............................................           2,176           1,685           1,552           1,107              14              16
SNE/MA Yellowtail Flounder..............................  ..............              93              66              52              14  ..............
CC/GOM Yellowtail Flounder..............................             315             149             119             113               5  ..............
American Plaice.........................................             644             491             448             439               9  ..............
Witch Flounder..........................................             334             161             129             126               3  ..............
GB Winter Flounder......................................             511             264             233             231               2  ..............
GOM Winter Flounder.....................................             378             284             224             212              12  ..............
SNE/MA Winter Flounder..................................             555             273             205             180              25  ..............
Redfish.................................................           5,341           4,025           3,709           3,688              21  ..............
White Hake..............................................           1,657           1,268           1,168           1,160               8  ..............
Pollock.................................................          12,161           7,459           6,236           6,196              39  ..............
N. Windowpane Flounder..................................              85              64              64              na              64  ..............
S. Windowpane Flounder..................................             292             218             218              na             218  ..............
Ocean Pout..............................................              77              58              58              na              58  ..............
Atlantic Halibut........................................              74              55              55              na              55  ..............
Atlantic Wolffish.......................................              39              29              29              na              29  ..............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Groundfish At-Sea Monitoring Program Adjustments

    In this action, the Council proposes adjustments to the groundfish 
sector at-sea monitoring (ASM) program to make it more cost effective, 
while still ensuring the likelihood that discards for all groundfish 
stocks are monitored at a 30-percent coefficient of variation (CV). Due 
to changes in the 2015 revision to the Standardized Bycatch Reporting 
Methodology (SBRM) Amendment (80 FR 37182; June 30, 2015) that limit 
agency discretion in how Congressional funding is used to provide 
observer coverage, we are no longer able to cover industry's portion of 
ASM costs. As a result, in early 2015, we announced that sectors would 
be responsible for covering ASM costs before the end of the 2015 
calendar year. We had some funding in existing contracts to cover ASM 
costs for a portion of the 2015 fishing year, which delayed the 
operations of the industry-funded ASM program until March 2016. The 
Council was concerned that the cost burden of the ASM program to the 
fishing industry would reduce, and possibly eliminate, sector 
profitability for the remainder of the 2015 fishing year and in future 
fishing years, especially in light of recent reductions in catch limits 
for many key groundfish stocks. While the Council has expressed 
interest in exploring extensive changes to the ASM program in a future 
action (i.e., adjusting the 30-percent CV requirement), this action 
only includes minor modifications to the current ASM program. The 
following section describes the existing industry-funded ASM program, 
the current methods for deriving annual ASM coverage levels, and the 
Council's proposed adjustments to the ASM program.

Description of Existing Industry-Funded ASM Program

    Amendment 16 to the Northeast Multispecies FMP (75 FR 18261; April 
9, 2010) established industry-funded at-sea monitoring requirements 
within the sector management system to facilitate accurate monitoring 
of sector catch to ensure that sector allocations would not be 
exceeded. Amendment 16 stated that the level of ASM coverage should be 
less than 100 percent of sector trips, but meet the 30-percent CV 
standard specified in the SBRM Amendment. While Amendment 16 
established a performance standard for coverage levels, it did not 
provide guidance on what level the CV standard should be applied--
discard estimates at the stock level for all sectors, or for each 
combination of sector and stock. Framework 48 to the FMP (May 3, 2013; 
78 FR 26118) clarified that the CV standard was intended to apply to 
discard estimates at the overall stock level for all sectors combined.
    Amendment 16 did not detail explicit goals for sector monitoring 
beyond accurate catch estimation, so the Council further articulated 
the goals and objectives of the sector monitoring program in Framework 
48 in order to assist NMFS and the sectors in designing and evaluating 
proposals to satisfy monitoring requirements in sector operations 
plans. The ASM program goals and objectives established in Framework 48 
include that groundfish sector monitoring programs improve 
documentation of catch, determine total catch and effort of regulated 
species, and achieve a coverage level sufficient to minimize effects of 
potential monitoring bias to the extent possible, while enhancing fleet 
viability. Sector monitoring programs should also reduce the cost of 
monitoring, streamline data management and eliminate redundancy, 
explore options for cost-sharing, all while recognizing the opportunity 
costs of insufficient monitoring. Other goals and objectives include 
incentivizing reducing discards, providing additional data streams for 
stock assessments, reducing management and/or biological uncertainty, 
and enhancing the safety of the monitoring program. The complete list 
of goals and objectives for groundfish monitoring programs is specified 
in the NE multispecies regulations at Sec.  648.11(l) and in Framework 
48.
    For the 2010 and 2011 fishing years, there was no requirement for 
an industry-funded ASM program, and we were able to fund an ASM program 
with a target ASM coverage level of 30 percent of all trips. In 
addition, we provided 8-percent observer coverage through the Northeast 
Fishery Observer Program (NEFOP), which helps to support SBRM and stock 
assessments. This resulted in an overall target coverage level of 38 
percent, between ASM and NEFOP, for the 2010 and 2011 fishing years. We 
were able to achieve a 38-percent ASM coverage level for the 2010 and 
2011 fishing years because

[[Page 15016]]

Congressional funding was appropriated to support new catch share 
programs, which included the implementation of the sector program. 
Beginning in the 2012 fishing year, we have conducted an annual 
analysis to predict the total coverage that would likely reach a 30-
percent CV for all stocks, and would reliably estimate overall catch by 
sector vessels. Industry has been required to pay for their costs of 
ASM coverage since the 2012 fishing year, while we continued to fund 
NEFOP coverage. However, we were able to fully fund the industry's 
portion of ASM costs and NEFOP coverage during the 2012 to 2014 fishing 
years. Table 13 shows annual target coverage levels for the 2010 to 
2015 fishing years.

                         Table 13--Historic Target Coverage Level for At-Sea Monitoring
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Total coverage   ASM coverage   NEFOP coverage
             Fishing year                  level (%)       level (%)       level (%)         Funding source
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2010..................................              38              30               8  NMFS.
2011..................................              38              30               8  NMFS.
2012..................................              25              17               8  NMFS.
2013..................................              22              14               8  NMFS.
2014..................................              26              18               8  NMFS.
2015..................................              24              20               4  NMFS and Sectors.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Historic Determination of ASM Coverage Level

    As described in further detail below, the target coverage level 
sufficient to reach a 30-percent CV for all stocks in the fishery has 
been set using the most recent full fishing year of data, based on the 
most sensitive stock, for at least 80 percent of the discarded pounds 
of all groundfish stocks.
    First, target coverage levels have been determined based on discard 
information from the most recent single full fishing year. For example, 
discard information was available only from the full 2013 fishing year 
to determine the target coverage level for the 2015 fishing year. In 
the initial years of the ASM program, multiple years of data were not 
available, and the most recent full fishing year was determined to be 
the best available information to predict target coverage levels.
    Second, because it is necessary to estimate discards with a 30-
percent CV for each of the 20 groundfish stocks, we conservatively used 
the individual stock that needed the highest coverage level to reach a 
30-percent CV in the most recent full fishing year to predict the 
annual target coverage level for the upcoming fishing year. For 
example, in 2013, of the 20 groundfish stocks, SNE/MA yellowtail 
flounder needed the highest coverage level to reach a 30-percent CV. 
Thus, the coverage level needed to reach a 30-percent CV for SNE/MA 
yellowtail flounder in 2013 was used to predict the ASM coverage level 
for the 2015 fishing year. Since the start of the ASM program in 2010, 
this approach has resulted in realized annual ASM coverage levels that 
far exceeded the 30-percent CV requirement for a vast majority of the 
20 groundfish stocks.
    Finally, in the first year that the sector program was implemented, 
we were able to fund ASM coverage at a level that reached this 
precision standard for 80 percent of the discarded pounds. In each 
subsequent year, because Congress appropriated funds to pay for 
industry's ASM costs, we sought to maintain the same statistical 
quality achieved in the 2010 fishing year by ensuring that at least 80 
percent of the discarded pounds of all groundfish stocks were estimated 
at a 30-percent CV or better. In some years, applying this standard has 
resulted in higher coverage levels than if the standard were not 
applied. For example, the application of this standard increased the 
required ASM coverage levels from 22 percent to 26 percent for the 2014 
fishing year, and from 21 percent to 24 percent in the 2015 fishing 
year.

Proposed ASM Program Adjustments

    Through this action, the Council proposes to modify the method used 
to set the target coverage level for the industry-funded ASM program 
based on 5 years of experience with ASM coverage operations for 
groundfish sectors and evaluation of the accumulated discard data. The 
Council proposed these adjustments to make the program more cost 
effective and smooth the fluctuations in the annual coverage level to 
provide additional stability for the fishing industry, while still 
providing coverage levels sufficient to meet the 30-percent CV 
requirement. The changes proposed in this action would remove ASM 
coverage for a certain subset of sector trips, use more years of 
discard information to predict ASM coverage levels, and base the target 
coverage level on the predictions for stocks that would be at a higher 
risk for an error in the discard estimate. We are seeking comment on 
our preliminarily determination that the adjustments the Council 
proposed to the ASM program are consistent with the Northeast 
Multispecies FMP and Amendment 16, the Magnuson-Stevens Act and its 
National Standards, and other applicable law.
    None of the proposed adjustments remove our obligation under 
Amendment 16 and Framework 48 to ensure sufficient ASM coverage to 
achieve a 30-percent CV for all stocks. The proposed changes would 
result in a target coverage level of 14 percent for the 2016 fishing 
year, including SBRM coverage paid in full by NEFOP. Assuming NEFOP 
covers 4 percent of trips as it has in recent years, this would result 
in sectors paying for ASM on approximately 10 percent of their vessels' 
trips in 2016. Though the proposed changes result in a reduced target 
ASM coverage level for the 2016 fishing year compared to previous 
years, there is no guarantee that the changes would result in reduced 
target coverage levels in future fishing years (i.e., using the same 
methods proposed here could result in higher coverage in 2017 or 2018 
than in recent years).
    We are only able to determine whether the target coverage level 
reaches the 30-percent CV for all stocks in hindsight, after a fishing 
year is over. Thus, while a target ASM coverage level is expected to 
generate a 30-percent CV on discard estimates, there is no guarantee 
that the required coverage level will be met or result in a 30-percent 
CV across all stocks due to changes in fishing effort and observed 
fishing activity that may happen in a given fishing year. However, 
during the 2010-2014 fishing years, the target coverage level was in 
excess of the coverage level that would have been

[[Page 15017]]

necessary to reach at least a 30-percent CV for almost every stock.
    We expect the 2016 target coverage level to achieve results 
consistent with prior years based on applying the proposed 2016 target 
coverage level to the 2010-2014 fishing year data. For example, over 
the five years from 2010-2014, coverage levels of 14 percent would have 
achieved a 30-percent CV or better for 95 out of the 100 monitored 
stocks (i.e., 20 stocks x 5 years). For two of the years, (2010 and 
2012), all of the stocks would have achieved a 30-percent CV or better. 
The lowest 30-percent CV achievement overall would have occurred in 
fishing year 2014, when 17 of the 20 groundfish stocks would have met 
the 30-percent CV under the 2016 target coverage level. The three 
stocks that would not have achieved the 30-percent CV included redfish, 
GOM winter flounder, and SNE/MA yellowtail flounder. Our application of 
the 2016 target coverage rate to 2010-2014 data, however, showed that 
stocks not achieving the 30-percent CV typically did not recur. 
Moreover, the only stock that would not have achieved a 30-percent CV 
for more than one of the five years (2 times) was SNE/MA yellowtail 
flounder. However, the proposed 14 percent coverage rate is projected 
to achieve the necessary 30-percent CV requirement for SNE/MA 
yellowtail flounder in 2016. Were a higher coverage level necessary to 
achieve the 30-percent CV requirement for this stock, coverage would be 
set equal to that level.
    Further, the risk of not achieving the required CV level for these 
stocks is mitigated by a number of factors. For example, for SNE/MA 
yellowtail flounder, a more sizeable portion of its ACL has been caught 
over the last three years (58-70 percent), but less than 10 percent of 
total catch was made up of discards. Redfish and GOM winter flounder 
were underutilized over the last three fishing years (less than 50 
percent of the ACL caught) and less than 10 percent of their total 
catch was made up of discards. Thus, even in the unexpected event of 
not achieving a CV of 30 percent, the risk to these stocks of erring in 
the discard estimates is very low.
    Table 14 describes the combined impact of the proposed adjustments, 
applied sequentially in Steps 1 through 4. Table 14 also lists the 
individual stock that would have needed the highest coverage level to 
reach a 30-percent CV and, in turn, be used to set the target ASM 
coverage level. The text that follows discusses the potential effects 
of each alternative on the target ASM coverage level for 2016 if each 
alternative were adopted in isolation.

                Table 14--Proposed ASM Program Adjustments and Resulting 2016 ASM Coverage Level
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Total 2016
                Proposed action                    coverage level                   Driving stock
                                                 (NEFOP + ASM) (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No Action......................................                 41  Redfish.
1. Remove standard that 80% of discarded pounds                 37  Redfish.
 be monitored at a 30% CV (administrative).
2. Remove ASM coverage requirement for extra-                   37  Redfish.
 large mesh gillnet trips.
3. Use multiple years of information to                         17  Redfish.
 determine ASM coverage levels.
4. Filter the application of the 30% CV                         14  SNE/MA yellowtail flounder.
 standard based on stock status and utilization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Removal of Standard That 80 Percent of Discarded Pounds Be Monitored at 
a 30-Percent CV

    As discussed above, from 2012 to 2015, we set coverage levels to 
ensure that at least 80 percent of the discarded pounds of all 
groundfish stocks were estimated at a 30-percent CV or better to 
maintain the same statistical quality achieved in the 2010 fishing 
year. We applied this standard during years when Congress appropriated 
funds to pay for industry costs for the ASM program (2010 and 2011), 
and in other years when we were able to fund industry's costs for ASM 
(2012-2014, and part of 2015). In some years, applying this standard 
resulted in higher coverage levels than if the standard were not 
applied. However, this additional criterion was not necessary to 
satisfy the CV requirement of the ASM program or to accurately monitor 
sector catches, and was not required by the FMP. This action proposes 
to clarify the Council's intent that target ASM coverage levels for 
sectors should be set using only realized stock-level CVs, and should 
not be set using the additional administrative standard of monitoring 
80 percent of discard pounds at a 30-percent CV or better. If 
implemented alone, removing this administrative standard would result 
in a target 2016 ASM coverage level of 37 percent.

Removing ASM Coverage Requirement for Extra-Large Mesh Gillnet Trips

    Currently, sector monitoring requirements apply to any trip where 
groundfish catch counts against a sector's annual catch entitlement 
(ACE). This Council action proposes to remove the ASM coverage 
requirement for sector trips using gillnets with extra-large mesh (10 
inches (25.4 cm) or greater) in the SNE/MA and Inshore GB Broad Stock 
Areas. A majority of catch on these trips is of non-groundfish stocks 
such as skates, monkfish, and dogfish, with minimal or no groundfish 
catch. As a result, applying the same level of coverage on these trips 
as targeted groundfish trips does not contribute to improving the 
overall precision and accuracy of sector discard estimates, and would 
not be a sufficient use of the limited resources for the ASM program. 
These trips would still be subject to SBRM coverage through NEFOP, and 
monitoring coverage levels would be consistent with non-sector trips 
that target non-groundfish species. If implemented alone, this 
alternative would result in a target ASM coverage level of 37 percent 
for the 2016 fishing year.
    This measure is intended to reduce ASM costs to sectors with 
members that take this type of extra-large mesh gillnet trip. The 
benefit of reducing ASM coverage for these trips is that resources 
would be diverted to monitor trips that catch more groundfish, which 
could improve discard estimates for directed groundfish trips. All 
other sector trips would still be required to meet the CV standard at a 
minimum. Changes in stock size or fishing behavior on these trips could 
change the amount of groundfish bycatch in future fishing years. 
However, data from 2012 to 2014 shows that groundfish catch has 
represented less than 5 percent of total catch on a majority of trips, 
and large changes are not expected. We will continue to evaluate this 
measure in the future to make sure bycatch levels remain low.

[[Page 15018]]

    Because this subset of trips would have a different coverage level 
than other sector trips in the SNE/MA and Inshore GB Broad Stock Areas, 
we would create separate discard strata for each stock caught on extra-
large gillnet trips in order to ensure the different coverage levels do 
not bias discard estimates. At this time, no adjustments to the current 
notification procedures appear necessary to implement this measure. 
Sector vessels already declare gear type and Broad Stock Area to be 
fished in the Pre-Trip Notification System, which would allow us to 
easily identify trips that are exempt from ASM coverage.
    To minimize the possibility that this measure would be used to 
avoid ASM coverage, only vessels declared into the SNE/MA and/or 
Inshore GB Broad Stock Areas using extra-large mesh gillnets would be 
exempt from the ASM coverage requirement. Vessels using extra-large 
mesh gillnet declaring into the GOM or Offshore GB Broad Stock Areas 
would not be exempt from the ASM coverage requirement. In addition, a 
vessel is already prohibited from changing its fishing plan for a trip 
once a waiver from coverage has been issued.
    Framework 48 implemented a similar measure exempting the subset of 
sector trips declared into the SNE/MA Broad Stock Area on a monkfish 
DAS and using extra-large mesh gillnets from the standard ASM coverage 
level. The Framework 48 measure gave us the authority to specify some 
lower coverage level for these trips on an annual basis when 
determining coverage rates for all other sector trips. Since this 
measure was implemented at the start of the 2013 fishing year, the ASM 
coverage level for these trips has been set to zero, and these trips 
have only been subject to NEFOP coverage. The measure proposed in this 
action would supersede the Framework 48 measure because it would 
entirely remove the ASM coverage requirement from these trips.

Using Multiple Years of Data to Determine ASM Total Coverage Levels

    Currently, data from the most recent fishing year are used to 
predict the target ASM coverage level for the upcoming fishing year. 
For example, data from the 2013 groundfish fishing year were used to 
set the target ASM coverage level for the 2015 fishing year. When a 
single year of data is used to determine the target coverage level, the 
entire coverage level is driven by the variability in discards in a 
single stock. This variability is primarily due to inter-annual changes 
in management measures and fishing activity. Though the target ASM 
coverage level has ranged from 22 to 26 percent for the last four 
fishing years, there is the potential that variability could result in 
large fluctuations of target ASM coverage levels in the future, and 
result in target coverage levels that are well above the level 
necessary to meet the 30-percent CV for most stocks. For example, 
available analyses indicates that, using the status quo methodology, 
the ASM coverage level would be 41 percent in 2016 compared to the 
current 2015 rate of 24 percent. Based on a 2016 target coverage level 
of 41 percent, the coverage level that would have been necessary to 
meet a 30-percent CV in 2014 would be exceeded by 15-39 percent for 19 
of the 20 stocks.
    This Council action proposes using information from the most recent 
three full fishing years to predict target ASM coverage levels for the 
upcoming fishing year. For example, data from the 2012 to 2014 fishing 
years would be used to predict the target ASM coverage level for the 
2016 fishing year. Now that five full years of discard data are 
available, using multiple years of data is expected to smooth inter-
annual fluctuations in the level of coverage needed to meet a 30-
percent CV that might result from changes to fishing activity and 
management measures. This measure is intended to make the annual 
determination of the target ASM coverage level more stable. For 
example, the percent coverage necessary to reach a 30-percent CV for 
redfish varied widely for the last 3 years (5 percent in 2012; 10 
percent in 2013, and 37 percent in 2014). With this measure, the 
Council intended to make the annual determination of the target ASM 
coverage level more stable. Additional stability in predicting the 
annual target ASM coverage level is beneficial in the context of the 
industry-funded ASM program. Wide inter-annual fluctuations in the 
necessary coverage level would make it difficult for groundfish vessels 
to plan for the costs of monitoring, and for ASM service providers to 
adjust staffing to meet variable demands for monitoring coverage. The 
ability for ASM service providers to successfully meet staffing needs, 
including maintaining the appropriate staff numbers and retaining 
quality monitors, increases the likelihood of achieving the target 
coverage level each year. If implemented alone, using multiple years of 
data would result in a target 2016 ASM coverage level of 17 percent.

Filtering the Application of the 30-Percent CV Standard

    This Council action proposes to filter the application of the 30-
percent CV standard consistent with existing goals for the ASM program. 
Under this alternative, stocks that meet all of the following criteria 
would not be used as the predictor for the annual target ASM coverage 
level for all stocks: (1) Not overfished; (2) Overfishing is not 
occurring; (3) Not fully utilized (less than 75 percent of sector sub-
ACL harvested); and (4) Discards are less than 10 percent of total 
catch.
    This proposed measure does not eliminate the 30-percent CV 
standard. Rather, this measure is intended to reflect the Council's 
policy that target ASM coverage level should be based on stocks that 
are overfished, are subject to overfishing, or are more fully 
utilized--stocks for which it is critical to attempt to fully account 
for past variability in discard estimates. Because stocks that meet all 
four of the filtering criteria are healthy and not fully utilized, 
there is a lower risk in erring in the discard estimate. Additionally, 
using these stocks to predict the target coverage could lead to 
coverage levels that are not necessary to accurately monitor sector 
catch.
    For the 2016 fishing year, preliminary analysis shows that, under 
the status quo methodology for determining the ASM target coverage 
level, redfish would drive the target coverage level at 37 percent. 
However, redfish is a healthy stock, and current biomass is well above 
the biomass threshold. Redfish also meets all of the filtering 
criteria--the stock is currently not overfished, overfishing is not 
occurring, only 45 percent of the sector sub-ACL was harvested in 2014, 
and only 3 percent of total catch was made up of discards. Also, 
because of the high year-to-year variability in the coverage necessary 
to achieve the 30-percent CV standard for redfish, we expect the target 
coverage level of 14 percent to meet the objective.
    If implemented alone, filtering the application of the 30-percent 
CV standard would eliminate redfish as a driver for the target ASM 2016 
coverage level, and GOM winter flounder would drive coverage at 26 
percent. If implemented in combination with the other alternatives, 
SNE/MA yellowtail flounder would drive the coverage level at 14 
percent.

Clarification of Groundfish Monitoring Goals and Objectives

    As described earlier in this section, Framework Adjustment 48 
revised and clarified the goals and objectives of the sector monitoring 
program to include, among other things, improving the documentation of 
catch, reducing the cost of monitoring, and providing

[[Page 15019]]

additional data streams for stock assessments. However, Framework 48 
did not prioritize these goals and objectives. This Council action 
clarifies that the primary goal of the sector ASM program is to verify 
area fished, catch and discards by species, and by gear type, in a 
manner that would reduce the cost of monitoring. This proposed 
adjustment to the program goals would not affect the target ASM 
coverage levels.

7. Other Framework 55 Measures

    The Council also proposed a number of additional minor adjustments 
to the FMP as part of this action.

Formation of Sustainable Harvest Sector II

    The Council proposes to approve the formation of a new sector, 
Sustainable Harvest Sector II. We must still review the sector 
operations plan submitted by Sustainable Harvest Sector II to ensure 
that it contains the required provisions for operation, and that a 
sufficient analysis is completed under the National Environmental 
Policy Act (NEPA). We propose to approve Sustainable Harvest Sector II, 
but intend to make our final determination concerning what sectors are 
approved and allocated ACE for operations for the 2016 fishing year as 
part of this rulemaking.

Modification of the Sector Approval Process

    This Council action proposes to modify to the sector approval 
process so that new sectors would not have to be approved through an 
FMP amendment or framework adjustment. Under the current process, new 
sectors must submit operations plans to the Council no less than 1 year 
prior to the date that it plans to begin operations (i.e, by May 1, 
2016, if the sector intends to operate on May 1, 2017). The Council 
must decide whether to approve the formation of a new sector through an 
amendment or framework adjustment. NMFS then reviews the operations 
plan submitted by the new sector to ensure that it contains the 
required provisions for operation and sufficient NEPA analysis before 
making final determinations about the formation of the new sector 
consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
    Under the proposed process, new sectors would submit operations 
plans directly to NMFS no later than September 1 of the fishing year 
prior to the fishing year it intends to begin operations. For example, 
if a new sector wished to operate starting on May 1, 2017, it would 
need to submit its operations plan to NMFS no later than September 1, 
2016. NMFS would notify the Council in writing of its intent to 
consider approving new sectors. NMFS would present the submitted sector 
operations plans and any supporting analysis for the new sector at a 
Groundfish Committee meeting and a Council meeting. After its review, 
the Council would submit comments to NMFS in writing and indicate 
whether it endorses the formation of the new sector. NMFS would then 
make a final determination about new sector consistent with the APA. 
NMFS would not initiate a rulemaking to make final determinations on 
the formation of the new sector without the Council's endorsement. This 
modified process would shorten the timeline for, and increase the 
flexibility of, the sector approval process, while maintaining 
opportunities for Council approval and public involvement in the 
approval process. No other aspects of the sector formation process, 
including the content of sector operations plan submissions, would 
change as a result of this proposed measure.

Modification to the Definition of the Haddock Separator Trawl

    This Council action proposes to modify the definition of the 
haddock separator trawl to improve the enforceability of this selective 
trawl gear. In many haddock separator trawls, the separator panel is 
made with the same mesh color as the net, which makes it difficult for 
enforcement to identify that this gear is properly configured during 
vessel inspections. This measure would require the separator panel to 
be a contrasting color to the portions of the net that it separates. 
Requiring that the separator panel be a contrasting color to the rest 
of the net would make the separator panel highly visible, which would 
improve identification of the panel during boarding, and potentially 
allow for faster inspections and more effective enforcement. This 
proposed modification does not affect rope or Ruhle trawls. If we 
approve this measure, we intend to delay the effective date of the 
requirement by 6 months to allow affected fishermen time to replace 
their separator panels with contrasting netting.

Removal of GOM Cod Recreational Possession Limit

    This Council action proposes to remove the prohibition on 
recreational possession of GOM cod that was established as part of the 
protection measures implemented for this stock in Framework Adjustment 
53. We currently set recreational management measures in consultation 
with the Council, and have the authority to modify bag limits, size 
limits, and seasons. The Framework 53 prohibition on the recreational 
possession of GOM cod was implemented as a permanent provision in the 
FMP. In removing the permanent prohibition on recreational possession 
of GOM cod, this proposed measure returns the authority to set 
recreational management measures for GOM cod to us. We will implement 
additional recreational measures to help ensure the recreational 
fishery does not exceed the GOM cod allocation in a separate 
rulemaking.

Distribution of Eastern/Western GB Cod Sector Allocations

    Eastern GB cod is a sub-unit of the total GB cod stock, and the 
total ABC for GB cod includes the shared U.S./Canada quota for eastern 
GB cod. A portion of a sector's GB cod allocation may only be caught in 
the Eastern U.S./Canada Area, and the remaining portion of its total GB 
cod allocation can be caught only in the Western U.S./Canada Area. This 
restriction was adopted by Amendment 16 in order to cap the amount of 
GB cod that a sector could catch in the eastern U.S./Canada Area and 
help prevent the United States from exceeding its eastern GB cod quota. 
However, limiting the amount of cod that could be caught in the western 
U.S./Canada Area could unnecessarily reduce flexibility, and 
potentially limit fishing in the area, even if a sector has not caught 
its entire GB cod allocation. Ultimately, this could prevent the 
fishery from achieving optimum yield for the GB cod stock.
    To address this concern, the Council proposes in this to allow 
sectors to ``convert'' their eastern GB cod allocation into western GB 
cod allocation. This measure would follow a process similar to the one 
used for processing sector trades, and is similar to a measure already 
approved for GB haddock in Framework Adjustment 51 (77 FR 22421; April 
22, 2014). Sectors could convert eastern GB cod allocation into western 
GB cod allocation at any time during the fishing year, and up to 2 
weeks into the following fishing year to cover any overage during the 
previous fishing year. A sector's proposed allocation conversion would 
be referred to, and approved by, NMFS based on general issues, such as 
whether the sector is complying with reporting or other administrative 
requirements, including weekly sector reports, or member vessel 
compliance with Vessel Trip Reporting requirements. Based on these 
factors, we

[[Page 15020]]

would notify the sector if the conversion is approved or disapproved. 
As with GB haddock transfers, we propose to use member vessel 
compliance with Vessel Trip Reporting requirements as the basis for 
approving, or disapproving, a reallocation of Eastern GB quota to the 
Western U.S./Canada Area. This is identical to the process used for 
reviewing, and approving, quota transfer requests between sectors.
    The responsibility for ensuring that sufficient allocation is 
available to cover the conversion is the responsibility of the sector. 
This measure would also extend to state-operated permit banks. Any 
conversion of eastern GB cod allocation into western GB cod allocation 
may be made only within a sector, or permit bank, and not between 
sectors or permit banks. In addition, once a portion of eastern GB cod 
allocation has been converted to western GB cod allocation, that 
portion of allocation remains western GB cod for the remainder of the 
fishing year. Western GB cod allocation may not be converted to eastern 
GB cod allocation. This proposed measure does not change the 
requirement that sector vessels may only catch their eastern GB cod 
allocation in the Eastern U.S./Canada Area, and may only catch the 
remainder of their GB cod allocation in the Western U.S./Canada Area.
    This measure would provide additional flexibility for sectors to 
harvest their GB cod allocations. The total catch limit for GB cod 
includes the U.S. quota for eastern GB cod, so this proposed measure 
would not jeopardize the total ACL for GB cod, or the U.S. quota for 
the eastern portion of the stock. A sector would also still be required 
to stop fishing in the Eastern U.S./Canada Area once its entire eastern 
GB cod allocation was caught, or in the Western U.S./Canada Area once 
its western GB cod allocation was caught, or at least until it leased 
in additional quota. This ensures sufficient accountability for sector 
catch that will help prevent overages of any GB cod catch limit.

8. Sector Measures for the 2016 Fishing Year

    This action also proposes measures necessary to implement sector 
operations plan, including sector regulatory exemptions and annual 
catch entitlements, for 19 sectors for the 2016 fishing year. In past 
years, sector operations measures have been covered in a separate, 
concurrent rulemaking, but are included in this rulemaking for 
efficiency.

Sector Operations Plans and Contracts

    A total of 19 sectors would operate in the 2016 fishing year, 
including:
     Seventeen sectors that had operations plans that had been 
previously approved for the 2016 fishing year (see the Final Rule for 
2015 and 2016 Sector Operations Plans and 2015 Contracts and Allocation 
of Northeast Multispecies Annual Catch Entitlements; 80 FR 25143; May 
1, 2015);
     Sustainable Harvest Sector II, discussed in section ``7. 
Other Framework 55 Measures,'' which is proposed for formation and 
approval as part of Framework 55; and
     Northeast Fishery Sector 12, which has not operated since 
2013, but submitted an operations plan for approval for the 2016 
fishing year.
    We have made a preliminary determination that the two new proposed 
sector operations plans and contracts for Sustainable Harvest Sector II 
and Northeast Fisheries Sector 12 are consistent with the FMP's goals 
and objectives and meet the applicable sector requirements. We request 
comments on the proposed operations plans and the accompanying 
environmental assessment (EA) for these two sectors. Copies of the 
operations plans and contracts, and the EA, are available at: https://www.regulations.gov and from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).

Sector Allocations

    Regional Administrator approval is required for sectors to receive 
ACEs for specific groundfish stocks. The ACE allocations are a portion 
of a stock's ACL available to the sector based on the collective 
fishing history of the sector's members. Sectors are allocated ACE for 
groundfish stocks for which its members have landings history, with the 
exception of Atlantic halibut, ocean pout, windowpane flounder, and 
Atlantic wolffish. These stocks are not allocated to sectors.
    Each year, we use sector enrollment information from the previous 
fishing year to estimate ACE allocations for the upcoming fishing year. 
Due to the shift to industry-funded ASM, sector enrollment could 
decrease for the 2016 fishing year if current sector members decide to 
fish in the common pool to avoid the financial burden of the ASM 
requirement. Despite some uncertainty in 2016 enrollment levels, we 
expect that 2015 enrollment still provides the best proxy for fishing 
year 2016 sector membership, and used 2015 enrollment to calculate the 
fishing year 2016 projected allocations in this proposed rule.
    All permits enrolled in a sector, and the vessels associated with 
those permits, have until April 30, 2016, to withdraw from a sector and 
fish in the common pool for fishing year 2016. In addition to the 
enrollment delay, all permits that change ownership after December 1, 
2015, retain the ability to join a sector through April 30, 2016. We 
will publish final sector ACEs and common pool sub-ACLs, based upon 
final rosters, as soon as possible after the start of the 2016 fishing 
year, and again after the start of the 2017 and 2018 fishing years.
    The sector allocations proposed in this rule are based on the 
fishing year 2016 specifications described above under ``3. Catch 
Limits for the 2016-2018 Fishing Years.'' We calculate the sector's 
allocation for each stock by summing its members' potential sector 
contributions (PSC) for a stock, as shown in Table 15. The information 
presented in Table 15 is the total percentage of each commercial sub-
ACL each sector would receive for the 2016 fishing year, based on their 
2015 fishing year rosters. Tables 16 and 17 show the allocations each 
sector would receive for 2016 fishing year, based on their 2015 fishing 
year rosters. At the start of the fishing year, after sector enrollment 
is finalized, we provide the final allocations, to the nearest pound, 
to the individual sectors, and we use those final allocations to 
monitor sector catch. While the common pool does not receive a specific 
allocation, the common pool sub-ACLs have been included in each of 
these tables for comparison.
    We do not assign an individual permit separate PSCs for the Eastern 
GB cod or Eastern GB haddock; instead, we assign a permit a PSC for the 
GB cod stock and GB haddock stock. Each sector's GB cod and GB haddock 
allocations are then divided into an Eastern ACE and a Western ACE, 
based on each sector's percentage of the GB cod and GB haddock ACLs. 
For example, if a sector is allocated 4 percent of the GB cod ACL and 6 
percent of the GB haddock ACL, the sector is allocated 4 percent of the 
commercial Eastern U.S./Canada Area GB cod TAC and 6 percent of the 
commercial Eastern U.S./Canada Area GB haddock TAC as its Eastern GB 
cod and haddock ACEs. These amounts are then subtracted from the 
sector's overall GB cod and haddock allocations to determine its 
Western GB cod and haddock ACEs. Framework 51 implemented a mechanism 
that allows sectors to ``convert'' their Eastern GB haddock allocation 
into Western GB haddock allocation (79 FR 22421; April 22, 2014) and 
fish that converted ACE

[[Page 15021]]

in Western GB. This rule proposes a similar measure for GB cod under 
``6. Other Framework 55 Measures.''
    At the start of the 2016 fishing year, we will withhold 20 percent 
of each sector's 2016 fishing year allocation until we finalize fishing 
year 2015 catch information. If the default catch limits for the 2016 
fishing year are implemented, groundfish sectors would not be subject 
to the 20-percent holdback. We will allow sectors to transfer fishing 
year 2015 ACE for 2 weeks of the fishing year following the completion 
of year-end catch accounting to reduce or eliminate any 2015 fishing 
year overages. If necessary, we will reduce any sector's 2016 fishing 
year allocation to account for a remaining overage in 2015 fishing 
year.
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P

[[Page 15022]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MR16.010


[[Page 15023]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MR16.011


[[Page 15024]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MR16.012


[[Page 15025]]


BILLING CODE 3510-22-C

Sector Carryover From the 2015 to 2016 Fishing Year

    Sectors can carry over up to 10 percent of the unused initial 
allocation for each stock into the next fishing year. However, 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 total ABC. Based on the catch limits proposed in this 
action, we evaluated whether the total potential catch in the 2016 
fishing year would exceed the proposed ABC if sectors carried over the 
maximum 10 percent of unused allocation from 2015 to 2016 (Table 18). 
Under this scenario, total potential catch would exceed the 2016 ABC 
for all stocks except for GOM haddock and GB haddock. As a result, we 
expect we will need to adjust the maximum amount of unused allocation 
that a sector can carry forward from 2015 to 2016 (down from 10 
percent). It is possible that not all sectors will have 10 percent of 
unused allocation at the end of the 2015 fishing year. We will make 
final adjustments to the maximum carryover possible for each sector 
based on the final 2015 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, 2016, as possible.
    Based on the catch limits proposed in this rule, the de minimis 
carryover amount for the 2016 fishing year would be set at the default 
one percent of the 2016 overall sector sub-ACL. The overall de minimis 
amount will be applied to each sector based on the cumulative PSCs of 
the vessel/permits participating in the sector. If the overall ACL for 
any allocated stock is exceeded for the 2016 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 18--Evaluation of Maximum Carryover Allowed From the 2015 to 2016 Fishing Years
                                                [mt, live weight]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                       Total
                                                                     Potential       potential      Difference
                                                                  carryover (10%    catch (2016    between total
              Stock                2016 U.S. ABC  2016 Total ACL  of 2015 sector    total ACL +      potential
                                                                     sub-ACL)        potential     catch and ABC
                                                                                     carryover
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GB Cod..........................             762             730             174             904             142
GOM cod.........................             500             473              81             555              55
GB Haddock......................          56,068          53,309           1,705          55,015          -1,053
GOM Haddock.....................           3,630           3,430              43           3,474            -156
SNE Yellowtail Flounder.........             267             256              46             302              35
CC/GOM Yellowtail Flounder......             427             409              46             455              28
Plaice..........................           1,297           1,235             136           1,370              73
Witch Flounder..................             460             441              60             500              40
GB Winter Flounder..............             668             650             336             985             317
GOM Winter Flounder.............             810             776              68             845              35
SNE/MA Winter Flounder..........             780             749             106             855              75
Redfish.........................          10,338           9,837           1,052          10,889             551
White Hake......................           3,816           3,572             425           3,997             181
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note. Carry over of GB yellowtail flounder is not allowed because this stock is jointly managed with Canada.

Sector Exemptions

    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 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; 
and portions of the GOM Cod Protection Closures. The FMP prohibits 
sectors from requesting exemptions from permitting restrictions, gear 
restrictions designed to minimize habitat impacts, and reporting 
requirements. In addition to the ``universal'' exemptions approved 
under Amendment 16 to the Northeast Multispecies FMP, the existing 17 
operational sectors and the two that are proposed for approval in this 
action are granted 19 additional exemptions from the NE multispecies 
regulations for the 2016 fishing year. These exemptions were previously 
approved in the sector operations rulemaking for the 2015 and 2016 
fishing years. Descriptions of the current range of approved exemptions 
are included in the preamble to the Final Rule for 2015 and 2016 Sector 
Operations Plans and 2015 Contracts (80 FR 25143; May 1, 2015) and are 
not repeated here.
    We received a request for an additional sector exemption intended 
to complement the proposed Framework 55 measure that would remove the 
ASM coverage requirement for sector trips using 10-inch (25.4-cm), or 
larger, mesh gillnet gear and fishing exclusively in the inshore GB and 
SNE/MA broad stock areas (described in section ``6. Groundfish At-Sea 
Monitoring Program Adjustments''). If this Framework 55 measure is 
approved, the requested sector exemption would allow vessels on these 
ASM-exempted sector trips to also target dogfish using 6.5-inch (16.5-
cm) mesh within the footprint and season of either the Nantucket Shoals 
Dogfish Exemption Area (June 1 to October 15), the Eastern Area of the 
Cape Cod Spiny Dogfish Exemption Area (June 1 to December 31), and the 
Southern New England Dogfish Gillnet Exemption Area (May 1 to October 
31). Sectors seek to participate in this exempted fishery for dogfish 
while simultaneously being exempted from ASM coverage on extra-large 
mesh sector trips (i.e., take trips using both greater than 10-inch 
(25.4-cm) mesh and 6.5-inch (16.5-in) mesh) in an effort to maximize 
the viability and profitability of their businesses. The Fixed Gear 
Sector requested this exemption, and we propose to grant this exemption 
to any sectors that modify their operations plans to include this 
exemption. In this rule, we propose regulatory text to detail the 
process for amending sector operations plans during the fishing year in 
section ``10. Regulatory Corrections

[[Page 15026]]

under Regional Administrator Authority.'' While sector trips using this 
exemption would still be would be exempt from ASM coverage, all 
groundfish catch on these trips would still be attributed to a sector's 
ACE.

9. 2016 Fishing Year 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 
proposed rule includes a description of these management measures that 
are being considered for the 2016 fishing year in order to provide an 
opportunity for the public to comment on whether the proposed measures 
are appropriate. These measures are not part of Framework 55, and were 
not specifically proposed by the Council. We are proposing them in 
conjunction with Framework 55 measures in this action for expediency 
purposes, and because they relate to the catch limits proposed in 
Framework 55.

Common Pool Trip Limits

    Tables 19 and 20 provide a summary of the current common pool trip 
limits for fishing year 2015 and the trip limits proposed for fishing 
year 2016. The proposed 2016 trip limits were developed after 
considering changes to the common pool sub-ACLs and sector rosters from 
2015 to 2016, proposed trimester TACs for 2016, catch rates of each 
stock during 2015, and other available information.
    The default cod trip limit is 300 lb (136 kg) for Handgear A 
vessels and 75 lb (34 kg) for Handgear B vessels. If the GOM or GB cod 
landing limit for vessels fishing on a groundfish DAS drops below 300 
lb (136 kg), then the respective Handgear A cod trip limit must be 
reduced to the same limit. Similarly, the Handgear B trip limit must be 
adjusted proportionally (rounded up to the nearest 25 lb (11 kg)) to 
the DAS limit. This action proposes a GOM cod landing limit of 25 lb 
(11 kg) per DAS for vessels fishing on a groundfish DAS, which is 97 
percent lower than the default limit specified in the regulations for 
these vessels (800 lb (363 kg) per DAS). As a result, the proposed 
Handgear A trip limit for GOM cod is reduced to 25 lb (11 kg) per trip, 
and the proposed Handgear B trip limit for GOM cod is maintained at 25 
lb (11 kg) per trip. This action proposes a GB cod landing limit of 500 
lb (227 kg) per DAS for vessels fishing on a groundfish DAS, which is 
75 percent lower than the 2,000-lb (907-kg) per DAS default limit 
specified in the regulations for these vessels. As a result, the 
proposed Handgear A trip limit for GB cod is maintained at 300 lb (136 
kg) per trip, and the proposed Handgear B trip limit for GB cod is 
reduced to 25 lb (11 kg) per trip.
    Vessels with a Small Vessel category permit can possess up to 300 
lb (136 kg) of cod, haddock, and yellowtail, combined, per trip. For 
the 2016 fishing year, we are proposing that the maximum amount of GOM 
cod and haddock (within the 300-lb (136-kg) trip limit) be set equal to 
the possession limits applicable to multispecies DAS vessels (see Table 
20). This adjustment is necessary to ensure that the trip limit 
applicable to the Small Vessel category permit is consistent with 
reductions to the trip limits for other common pool vessels, as 
described above.

  Table 19--Proposed Common Pool Trip Limits for the 2016 Fishing Year
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Current 2015 trip  Proposed 2016 trip
              Stock                      limit               limit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GB Cod (outside Eastern U.S./     2,000 lb (907 kg)/  500 lb (227 kg)/
 Canada Area).                     DAS, up to 20,000   DAS, up to 2,500
                                   lb (9,072.          lb/trip
                                 ---------------------------------------
GB Cod (inside Eastern U.S./       100 lb (45 kg)/DAS, up to 500 lb (227
 Canada Area).                                    kg)/trip
                                 ---------------------------------------
GOM Cod.........................  50 lb (23 kg)/DAS,  25 lb (11 kg)/DAS
                                   up to 200 lb (91    up to 100 lb (45
                                   kg)/trip.           kg)/trip
GB Haddock......................  25,000 lb (11,340   100,000 lb (45,359
                                   kg)/trip.           kg)/trip
GOM Haddock.....................  50 lb (23 kg)/DAS,  100 lb (45 kg)/DAS
                                   up to 200 lb (91    up to 300 lb (136
                                   kg)/trip.           kg)/trip
                                 ---------------------------------------
GB Yellowtail Flounder..........            100 lb (45 kg)/trip
                                 ---------------------------------------
SNE/MA Yellowtail Flounder......  2,000 lb (907 kg)/  250 lb (113 kg)/
                                   DAS, up to 6,000    DAS, up to 500 lb
                                   lb (2,722 kg)/      (227 kg)/trip
                                   trip.
CC/GOM Yellowtail Flounder......  1,500 lb (680 kg)/  75 lb (34 kg)/DAS
                                   DAS up to 3,000     up to 1,500 lb
                                   lb (1,361 kg)/      (680 kg)/trip
                                   trip.
American plaice.................  Unlimited.........  1,000 lb (454 kg)/
                                                       trip
Witch Flounder..................  1,000 lb (454 kg)/  250 lb (113 kg)/
                                   trip.               trip
GB Winter Flounder..............  1,000 lb (454 kg)/  250 lb (113 kg)/
                                   trip.               trip
GOM Winter Flounder.............  1,000 lb (454 kg)/  2,000 lb (907 kg)/
                                   trip.               trip
SNE/MA Winter Flounder..........  3,000 lb (1,361     2,000 lb (907 kg)/
                                   kg)/DAS, up to      DAS, up to 4,000
                                   6,000 lb (2,722     lb (1,814 kg)/
                                   kg)/trip.           trip
                                 ---------------------------------------
Redfish.........................                 Unlimited
                                 ---------------------------------------
White hake......................          1,500 lb (680 kg)/trip
                                 ---------------------------------------
Pollock.........................  10,000 lb (4,536    Unlimited
                                   kg)/trip.
                                 ---------------------------------------
Atlantic Halibut................                1 fish/trip
                                 ---------------------------------------
Windowpane Flounder.............
Ocean Pout......................           Possession Prohibited
Atlantic Wolffish...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 15027]]


   Table 20--Proposed Cod Trips Limits for Handgear A, Handgear B, and
         Small Vessel Category Permits for the 2016 Fishing Year
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Current 2015 trip    Proposed 2016 trip
           Permit                     limit                 limit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Handgear A GOM Cod..........  50 lb (23 kg)/trip..  25 lb (11 kg)/trip.
                             -------------------------------------------
Handgear A GB Cod...........             300 lb (136 kg)/trip.
                             -------------------------------------------
Handgear B GOM Cod..........              25 lb (11 kg)/trip.
                             -------------------------------------------
Handgear B GB Cod...........  75 lb (34 kg)/trip..  25 lb (11 kg)/trip.
                             -------------------------------------------
Small Vessel Category.......     300 lb (136 kg) of cod, haddock, and
                                     yellowtail flounder combined.
                             -------------------------------------------
                              Maximum of 50 lb (23  Maximum of 25 lb (11
                               kg) of GOM cod and    kg) of GOM cod and
                               50 lb (23 kg) of      100 lb (45 kg) of
                               GOM haddock within    GOM haddock within
                               the 300-lb combined   the 300-lb combined
                               trip limit.           trip limit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Closed Area II Yellowtail Flounder/Haddock Special Access Program

    This action proposes to allocate zero trips for common pool vessels 
to target yellowtail flounder within the Closed Area II Yellowtail 
Flounder/Haddock SAP for fishing year 2016. Vessels could still fish in 
this SAP in 2016 to target haddock, but must fish with a haddock 
separator trawl, a Ruhle trawl, or hook gear. Vessels would not be 
allowed to fish in this SAP using flounder trawl nets. This SAP is open 
from August 1, 2016, through January 31, 2017.
    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 2016 GB yellowtail flounder 
groundfish sub-ACL of 465,175 lb (211,000 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 2016 GB yellowtail flounder 
allocation.

10. Regulatory Corrections Under Regional Administrator Authority

    The following changes are being proposed to the regulations to 
clarify regulatory intent, correct references, inadvertent deletions, 
and other minor errors.
    In Sec.  648.87(b)(4)(i)(G), this proposed rule would revise text 
to clarify that NMFS will determine the adequate level of insurance 
that monitoring service providers must provide to cover injury, 
liability, and accidental death to cover at-sea monitors, and notify 
potential service providers.
    In Sec.  648.87(c)(2)(i)(A), this proposed rule would correct the 
inadvertent deletion of the definition of the Fippennies Ledge Area.
    In Sec.  648.87(c), this proposed rule would add regulatory text to 
detail the process for amending sector operations plans during the 
fishing year.

Classification

    Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the 
NMFS Assistant Administrator has made a preliminary determination that 
this proposed rule is consistent with Framework 55, other provisions of 
the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law. In making the final 
determination, we will consider the data, views, and comments received 
during the public comment period.
    This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for 
purposes of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866.
    This proposed rule does not contain policies with Federalism or 
``takings'' implications as those terms are defined in E.O. 13132 and 
E.O. 12630, respectively.
    An Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was prepared for 
this proposed rule, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 603. The IRFA describes the economic impact 
that this proposed rule would have on small entities, including small 
businesses, and also determines ways to minimize these impacts. The 
IRFA includes this section of the preamble to this rule and analyses 
contained in Framework 55 and its accompanying EA/RIR/IRFA. A copy of 
the full analysis is available from the Council (see ADDRESSES). A 
summary of the IRFA follows.

Description of the Reason Why Action by the Agency Is Being Considered 
and Statement of the Objective of, and Legal Basis for, This Proposed 
Rule

    This action proposes management measures, including annual catch 
limits, for the multispecies fishery in order to prevent overfishing, 
rebuild overfished groundfish stocks, and achieve optimum yield in the 
fishery. A complete description of the action, why it is being 
considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained in 
Framework 55, and elsewhere in the preamble to this proposed rule, and 
are not repeated here.

Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which the 
Proposed 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 (NAIC \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 (NAIC 114112)
    [cir] $7.5 million in the case of for-hire fishing entities (NAIC 
114119); or
     Has fewer than--
    [cir] 750 employees in the case of fish processors

[[Page 15028]]

    [cir] 100 employees in the case of fish dealers.
    This proposed rule impacts 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 Regulatory Flexibility Act 
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 holds those five permits. If two of 
those seven owners also co-own additional vessels, these two persons 
would be considered a separate ownership entity.
    On June 1 of each year, NMFS identifies ownership entities based on 
a list of all permits for the most recent complete calendar year. The 
current ownership dataset used for this analysis was created on June 1, 
2015, based on calendar year 2014 and contains average gross sales 
associated with those permits for calendar years 2012 through 2014.
    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 18 describes the total number of commercial business entities 
potentially regulated by the proposed action. As of June 1, 2015, there 
were 1,359 commercial business entities potentially regulated by the 
proposed action. These entities participate in, or are permitted for, 
the groundfish, small-mesh multispecies, herring midwater trawl, and 
scallop fisheries. For the groundfish fishery, the proposed 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, the proposed 
action includes allocations for groundfish stocks caught as bycatch in 
these fisheries. For each of these fisheries, there are accountability 
measures that are triggered if their respective allocations are 
exceeded. As a result, the likelihood of triggering an accountability 
measure is a function of changes to the ACLs each year.

 Table 18--Commercial Fish Harvesting Entities Regulated by the Proposed
                                 Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Classified as
               Type                    Total number     small businesses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primarily finfish.................                385                385
Primarily shellfish...............                480                462
Primarily for hire................                297                297
No Revenue........................                197                197
                                   -------------------------------------
    Total.........................              1,359              1,341
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Limited Access Groundfish Fishery
    The proposed 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 accountability measures 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 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 June 1, 2015 (just after the start of the 2015 fishing year), 
there were 1,068 individual limited access multispecies permits. Of 
these, 627 were enrolled in the sector program, and 441 were in the 
common pool. For fishing year 2014, which is the most recent complete 
fishing year, 717 of these limited access permits had landings of any 
species, and 273 of these permits had landings of groundfish species.
    Of the 1,068 individual limited access multispecies permits 
potentially impacted by this action, there are 661 distinct ownership 
entities. Of these, 649 are categorized as small entities, and 12 are 
categorized as large entities. 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 61 entities that are groundfish-dependent (obtain 
more than 50 percent of gross sales from groundfish species), all of 
which are small, and all but one of which are finfish commercial 
harvesting businesses.
Limited Access Scallop Fisheries
    The limited access scallop fisheries include Limited Access (LA) 
scallop permits and Limited Access General Category (LGC) scallop 
permits. LA scallop businesses are subject to a mixture of DAS 
restrictions and dedicated area trip restrictions. LGC scallop 
businesses are able to acquire and trade LGC scallop quota, and there 
is an annual cap on quota/landings. The

[[Page 15029]]

scallop fishery receives an allocation for GB and SNE/MA yellowtail 
flounder and southern windowpane flounder. If these allocations are 
exceeded, accountability measures are implemented in a subsequent 
fishing year. These accountability measures 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 (1,359), there are 169 scallop fishing entities. The 
majority of these entities are defined as shellfish businesses (166). 
However, three of these entities are defined as finfish businesses, all 
of which are small. Of the total scallop fishing entities, 154 entities 
are classified as small entities.
Midwater Trawl Fishery
    There are five 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 remaining two 
permit categories are open access. Although there is a large number of 
open access permits issued each year, these categories are 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. Only 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 for midwater trawl 
vessels 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 (1,359), there are 63 herring fishing entities. Of these, 
39 entities are defined as finfish businesses, all of which are small. 
There are 24 entities that are defined as shellfish businesses, and 18 
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 fisheries allow 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 (SMB) permits. As a result, SMB 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 accountability measure is 
triggered for a subsequent fishing year. The accountability measure 
requires small-mesh vessels to use selective trawl gear when fishing on 
GB. This gear restriction is only implemented for 1 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 1,007 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, 223 of these 
entities are considered active, with at least 1 lb of whiting landed. 
Of these entities, 167 are defined as finfish businesses, all of which 
are small. There are 56 entities that are defined as shellfish 
businesses, and 54 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 2015, 425 party/charter permits were issued. 
Of these, 271 party/charter permit holders reported catching and 
retaining any groundfish species on at least one for-hire trip. A 2013 
report indicated that, in the northeast U.S., 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 425 potentially 
regulated party/charter entities are all considered small businesses.

Description of the Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 
Compliance Requirements of This Proposed Rule

    The proposed action contains a collection-of-information 
requirement subject to review and approval by the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This 
requirement will be submitted to OMB for approval under OMB Control 
Number 0648-0605: Northeast Multispecies Amendment 16 Data Collection. 
The proposed action does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any 
other Federal rules.
    This action proposes to adjust the ACE transfer request requirement 
implemented through Amendment 16. This rule would add a new entry field 
to the Annual Catch Entitlement (ACE) transfer request form to allow a 
sector to indicate how many pounds of eastern GB cod ACE it intends to 
re-allocate to the Western U.S./Canada Area. This change is necessary 
to allow a sector to apply for a re-allocation of eastern GB ACE in 
order to increase fishing opportunities in the Western U.S./Canada 
Area. Currently, all sectors use the ACE transfer request form to 
initiate ACE transfers with other sectors, or to re-allocation eastern 
GB haddock ACE to the Western U.S./Canada Area, via an online or paper 
form to the Regional Administrator. The proposed change adds a single 
field to this form, and would not affect the number of entities 
required to comply with this requirement. Therefore, the proposed 
change would not be expected to increase the time or cost burden 
associated with the ACE transfer request requirement. Public reporting 
burden for this requirement includes the time for reviewing 
instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and 
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the 
collection of information.
    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is 
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty 
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the 
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays 
a currently valid OMB Control Number.

[[Page 15030]]

Federal Rules Which May Duplication, Overlap, or Conflict With This 
Proposed Rule

    The proposed regulations do not create overlapping regulations with 
any state regulations or other federal laws.

Description of Significant Alternatives to the Proposed Action Which 
Accomplish the Stated Objectives of Applicable Statutes and Which 
Minimize Any Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities

    The economic impacts of each proposed measure is discussed in more 
detail in sections 7.4 and 8.11 of the Framework 55 Environmental 
Assessment and are not repeated here. The only alternatives to the 
proposed action that accomplish the stated objectives and minimize 
significant economic impacts on small entities are related to the witch 
flounder ABCs under the annual catch limits and the alternative to 
modify the definition of the haddock separator trawl.

Witch Flounder ABCs and Groundfish Annual Catch Limits

    The proposed action would set catch limits for all 20 groundfish 
stocks. For 19 of the stocks, there is only a single catch limit 
alternative to the No Action alternative, described in Table 5 in the 
preamble. For witch flounder, there are three non-selected alternatives 
to the proposed ABC of 460 mt, namely 399 mt, 500 mt, and the No Action 
alternative. In each of these witch flounder alternatives, except for 
the No Action alternative, all other groundfish stock allocations would 
remain the same as those described in Table 5. It is important to note 
that all of the non-selected action alternatives assume a 14-percent 
target ASM coverage level for 2016. The No Action alternative assumes a 
41-percent target ASM coverage level for 2016.
    For the commercial groundfish fishery, the proposed catch limits 
(460 mt witch flounder ABC) are expected to result in a 10-percent 
decrease in gross revenues on groundfish trips, or $8 million, compared 
to predicted gross revenues for the 2015 fishing year. The impacts of 
the proposed catch limits would not be uniformly distributed across 
vessels size classes and ports. Vessels in the 30-50 ft (9-15 m) 
category are expected to see gross revenue increases of 2 percent. 
Vessels in the 50-75 ft (15-23 m) size class are expected to see 
revenue increases of 19 percent. The largest vessels (75 ft (23 m) and 
greater) are predicted to incur the largest decreases in gross revenues 
revenue decreases of 30 percent relative to 2015, due primarily to 
reductions in several GB and SNE/MA stocks (e.g., GB cod, GB winter 
flounder, SNE/MA yellowtail flounder, SNE/MA winter flounder).
    Southern New England ports are expected to be negatively impacted, 
with New Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island predicted to incur revenue 
losses of 100 percent, 80 percent, and 62 percent, respectively, 
relative to 2015. These large revenue losses are also due to reductions 
in GB and SNE/MA stocks. Maine and Massachusetts are also predicted to 
incur revenue losses of 16 percent and 6 percent, respectively, as a 
result of the proposed catch limits, while New Hampshire is expected to 
have small increases in gross revenues of up to 8 percent. For major 
home ports, New Bedford is predicted to see a 47-percent decline in 
revenues relative to 2015, and Point Judith expected to see a 58-
percent decline. Boston and Gloucester, meanwhile, are predicted to 
have revenue increases of 31 and 29 percent, respectively, compared to 
2015.
    Two of the three non-selected alternatives would have set all 
groundfish allocations at the levels described in Table 5, with the 
exception of the witch flounder allocation. In the alternative where 
the witch flounder ABC is set at 399 mt, gross revenues are predicted 
to be the same as for the proposed alternative (460-mt witch flounder 
ABC), namely a 10-percent decrease in gross revenues on groundfish 
trips, or $8 million, compared to predicted gross revenues for the 2015 
fishing year. The 399-mt alternative is also expected to provide the 
same changes in gross revenue by vessels size class. In the alternative 
where the witch flounder ABC is set at 500 mt, gross revenues are 
predicted to be slightly lower than the proposed alternative, namely an 
11-percent decrease in gross revenues on groundfish trips, or $9 
million, compared to predicted gross revenues for fishing year 2015. 
Vessels in the 30-50 ft (9-15 m) category are expected to see gross 
revenue increases of 4 percent. Vessels in the 50-75 ft (15-23 m) size 
class are expected to see revenue increases of 15 percent. The largest 
vessels (75 ft (23 m) and greater) are predicted to incur the largest 
decreases in gross revenues revenue decreases of 28 percent relative to 
2015. State and port-level impacts are also similar across the action 
alternatives.
    Under the No Action option, groundfish vessels would only have 3 
months (May, June, and July) to operate in the 2016 fishing year before 
the default specifications expire. Once the default specifications 
expire, there would be no ACL for a number of the groundfish stocks, 
and the fishery would be closed for the remainder of the fishing year. 
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 $69 million in gross revenues from groundfish trips. 
Roughly 92 percent of this revenue would be lost if no action was taken 
to specify catch limits. Further, if no action was taken, the Magnuson-
Stevens Act requirements to achieve optimum yield and consider the 
needs of fishing communities would be violated.
    Each of the 2016 ACL alternatives show a decrease in gross revenue 
when compared to the 2015 fishing year. When compared against each 
other, the economic analysis of the various witch flounder ABC 
alternatives did not show any gain in gross revenue at the fishery 
level, or any wide difference in vessel and port-level gross revenue, 
as the witch flounder ABC increased. The economic analysis consistently 
showed other stocks (GB cod, GOM cod, and SNE/MA yellowtail flounder) 
would be more constraining than witch flounder, which may partially 
explain the lack of predicted revenue increases with higher witch 
flounder ABCs. In addition, there are other assumptions in the economic 
analysis that may mask sector and vessel level impacts that could 
result from alternatives with lower witch flounder ABCs. Ultimately, 
the proposed alternative (460-mt witch flounder ABC) is expected to 
mitigate potential economic impacts to fishing communities compared to 
both the No Action alternative and the 399-mt witch flounder ABC 
alternative, while reducing the biological concerns of an increased 
risk of overfishing compared to the 500-mt witch flounder ABC 
alternative.
    The proposed catch limits are based on the latest stock assessment 
information, which is considered the best scientific information 
available, and the applicable requirements in the FMP and the Magnuson-
Stevens Act. With the exception of witch flounder, the only other 
possible alternatives to the catch limits proposed 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

[[Page 15031]]

implementation of measures that conflict with conservation 
requirements, even if it means negative impacts are not mitigated. The 
catch limits proposed 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 
catch limits that would be legal would be lower than those proposed in 
this action, which would not mitigate the economic impacts of the 
proposed catch limits.

Modification of the Definition of the Haddock Separator Trawl

    The proposed action would modify the current definition of the 
haddock separator trawl to require that the separator panel contrasts 
in color to the portions of the net that it separates. An estimated 46 
unique vessels had at least one trip that used a haddock separator 
trawl from 2013-2015. The costs for labor and installation of a new 
separator panel are estimated to range from $560 to $1,400 per panel. 
The No Action alternative would not modify the current definition of 
the haddock separator trawl. The proposed action is expected to 
expedite Coast Guard vessel inspections when compared to the No Action 
alternative, which could improve enforceability of this gear type and 
reduce delays in fishing operations while inspections occur.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648

    Fisheries, Fishing, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

    Dated: March 11, 2016.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is proposed 
to be amended as follows:

PART 648--FISHERIES OF THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES

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

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

0
2. In Sec.  648.14, revise paragraph (k)(16)(iii)(B) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  648.14  Prohibitions.

* * * * *
    (k) * * *
    (16) * * *
    (iii) * * *
    (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
3. In Sec.  648.85, revise paragraph (a)(3)(iii)(A) to read as follows:


Sec.  648.85  Special management programs.

    (a) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (iii) * * *
    (A) Haddock Separator Trawl. A haddock separator trawl is defined 
as a groundfish trawl modified to a vertically-oriented trouser trawl 
configuration, with two extensions arranged one over the other, where a 
codend shall be attached only to the upper extension, and the bottom 
extension shall be left open and have no codend attached. A horizontal 
large-mesh separating panel constructed with a minimum of 6.0-inch 
(15.2-cm) diamond mesh must be installed between the selvedges joining 
the upper and lower panels, as described in paragraphs (a)(3)(iii)(A) 
and (B) of this section, extending forward from the front of the 
trouser junction to the aft edge of the first belly behind the fishing 
circle. The horizontal large-mesh separating panel must be constructed 
with mesh of a contrasting color to the upper and bottom extensions of 
the net that it separates.
    (1) Two-seam bottom trawl nets--For two seam nets, the separator 
panel will be constructed such that the width of the forward edge of 
the panel is 80-85 percent of the width of the after edge of the first 
belly of the net where the panel is attached. For example, if the belly 
is 200 meshes wide (from selvedge to selvedge), the separator panel 
must be no wider than 160-170 meshes wide.
    (2) Four-seam bottom trawl nets--For four seam nets, the separator 
panel will be constructed such that the width of the forward edge of 
the panel is 90-95 percent of the width of the after edge of the first 
belly of the net where the panel is attached. For example, if the belly 
is 200 meshes wide (from selvedge to selvedge), the separator panel 
must be no wider than 180-190 meshes wide. The separator panel will be 
attached to both of the side panels of the net along the midpoint of 
the side panels. For example, if the side panel is 100 meshes tall, the 
separator panel must be attached at the 50th mesh.
* * * * *
0
3. In Sec.  648.87:
0
A. Revise paragraphs (a)(1) and (2), (b)(1)(i)(B)(2), (b)(1)(v)(B) 
introductory text, and (b)(1)(v)(B)(1)(i);
0
B. Add paragraph (b)(1)(v)(B)(1)(ii);
0
C. Revise paragraph (b)(4)(i)(G);
0
D. Add paragraphs (c)(2)(i)(A), reserved paragraph (c)(2)(i)(B), and 
(c)(4); and
0
E. Revise paragraphs, (d), and (e)(3)(iv).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  648.87  Sector allocation.

    (a) Procedure for approving/implementing a sector allocation 
proposal. (1) Any person may submit a sector allocation proposal for a 
group of limited access NE multispecies vessels to NMFS. The sector 
allocation proposal must be submitted to the Council and NMFS in 
writing by the deadline for submitting an operations plan and 
preliminary sector contract that is specified in paragraph (b)(2) of 
this section. The proposal must include a cover letter requesting the 
formation of the new sector, a complete sector operations plan and 
preliminary sector contract, prepared as described in in paragraphs 
(b)(2) and (3) of this section, and appropriate analysis that assesses 
the impact of the proposed sector, in compliance with the National 
Environmental Policy Act.
    (2) Upon receipt of a proposal to form a new sector allocation, and 
following the deadline for each sector to submit an operations plan, as 
described in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, NMFS will notify the 
Council in writing of its intent to consider a new sector allocation 
for approval. The Council will review the proposal(s) and associated 
NEPA analyses at a Groundfish Committee and Council meeting, and 
provide its recommendation on the proposed sector allocation to NMFS in 
writing. NMFS will make final determinations regarding the approval of 
the new sectors based on review of the proposed operations plans, 
associated NEPA analyses, and the Council's recommendations, and in a 
manner consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act. NMFS will only 
approve a new sector that has received the Council's endorsement.
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (B) * * *
    (2) Re-allocation of haddock or cod ACE. A sector may re-allocate 
all, or a portion, of a its haddock or cod ACE specified to the Eastern 
U.S./Canada Area, pursuant to paragraph (b)(1)(i)(B)(1) of this 
section, to the Western U.S./Canada Area at any time during the fishing 
year, and up to 2 weeks into the following fishing year (i.e., through 
May 14), unless otherwise instructed by NMFS, to cover any overages 
during the previous fishing year. Re-allocation of any ACE only

[[Page 15032]]

becomes effective upon approval by NMFS, as specified in paragraphs 
(b)(1)(i)(B)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section. Re-allocation of 
haddock or cod ACE may only be made within a sector, and not between 
sectors. For example, if 100 mt of a sector's GB haddock ACE is 
specified to the Eastern U.S./Canada Area, the sector could re-allocate 
up to 100 mt of that ACE to the Western U.S./Canada Area.
    (i) Application to re-allocate ACE. GB haddock or GB cod ACE 
specified to the Eastern U.S./Canada Area may be re-allocated to the 
Western U.S./Canada Area through written request to the Regional 
Administrator. This request must include the name of the sector, the 
amount of ACE to be re-allocated, and the fishing year in which the ACE 
re-allocation applies, as instructed by the Regional Administrator.
    (ii) Approval of request to re-allocate ACE. NMFS shall approve or 
disapprove a request to re-allocate GB haddock or GB cod ACE provided 
the sector, and its participating vessels, are in compliance with the 
reporting requirements specified in this part. The Regional 
Administrator shall inform the sector in writing, within 2 weeks of the 
receipt of the sector's request, whether the request to re-allocate ACE 
has been approved.
    (iii) Duration of ACE re-allocation. GB haddock or GB cod ACE that 
has been re-allocated to the Western U.S./Canada Area pursuant to this 
paragraph (b)(1)(i)(B)(2) is only valid for the fishing year in which 
the re-allocation is approved, with the exception of any requests that 
are submitted up to 2 weeks into the subsequent fishing year to address 
any potential ACE overages from the previous fishing year, as provided 
in paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this section, unless otherwise instructed 
by NMFS.
* * * * *
    (v) * * *
    (B) Independent third-party monitoring program. A sector must 
develop and implement an at-sea or electronic monitoring program that 
is satisfactory to, and approved by, NMFS for monitoring catch and 
discards and utilization of sector ACE, as specified in this paragraph 
(b)(1)(v)(B). The primary goal of the at-sea/electronic monitoring 
program is to verify area fished, as well as catch and discards by 
species and gear type, in the most cost-effective means practicable. 
All other goals and objectives of groundfish monitoring programs at 
Sec.  648.11(l) are considered equally-weighted secondary goals. The 
details of any at-sea or electronic monitoring program must be 
specified in the sector's operations plan, pursuant to paragraph 
(b)(2)(xi) of this section, and must meet the operational standards 
specified in paragraph (b)(5) of this section. Electronic monitoring 
may be used in place of actual observers if the technology is deemed 
sufficient by NMFS for a specific trip type based on gear type and area 
fished, in a manner consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act. 
The level of coverage for trips by sector vessels is specified in 
paragraph (b)(1)(v)(B)(1) of this section. The at-sea/electronic 
monitoring program shall be reviewed and approved by the Regional 
Administrator as part of a sector's operations plans in a manner 
consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act. A service provider 
providing at-sea or electronic monitoring services pursuant to this 
paragraph (b)(1)(v)(B) must meet the service provider standards 
specified in paragraph (b)(4) of this section, and be approved by NMFS 
in a manner consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act.
    (1) * * *
    (i) At-sea/electronic monitoring. Coverage levels must be 
sufficient to at least meet the coefficient of variation specified in 
the Standardized Bycatch Reporting Methodology at the overall stock 
level for each stock of regulated species and ocean pout, and to 
monitor sector operations, to the extent practicable, in order to 
reliably estimate overall catch by sector vessels. In making its 
determination, NMFS shall take into account the primary goal of the at-
sea/electronic monitoring program to verify area fished, as well as 
catch and discards by species and gear type, in the most cost-effective 
means practicable, the equally-weighted secondary goals and objectives 
of groundfish monitoring programs detailed at Sec.  648.11(l), the 
National Standards and requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and 
any other relevant factors. NMFS will determine the total target 
coverage level (i.e., combined NEFOP coverage and at-sea/electronic 
monitoring coverage) for the upcoming fishing year using the criteria 
in this paragraph. Annual coverage levels will be based on the most 
recent 3-year average of the total required coverage level necessary to 
reach the required coefficient of variation for each stock. For 
example, if data from the 2012 through 2014 fishing years are the most 
recent three complete fishing years available for the fishing year 2016 
projection, NMFS will use data from these three years to determine 2016 
target coverage levels. For each stock, the coverage level needed to 
achieve the required coefficient of variation would be calculated first 
for each of the 3 years and then averaged (e.g., (percent coverage 
necessary to meet the required coefficient of variation in year 1 + 
year 2 + year 3)/3). The coverage level that will apply is the maximum 
stock-specific rate after considering the following criteria. For a 
given fishing year, stocks that are not overfished, with overfishing 
not occurring according to the most recent available stock assessment, 
and that in the previous fishing year have less than 75 percent of the 
sector sub-ACL harvested and less than 10 percent of catch comprised of 
discards, will not be used to predict the annual target coverage level. 
A stock must meet all of these criteria to be eliminated as a predictor 
for the annual target coverage level for a given year.
    (ii) A sector vessel that declares its intent to exclusively fish 
using gillnets with a mesh size of 10-inch (25.4-cm) or greater in 
either the Inshore GB Stock Area, as defined at Sec.  648.10(k)(3)(ii), 
and/or the SNE Broad Stock Area, as defined at Sec.  648.10(k)(3)(iv), 
is not subject to the coverage rate specified in this paragraph 
(b)(1)(v)(B)(1) of this section provided that the trip is limited to 
the Inshore GB and/or SNE Broad Stock Areas and that the vessel only 
uses gillnets with a mesh size of 10-inches (25.4-cm) or greater. When 
on such a trip, other gear may be on board provided that it is stowed 
and not available for immediate use as defined in Sec.  648.2. A sector 
trip fishing with 10-inch (25.4-cm) mesh or larger gillnets will still 
be subject to the annual coverage rate if the trip declares its intent 
to fish in any part of the trip in the GOM Stock area, as defined at 
Sec.  648.10(k)(3)(i), or the Offshore GB Stock Area, as defined at 
Sec.  648.10(k)(3)(iii).
* * * * *
    (4) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (G) Evidence of adequate insurance (copies of which shall be 
provided to the vessel owner, operator, or vessel manager, when 
requested) to cover injury, liability, and accidental death to cover 
at-sea monitors (including during training); vessel owner; and service 
provider. NMFS will determine the adequate level of insurance and 
notify potential service providers;
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (A) Fippennies Ledge Area. The Fippennies Ledge Area is bounded by 
the following coordinates, connected by straight lines in the order 
listed:

[[Page 15033]]



                          Fippennies Ledge Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Point                     N. Latitude    W. Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.......................................    42[deg]50.0'    69[deg]17.0'
2.......................................    42[deg]44.0'    69[deg]14.0'
3.......................................    42[deg]44.0'    69[deg]18.0'
4.......................................    42[deg]50.0'    69[deg]21.0'
1.......................................    42[deg]50.0'    69[deg]17.0'
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (B) [Reserved]
* * * * *
    (4) Any sector may submit a written request to amend its approved 
operations plan to the Regional Administrator. If the amendment is 
administrative in nature, within the scope of, and consistent with the 
actions and impacts previously considered for current sector 
operations, the Regional Administrator may approve an administrative 
amendment in writing. The Regional Administrator may approve 
substantive changes to an approved operations plan in a manner 
consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act and other applicable 
law. All approved operations plan amendments will be published on the 
regional office Web site and will be provided to the Council.
    (d) Approved sector allocation proposals. Eligible NE multispecies 
vessels, as specified in paragraph (a)(3) of this section, may 
participate in the sectors identified in paragraphs (d)(1) through (25) 
of this section, provided the operations plan is approved by the 
Regional Administrator in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section 
and each participating vessel and vessel operator and/or vessel owner 
complies with the requirements of the operations plan, the requirements 
and conditions specified in the letter of authorization issued pursuant 
to paragraph (c) of this section, and all other requirements specified 
in this section. All operational aspects of these sectors shall be 
specified pursuant to the operations plan and sector contract, as 
required by this section.
    (1) GB Cod Hook Sector.
    (2) GB Cod Fixed Gear Sector.
    (3) Sustainable Harvest Sector.
    (4) Sustainable Harvest Sector II.
    (5) Sustainable Harvest Sector III.
    (6) Port Clyde Community Groundfish Sector.
    (7) Northeast Fishery Sector I.
    (8) Northeast Fishery Sector II.
    (9) Northeast Fishery Sector III.
    (10) Northeast Fishery Sector IV.
    (11) Northeast Fishery Sector V.
    (12) Northeast Fishery Sector VI.
    (13) Northeast Fishery Sector VII.
    (14) Northeast Fishery Sector VIII.
    (15) Northeast Fishery Sector IX.
    (16) Northeast Fishery Sector X.
    (17) Northeast Fishery Sector XI.
    (18) Northeast Fishery Sector XII.
    (19) Northeast Fishery Sector XIII.
    (20) Tristate Sector.
    (21) Northeast Coastal Communities Sector.
    (22) State of Maine Permit Banking Sector.
    (23) State of Rhode Island Permit Bank Sector.
    (24) State of New Hampshire Permit Bank Sector.
    (25) State of Massachusetts Permit Bank Sector
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (3)
    (iv) Reallocation of GB haddock or GB cod ACE. Subject to the terms 
and conditions of the state-operated permit bank's MOAs with NMFS, a 
state-operated permit bank may re-allocate all, or a portion, of its GB 
haddock or GB cod ACE specified for the Eastern U.S./Canada Area to the 
Western U.S./Canada Area provided it complies with the requirements in 
paragraph (b)(1)(i)(B)(2) of this section.
* * * * *


Sec.  648.89  [Amended]

0
4. In Sec.  648.89, remove and reserve paragraph (f)(3)(ii).

[FR Doc. 2016-06186 Filed 3-18-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P