Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northeast Groundfish Fishery; Framework Adjustment 55, 26411-26452 [2016-10051]

Download as PDF Vol. 81 Monday, No. 84 May 2, 2016 Part III Department of Commerce mstockstill on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 648 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northeast Groundfish Fishery; Framework Adjustment 55 and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northeast Groundfish Fishery; Fishing Year 2016; Recreational Management Measures; Final Rules VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:34 Apr 29, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\02MYR3.SGM 02MYR3 26412 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 84 / Monday, May 2, 2016 / Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 648 [Docket No. 151211999–6343–02] RIN 0648–BF62 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northeast Groundfish Fishery; Framework Adjustment 55 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Final rule. AGENCY: This final rule approves and implements Framework Adjustment 55 to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan. This rule sets 2016– 2018 catch limits for all 20 groundfish stocks, adjusts the groundfish at-sea monitoring program, and adopts 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 final 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: Effective on May 1, 2016, except for the amendment to § 648.85(a)(3)(iii)(A), which is effective October 31, 2016. ADDRESSES: Copies of Framework Adjustment 55, including the Environmental Assessment, the Regulatory Impact Review, and the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis prepared in support of the proposed rule 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. Copies of each sector’s final operations plan and contract, and the Fishing Year 2015–2020 Northeast Multispecies Sector Operations Plans and Contracts Programmatic Environmental Assessment, are available from the NMFS Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office: John K. Bullard, Regional Administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. These documents are also accessible via the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this final rule may be submitted to NMFS, Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930, and by email to 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 mstockstill on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:34 Apr 29, 2016 Jkt 238001 1. Summary of Approved 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 2018 and 2019 Fishing Years 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 Approved Measures This action approves and implements the management measures in Framework Adjustment 55 to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (FMP). The measures implemented in this final rule include: • 2016–2018 specifications for all 20 groundfish stocks; • 2016 shared U.S./Canada quotas for Georges Bank (GB) yellowtail flounder and Eastern GB cod and haddock; • Modifications to the industryfunded sector at-sea monitoring program; • Approval of a new sector; • Modifications to the sector approval process; • Adjustments to selective trawl gear requirements; • Removal of the Gulf of Maine (GOM) cod prohibition for recreational anglers; and • A mechanism for sectors to transfer GB cod quota from the Eastern U.S./ Canada Area to the western area. This action also implements a number of other measures that are not part of Framework 55, but that were considered under our authority specified in the PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 Northeast Multispecies FMP. We are including these measures in Framework 55 for expediency purposes, and because these measures are related to the catch limits implemented in Framework 55. The additional measures implemented in this action are: • Management measures necessary to implement sector operations plans—this action approves 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 implements initial 2016 fishing year trip limits for the common pool fishery. • Other regulatory corrections—this action makes several administrative revisions to the regulations to clarify their intent, correct references, remove unnecessary text, and make other minor edits. Each correction is described in 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 at: https:// www.nefsc.noaa.gov/groundfish/ operational-assessments-2015/. This action revises status determination criteria, as necessary, and provides 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). Status determination relative to reference points is no longer possible for GB cod and Atlantic halibut. The assessment peer review panel determined that available information for both stocks indicates they are still in poor condition and that stock size has not increased. Therefore, the panel recommended the status remain overfished for both stocks, consistent with the information from previous assessments. However, in the absence of fishing mortality estimates to compare to overfishing reference points, the E:\FR\FM\02MYR3.SGM 02MYR3 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 84 / Monday, May 2, 2016 / Rules and Regulations panel recommended that the overfishing status be unknown for both stocks. Although the review panel concluded that the overfishing status should be unknown for GB cod and halibut, the final NMFS determinations for these stocks are different from the review panel’s recommendations. NMFS has developed a national approach to addressing common status determination situations for the purposes of completing the annual report to Congress on the Status of U.S. Fisheries and the Fisheries Stock Sustainability Index. For cases like GB cod and Atlantic halibut, where the stock assessment update is not accepted by the peer review process, NMFS bases the status determination on the most recent accepted assessment. Based on this approach, the stock status for GB cod will remain overfished, with overfishing occurring, consistent with the determination from the 2013 GB cod benchmark assessment. The status for Atlantic halibut will remain overfished, with overfishing not occurring, consistent with the 2012 assessment update for this stock. These status determinations will remain until an assessment can provide new reference points and/or numerical estimates of existing status determination criteria. The numerical estimates for the status determination criteria for both stocks is still not available based on the results of the 2015 assessment updates, as reflected in Table 1. In the draft Framework 55 EA available to the Council when selecting preferred alternatives and taking final action, numerical estimates were not provided consistent with these results. However, following initial submission of Framework 55 to NFMS for review, and after the close of the public comment period on the proposed rule (81 FR 15003; March 21, 2016) and analysis, the Council changed the numerical estimates provided in the document to those from the previous 2013 GB cod assessment. Presumably, this change was made to provide estimates consistent with the assessment review panel’s recommendation that the previous assessment is the best scientific information available for determining stock status. However, this change to the document was made after the Council took final action on Framework 55, and after close of the public comment period on the proposed rule and analysis, and is not consistent with our standard approach for developing numerical estimates for 26413 status determination criteria. When the stock assessment is not accepted, NMFS retains the status determination from the previous assessment because there are no new, or updated, numerical estimates of status determination criteria available to reliably evaluate whether stock status has changed. However, NMFS does not consider the numerical estimates of the status determination criteria from the previous assessment valid because the assessment update was not accepted. The stock status changes for GB cod and halibut 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. TABLE 1—NUMERICAL ESTIMATES OF STATUS DETERMINATION CRITERIA Biomass target (mt) (SSBMSY or proxy) Stock mstockstill on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 GB Cod ..................................................................................... GOM Cod: M = 0.2 Model ................................................................... Mramp Model ....................................................................... GB Haddock ............................................................................. GOM Haddock .......................................................................... GB Yellowtail Flounder ............................................................. SNE/MA Yellowtail Flounder ..................................................... CC/GOM Yellowtail Flounder .................................................... American Plaice ........................................................................ Witch Flounder .......................................................................... GB Winter Flounder .................................................................. GOM Winter Flounder ............................................................... SNE/MA Winter Flounder ......................................................... Acadian Redfish ........................................................................ White Hake ............................................................................... Pollock ...................................................................................... Northern Windowpane Flounder ............................................... Southern Windowpane Flounder .............................................. Ocean Pout ............................................................................... Atlantic Halibut .......................................................................... Atlantic Wolffish ........................................................................ Maximum fishing mortality threshold (FMSY or proxy) NA ........................................... NA ........................................... NA 40,187 ..................................... 59,045 ..................................... 108,300 ................................... 4,623 ....................................... NA ........................................... 1,959 ....................................... 5,259 ....................................... 13,107 ..................................... 9,473 ....................................... 6,700 ....................................... NA ........................................... 26,928 ..................................... 281,112 ................................... 32,550 ..................................... 105,226 ................................... 1.554 kg/tow ........................... 0.247 kg/tow ........................... 4.94 kg/tow ............................. NA ........................................... 1,663 ....................................... 0.185 ....................................... 0.187 ....................................... 0.39 ......................................... 0.468 ....................................... NA ........................................... 0.35 ......................................... 0.279 ....................................... 0.196 ....................................... 0.279 ....................................... 0.536 ....................................... 0.23 (exploitation rate) ............ 0.325 ....................................... 0.038 ....................................... 0.188 ....................................... 0.277 ....................................... 0.45 ......................................... 2.027 ....................................... 0.76 ......................................... NA ........................................... 0.243 ....................................... 6,797 10,043 24,900 1,083 NA 541 1,285 2,675 1,957 2,840 NA 7,831 10,466 5,422 19,678 700 500 3,754 NA 244 MSY (mt) SSB = Spawning Stock Biomass; MSY = Maximum Sustainable Yield; F = Fishing Mortality; M = Natural Mortality; GOM = Gulf of Maine; SNE = Southern New England; MA = Mid-Atlantic; CC = Cape Cod. Note. A brief explanation of the two assessment models for GOM cod is provided in section ‘‘4. Catch Limits for the 2016–2018 Fishing Years.’’ VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:34 Apr 29, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02MYR3.SGM 02MYR3 26414 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 84 / Monday, May 2, 2016 / Rules and Regulations TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF CHANGES TO STOCK STATUS Previous assessment 2015 assessment Stock Overfishing? GB Cod ................................................................................................ GOM Cod ............................................................................................. GB Haddock ......................................................................................... GOM Haddock ..................................................................................... GB Yellowtail Flounder ........................................................................ SNE/MA Yellowtail Flounder ................................................................ CC/GOM Yellowtail Flounder ............................................................... American Plaice ................................................................................... Witch Flounder ..................................................................................... GB Winter Flounder ............................................................................. GOM Winter Flounder .......................................................................... SNE/MA Winter Flounder .................................................................... Acadian Redfish ................................................................................... White Hake .......................................................................................... Pollock .................................................................................................. Northern Windowpane Flounder .......................................................... Southern Windowpane Flounder ......................................................... Ocean Pout .......................................................................................... Atlantic Halibut ..................................................................................... Atlantic Wolffish ................................................................................... 3. 2016 Fishing Year U.S./Canada Quotas Management of Transboundary Georges Bank Stocks As described in the proposed rule, eastern GB cod, eastern GB haddock, and GB yellowtail flounder are jointly Overfished? Overfishing? Yes ................... Yes ................... No ..................... No ..................... Unknown ........... No ..................... Yes ................... No ..................... Yes ................... No ..................... No ..................... No ..................... No ..................... No ..................... No ..................... Yes ................... No ..................... No ..................... No ..................... No ..................... Yes ................... Yes ................... No ..................... No ..................... Unknown ........... No ..................... Yes ................... No ..................... Yes ................... No ..................... Unknown ........... Yes ................... No ..................... No ..................... No ..................... Yes ................... No ..................... Yes ................... Yes ................... Yes ................... Yes ................... Yes ................... No ..................... No ..................... Unknown ........... Yes ................... Yes ................... No ..................... Yes ................... Yes ................... No ..................... No ..................... No ..................... No ..................... No ..................... No ..................... No ..................... No ..................... No ..................... No ..................... managed with Canada under the United States/Canada Resource Sharing Understanding. This action adopts shared U.S./Canada quotas for these stocks for fishing year 2016 based on 2015 assessments and the recommendations of the Transboundary Management Guidance Committee Overfished? Yes. Yes. No. No. Unknown. Yes. Yes. No. Yes. Yes. Unknown. Yes. No. No. No. Yes. No. Yes. Yes. Yes. (TMGC) (Table 3). 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/ index.html. TABLE 3—2016 FISHING YEAR U.S./CANADA QUOTAS (MT, LIVE WEIGHT) AND PERCENT OF QUOTA ALLOCATED TO EACH COUNTRY Eastern GB cod Quota mstockstill on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Total Shared Quota ......................................................................................................... U.S. Quota ....................................................................................................................... Canada Quota ................................................................................................................. 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 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. VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:34 Apr 29, 2016 Jkt 238001 4. Catch Limits for the 2016–2018 Fishing Years Summary of Catch Limits This action adopts catch limits for all 20 groundfish stocks for the 2016–2018 fishing years based on the 2015 operational assessment updates. Catch limit increases are adopted for 10 stocks; however, for a number of stocks, the catch limits adopted in this action are substantially lower than the catch limits set for the 2015 fishing year (with decreases ranging from 14 to 67 percent). The catch limits implemented in this action, including overfishing limits (OFLs), acceptable biological catches (ABCs), and annual catch limits (ACLs), can be found in Tables 4 through 11. A summary of how these catch limits were developed, including the distribution to the various fishery components, was provided in the PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 625 138 (22%) 487 (78%) Eastern GB haddock 37,000 15,170 (41%) 21,830 (59%) GB yellowtail flounder 354 269 (76%) 85 (24%) proposed rule and is not repeated here. Additional information on the development of these catch limits is also provided in the Framework 55 EA and its supporting appendices. We have adjusted the groundfish sub-ACL for GB cod for 2017 and 2018 in Tables 6 and 7 to correct a transcription error in the proposed rule. The sub-ACL for 2017 and 2018 was incorrectly listed as 608 mt, but should have been listed as 997 mt. Although the 2017 and 2018 groundfish sub-ACL was listed incorrectly, the components of the groundfish sub-ACL, namely the preliminary sector sub-ACL (975 mt) and the preliminary common pool subACL (22 mt), were correct in the proposed rule. The sector and common pool catch limits implemented in this action are based on potential sector contributions for fishing year 2016 and fishing year E:\FR\FM\02MYR3.SGM 02MYR3 26415 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 84 / Monday, May 2, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 2015 sector rosters. 2016 sector rosters will not be finalized until May 1, 2016, because individual permit holders have until the end of the 2015 fishing year (April 30, 2016) to drop out of a sector and fish in the common pool fishery for 2016. Therefore, it is possible that the sector and common pool catch limits in this action may change due to changes in the sector rosters. If changes to the sector rosters occur, updated catch limits will be announced as soon as possible in the 2016 fishing year to reflect the final sector rosters as of May 1, 2016. Sector-specific allocations for each stock can be found in section ‘‘8. Sector Administrative Measures.’’ TABLE 4—FISHING YEARS 2016–2018 OVERFISHING LIMITS AND ACCEPTABLE BIOLOGICAL CATCHES (MT, LIVE WEIGHT) [Total ABC provided for 2016 to show limit prior To deduction of Canadian catch for GB Cod, GB haddock, GB yellowtail flounder, GB winter flounder, white hake, and Atlantic halibut] 2016 2017 2018 Stock OFL GB Cod ..................................................................................... GOM Cod .................................................................................. GB Haddock .............................................................................. GOM Haddock .......................................................................... GB Yellowtail Flounder ............................................................. SNE/MA Yellowtail Flounder ..................................................... CC/GOM Yellowtail Flounder .................................................... American Plaice ........................................................................ Witch Flounder .......................................................................... GB Winter Flounder .................................................................. GOM Winter Flounder ............................................................... SNE/MA Winter Flounder .......................................................... Redfish ...................................................................................... White Hake ................................................................................ Pollock ....................................................................................... N. Windowpane Flounder ......................................................... S. Windowpane Flounder .......................................................... Ocean Pout ............................................................................... Atlantic Halibut .......................................................................... Atlantic Wolffish ......................................................................... Total ABC 1,665 667 160,385 4,717 Unk Unk 555 1,695 521 957 1,080 1,041 13,723 4,985 27,668 243 833 220 210 110 1,249 500 77,898 3,630 354 267 427 1,297 460 755 810 780 10,338 3,816 21,312 182 623 165 158 82 U.S. ABC 762 500 56,068 3,630 269 267 427 1,297 460 668 810 780 10,338 3,754 21,312 182 623 165 124 82 OFL U.S. ABC U.S. ABC 1,249 500 48,398 4,534 354 267 427 1,336 460 668 810 780 11,050 3,624 21,312 182 623 165 124 82 1,665 667 258,691 5,873 Unk Unk 707 1,748 732 1,056 1,080 1,021 14,665 4,816 32,004 243 833 220 210 110 OFL 1,665 667 358,077 6,218 .................... Unk 900 1,840 954 1,459 1,080 1,587 15,260 4,733 34,745 243 833 220 210 110 1,249 500 77,898 4,815 .................... 267 427 1,404 460 668 810 780 11,501 3,560 21,312 182 623 165 124 82 Other subcomponent Unk = Unknown; 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. TABLE 5—FISHING YEAR 2016 CATCH LIMITS [mt, live weight] mstockstill on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Stock GB Cod ............. GOM Cod .......... GB Haddock ...... GOM Haddock .. GB Yellowtail Flounder ......... SNE/MA Yellowtail Flounder ......... CC/GOM Yellowtail Flounder ......... American Plaice Witch Flounder .. GB Winter Flounder ......... GOM Winter Flounder ......... SNE/MA Winter Flounder ......... Redfish .............. White Hake ........ Pollock ............... N. Windowpane Flounder ......... S. Windowpane Flounder ......... Ocean Pout ....... Atlantic Halibut .. Atlantic Wolffish VerDate Sep<11>2014 Total ACL Total groundfish fishery Preliminary sector Preliminary common pool Recreational fishery Midwater trawl fishery Scallop fishery Small-mesh fisheries State waters subcomponent 730 473 53,309 3,430 608 437 51,667 3,344 595 273 51,209 2,385 13 8 458 31 .................... 157 .................... 928 .................... .................... 521 34 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 23 27 561 26 99 10 561 26 261 211 207 4 .................... .................... 42 5 NA 3 255 182 145 37 .................... .................... 39 .................... 5 29 409 1,235 441 341 1,183 370 325 1,160 361 16 23 8 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 43 26 12 26 26 59 650 590 584 6 .................... .................... .................... .................... NA 60 776 639 604 35 .................... .................... .................... .................... 122 16 749 9,837 3,572 20,374 585 9,526 3,459 17,817 514 9,471 3,434 17,705 71 55 25 112 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 70 103 38 1,279 94 207 75 1,279 177 66 na 66 .................... .................... .................... .................... 2 109 599 155 119 77 104 137 91 72 na na na na 104 137 91 72 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 209 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 37 2 25 1 249 17 4 3 20:34 Apr 29, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02MYR3.SGM 02MYR3 26416 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 84 / Monday, May 2, 2016 / Rules and Regulations TABLE 6—FISHING YEAR 2017 CATCH LIMITS [mt, live weight] Stock GB Cod ............. GOM Cod .......... GB Haddock ...... GOM Haddock .. GB Yellowtail Flounder ......... SNE/MA Yellowtail Flounder ......... CC/GOM Yellowtail Flounder ......... American Plaice Witch Flounder .. GB Winter Flounder ......... GOM Winter Flounder ......... SNE/MA Winter Flounder ......... Redfish .............. White Hake ........ Pollock ............... N. Windowpane Flounder ......... S. Windowpane Flounder ......... Ocean Pout ....... Atlantic Halibut .. Atlantic Wolffish Total groundfish fishery Total ACL Preliminary sector Preliminary common pool Recreational fishery Midwater trawl fishery Scallop fishery Small-mesh fisheries State waters subcomponent Other subcomponent 1,197 473 46,017 4,285 997 437 44,599 4,177 975 273 44,204 2,979 22 8 395 39 .................... 157 .................... 1,160 .................... .................... 450 42 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 37 27 484 33 162 10 484 33 343 278 273 5 .................... .................... 55 7 NA 4 255 187 145 37 .................... .................... 39 .................... 5 29 409 1,272 441 341 1,218 370 325 1,195 361 16 23 8 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 43 27 12 26 27 59 650 590 584 6 .................... .................... .................... .................... NA 60 776 639 604 35 .................... .................... .................... .................... 122 16 749 10,514 3,448 20,374 585 10,183 3,340 17,817 514 10,124 3,315 17,705 71 59 24 112 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 70 111 36 1,279 94 221 72 1,279 177 66 na 66 .................... .................... .................... .................... 2 109 599 155 119 77 104 137 91 72 na na na na 104 137 91 72 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 209 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 37 2 25 1 249 17 4 3 TABLE 7—FISHING YEAR 2018 CATCH LIMITS [mt, live weight] mstockstill on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Stock GB Cod ............. GOM Cod .......... GB Haddock ...... GOM Haddock .. GB Yellowtail Flounder ......... SNE/MA Yellowtail Flounder ......... CC/GOM Yellowtail Flounder ......... American Plaice Witch Flounder .. GB Winter Flounder ......... GOM Winter Flounder ......... SNE/MA Winter Flounder ......... Redfish .............. White Hake ........ Pollock ............... N. Windowpane Flounder ......... S. Windowpane Flounder ......... Ocean Pout ....... Atlantic Halibut .. Atlantic Wolffish VerDate Sep<11>2014 Total groundfish fishery Total ACL Preliminary sector Preliminary common pool Recreational fishery Midwater trawl fishery Scallop fishery Small-mesh fisheries State waters subcomponent Other subcomponent 1,197 473 74,065 4,550 997 437 71,783 4,436 975 273 71,147 3,163 22 8 636 39 .................... 157 .................... 1,231 .................... .................... 724 45 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 37 27 779 35 162 10 779 35 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 255 179 142 37 .................... .................... 38 .................... 5 29 409 1,337 441 341 1,280 370 325 1,256 361 16 24 8 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 43 28 12 26 28 59 650 590 584 6 .................... .................... .................... .................... NA 60 776 639 604 35 .................... .................... .................... .................... 122 16 749 10,943 3,387 20,374 585 10,598 3,281 17,817 514 10,537 3,257 17,705 71 61 24 112 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 70 115 36 1,279 94 230 71 1,279 177 66 na 66 .................... .................... .................... .................... 2 109 599 155 119 77 104 137 91 72 na na na na 104 137 91 72 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 209 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 37 2 25 1 249 17 4 3 20:34 Apr 29, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02MYR3.SGM 02MYR3 26417 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 84 / Monday, May 2, 2016 / Rules and Regulations TABLE 8—COMMON POOL TRIMESTER TOTAL ALLOWABLE CATCHES FOR FISHING YEARS 2016–2018 [mt, live weight] 2016 Stock Trimester 1 GB Cod ..................................... GOM Cod .................................. GB Haddock .............................. GOM Haddock .......................... GB Yellowtail Flounder ............. SNE/MA Yellowtail Flounder ..... CC/GOM Yellowtail Flounder .... American Plaice ........................ Witch Flounder .......................... GB Winter Flounder .................. GOM Winter Flounder ............... Redfish ...................................... White Hake ................................ Pollock ....................................... 2017 Trimester 2 3.3 2.1 123.5 8.4 0.8 8.2 5.5 5.4 2.3 0.5 12.8 13.7 9.5 31.4 Trimester 3 4.9 2.7 151.0 8.1 1.2 14.4 5.5 8.1 2.6 1.4 13.2 17.0 7.8 39.3 Trimester 1 5.0 2.8 183.0 14.6 2.1 16.4 4.7 9.1 3.6 3.9 8.7 24.2 7.8 41.5 2018 Trimester 2 5.4 2.1 106.6 10.5 1.0 8.1 5.5 5.6 2.3 0.5 12.8 14.7 9.2 31.4 Trimester 3 8.0 2.7 130.3 10.1 1.6 14.3 5.5 8.4 2.6 1.4 13.2 18.2 7.5 39.3 Trimester 1 Trimester 3 5.4 2.1 171.6 11.1 .................... 8.0 5.5 5.9 2.3 0.5 12.8 15.3 9.0 31.4 8.2 2.8 158.0 18.2 2.8 16.2 4.7 9.3 3.6 3.9 8.7 25.9 7.5 41.5 Trimester 2 8.0 2.7 209.8 10.7 .................... 14.1 5.5 8.8 2.6 1.4 13.2 19.0 7.4 39.3 8.2 2.8 254.3 19.3 .................... 16.0 4.7 9.8 3.6 3.9 8.7 26.9 7.4 41.5 Note: An empty cell indicates that no catch limit has been set yet for these stocks. These catch limits will be set in a future management action. TABLE 9—COMMON POOL INCIDENTAL CATCH CAPS FOR FISHING YEARS 2016–2018 [mt, live weight] Percentage of common pool sub-ACL (%) Stock GB Cod ............................................................................................................ GOM Cod ......................................................................................................... GB Yellowtail Flounder .................................................................................... CC/GOM Yellowtail Flounder ........................................................................... American Plaice ............................................................................................... Witch Flounder ................................................................................................. SNE/MA Winter Flounder ................................................................................ 2016 2 1 2 1 5 5 1 2017 0.26 0.08 0.08 0.16 1.13 0.42 0.71 2018 0.43 0.08 0.11 0.16 1.17 0.42 0.71 0.43 0.08 ........................ 0.16 1.22 0.42 0.71 TABLE 10—COMMON POOL INCIDENTAL CATCH TOTAL ALLOWABLE CATCHES DISTRIBUTION TO EACH SPECIAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM [Percentage] Closed Area I hook gear haddock (%) GB Cod ........................................................................................................................................ GOM Cod ..................................................................................................................................... GB Yellowtail Flounder ................................................................................................................ CC/GOM Yellowtail Flounder ...................................................................................................... American Plaice ........................................................................................................................... Witch Flounder ............................................................................................................................. SNE/MA Winter Flounder ............................................................................................................ White Hake .................................................................................................................................. 50 100 50 100 100 100 100 100 Eastern U.S./ CA haddock (%) 16 ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ Regular B days-at-sea (%) Stock 34 ........................ 50 ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ TABLE 11—COMMON POOL INCIDENTAL CATCH TOTAL ALLOWABLE CATCHES FOR EACH SPECIAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM [mt, live weight] Regular B days-at-sea Closed Area I hook gear haddock Eastern U.S./Canada haddock Stock mstockstill on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 2016 GB Cod ........................................ GOM Cod ..................................... GB Yellowtail Flounder ................ CC/GOM Yellowtail Flounder ....... American Plaice ........................... Witch Flounder ............................. SNE/MA Winter Flounder ............ VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:34 Apr 29, 2016 Jkt 238001 2017 0.13 0.08 0.04 0.16 1.13 0.42 0.71 PO 00000 0.22 0.08 0.05 0.16 1.17 0.42 0.71 Frm 00007 2018 0.22 0.08 0.00 0.16 1.22 0.42 0.71 Fmt 4701 2016 0.04 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Sfmt 4700 2017 0.07 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 2018 2016 0.07 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a E:\FR\FM\02MYR3.SGM 02MYR3 0.09 n/a 0.04 n/a n/a n/a n/a 2017 0.15 n/a 0.05 n/a n/a n/a n/a 2018 0.15 n/a 0.00 n/a n/a n/a n/a 26418 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 84 / Monday, May 2, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 5. Default Catch Limits for the 2018 and 2019 Fishing Years 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 through July 31 of that fishing year. If this value exceeds the Council’s recommendation for the upcoming fishing year, the default catch limit must be reduced to an amount equal to the Council’s recommendation. 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). This rule announces default catch limits for the 2018 fishing year for GB yellowtail flounder, and for the 2019 fishing year for all remaining groundfish stocks. Default catch limits for the 2018 fishing year for GB yellowtail flounder were inadvertently omitted in the proposed rule, but are included here because the Council only recommended specifications for the 2016 and 2017 fishing year for this stock. The GB yellowtail flounder default specifications will become effective May 1, 2018, through July 31, 2018, unless otherwise replaced by final specifications. Similarly, for the remaining groundfish stocks, default specifications will become effective May 1, 2019, through July 31, 2019, unless otherwise replaced by final specifications. The default catch limits for 2018 GB yellowtail flounder are summarized in Table 12, and the default catch limits for 2019 for all other stocks are summarized in Table 13. The preliminary sector and common pool sub-ACLs in Table 12 and 13 are based on existing 2015 sector rosters, and will be adjusted based on rosters from the 2017 or 2018 fishing years. In addition, prior to the start of the 2018 or 2019 fishing years, we will evaluate whether any of the default catch limits announced in this rule exceed the Council’s recommendations for 2018 for GB yellowtail flounder, or for 2019 for the remaining groundfish stocks. If necessary, we will announce adjustments prior to implementing the default specifications. The midwater trawl fishery is the only non-groundfish fishery with an inseason accountability measure for its groundfish allocation. When the GOM or GB haddock catch cap specified for the default specifications period is caught, the directed herring fishery would be closed for all herring vessels fishing with midwater trawl gear for the remainder of the default specifications time period, unless final specifications were set prior to July 31. For other nongroundfish fisheries that receive a groundfish allocation (e.g., scallop, small-mesh), the default measures will not affect fishing operations because these fisheries do not have inseason accountability measures. TABLE 12—FISHING YEAR 2018 DEFAULT SPECIFICATIONS FOR GB YELLOWTAIL FLOUNDER [mt, live weight] Stock U.S. ABC Total ACL Groundfish sub-ACL Preliminary sector sub-ACL Preliminary common pool sub-ACL GB Yellowtail Flounder ............................................................................ 39 39 32 31 1 Preliminary sector subACL Preliminary common pool subACL Midwater trawl fishery TABLE 13—FISHING YEAR 2019 DEFAULT SPECIFICATIONS [mt, live weight] mstockstill on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Stock U.S. ABC GB Cod ............................................................................ GOM Cod ......................................................................... GB Haddock ..................................................................... GOM Haddock ................................................................. SNE/MA Yellowtail Flounder ............................................ CC/GOM Yellowtail Flounder ........................................... American Plaice ............................................................... Witch Flounder ................................................................. GB Winter Flounder ......................................................... GOM Winter Flounder ...................................................... SNE/MA Winter Flounder ................................................ Redfish ............................................................................. White Hake ...................................................................... Pollock .............................................................................. N. Windowpane Flounder ................................................ S. Windowpane Flounder ................................................ Ocean Pout ...................................................................... Atlantic Halibut ................................................................. Atlantic Wolffish ............................................................... 583 233 125,327 2,176 .................... 315 644 334 511 378 555 5,341 1,657 12,161 85 292 77 74 39 VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:34 Apr 29, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Total ACL 437 175 27,264 1,685 93 149 491 161 264 284 273 4,025 1,268 7,459 64 218 58 55 29 Sfmt 4700 Groundfish sub-ACL 465 204 5,007 1,552 66 119 448 129 233 224 205 3,709 1,168 6,236 64 218 58 55 29 455 127 4,963 1,107 52 113 439 126 231 212 180 3,688 1,160 6,196 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... E:\FR\FM\02MYR3.SGM 02MYR3 10 4 44 14 14 5 9 3 2 12 25 21 8 39 64 218 58 55 29 .................... .................... 51 16 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 84 / Monday, May 2, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 6. Groundfish At-Sea Monitoring Program Adjustments This action adjusts the groundfish sector at-sea monitoring (ASM) program to ensure the likelihood that discards for all groundfish stocks are monitored at a 30-percent coefficient of variation (CV) while making the program more costeffective. 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 unable to pay for industry’s portion of ASM costs for the 2016 fishing year. A description of the existing industryfunded ASM program, and historic determination of ASM coverage levels, is included in the preamble to the proposed rule and is not repeated here. mstockstill on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 ASM Program Adjustments This final rule modifies 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. These adjustments provide for setting target coverage levels sufficient to meet the 30percent CV requirement while making the program more cost effective and smooth the fluctuations in the annual coverage level to provide additional stability for the fishing industry. The changes in this action 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. None of the adjustments implemented in this action remove our obligation under Amendment 16 and Framework 48 to ensure sufficient ASM coverage to achieve a 30-percent CV for all stocks, nor do they change our requirement to monitor catch sufficiently to prevent overfishing. The changes result in a target coverage level of 14 percent for the 2016 fishing year, including SBRM coverage paid in full by the Northeast Fisheries Observer Program (NEFOP). Assuming NEFOP covers 4 percent of trips as it has in recent years, this action results in sectors paying for ASM on approximately 10 percent of their vessels’ trips in 2016. We have determined that all of the adjustments to the ASM program in Framework 55 are consistent with the Northeast Multispecies FMP, including Amendment 16 and Framework 48, the VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:34 Apr 29, 2016 Jkt 238001 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) and its National Standards, and other applicable law. Amendment 16 stated that the primary goal of at-sea monitors is to verify area fished, catch, and discards by species and gear type. Amendment 16’s overall goals included achieving goals of economic efficiency and minimizing adverse economic impacts on fishing communities to the extent practicable. Framework 48 clarified the objectives of the ASM program and included these goals. It further elaborated that target ASM coverage levels must balance the goals and objectives of groundfish monitoring programs, the National Standards, and the requirements of the MagnusonStevens Act, including, but not limited to, costs to us and sector vessels. In making our determination of the annual ASM coverage level, we must take into account the National Standards, in particular National Standards 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, and 9. These National Standards specifically speak to preventing overfishing; using the best scientific information available; minimizing costs and avoiding duplications where practicable; efficiency in the use of fishery resources; taking into account impacts on fishing communities and minimizing adverse economic impacts to the extent practicable; and minimizing bycatch to the extent practicable. The adjustments in Framework 55 are consistent with Amendment 16, Framework 48, and the National Standards. They further refine our ability to address groundfish monitoring objectives while setting a more efficient target ASM coverage level. The measures included in this action are reasonable, narrowly-focused adjustments to the method used to calculate the target ASM coverage level for 2016 and future fishing years. Rather than specifying a fixed ASM coverage target for all future years, this action refines the process we use for predicting the level of ASM coverage necessary in a given year to achieve the 30-percent CV requirement. While these adjustments result in a lower target ASM coverage level for the 2016 fishing year compared to previous years, there is no guarantee that the changes will result in reduced target coverage levels in future fishing years (i.e., using the same methods approved 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. PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 26419 Thus, while a target ASM coverage level is expected to generate a 30-percent CV on discard estimates for each stock, 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 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 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 × 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 30percent CV included redfish, GOM winter flounder, and SNE/MA yellowtail flounder. Our application of the 2016 target coverage level 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 14percent coverage level 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 have been 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, a sizeable portion of the SNE/ MA yellowtail flounder 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 30-percent CV, the risk to these stocks of erring in the discard estimates is very low. E:\FR\FM\02MYR3.SGM 02MYR3 26420 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 84 / Monday, May 2, 2016 / Rules and Regulations mstockstill on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Further, the ASM program is only a portion of overall sector monitoring. The ASM program provides a basis for sector discard estimation. For most allocated stocks, discards are only a small portion of total catch. To monitor total sector catch, not just discards, NMFS and sector managers rely on a number of data sources, including NEFOP data, vessel monitoring systems (VMS), vessel trip reports, VMS catch reports, and dealer reports, all subject to extensive reconciliation processes. In addition, due to joint and severable liability of sector members for certain violations, including illegal discarding and misreporting of catch, there is a strong incentive for sector members to self-enforce monitoring and reporting requirements to ensure the sector has the most accurate information available. To account for any lack of absolute precision and accuracy in estimating overall catch by sector vessels, uncertainty buffers are included when establishing commercial groundfish fishery catch limits. In light of these requirements, and based on the available analyses of groundfish monitoring programs, we conclude that the sector monitoring requirements overall, including the adjustments to the method used to set the ASM coverage level in conjunction with other available data, are sufficient to monitor sector allocations and prevent overfishing. Removal of Standard That 80 Percent of Discarded Pounds be Monitored at a 30Percent CV 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 Northeast Multispecies FMP. This action clarifies 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 30percent CV or better. VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:34 Apr 29, 2016 Jkt 238001 Removing ASM Coverage Requirement for Extra-Large Mesh Gillnet Trips This Council action removes 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 an efficient use of the limited resources for the ASM program. These trips will still be subject to SBRM coverage through NEFOP, and monitoring coverage levels would be consistent with non-sector trips that target non-groundfish species. This measure is intended to reduce ASM costs to sectors with members that take this type of extra-large mesh gillnet trip. Reducing ASM coverage for these trips allows resources to be used to monitor trips that catch more groundfish, which could improve discard estimates for directed groundfish trips. All other sector trips will still be required to meet the 30percent 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. Because this subset of trips will have a different coverage level than other sector trips in the SNE/MA and Inshore GB Broad Stock Areas, we will create a 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 will allow us to easily identify trips that are exempt from ASM coverage. To minimize the possibility that this measure could 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 will be exempt from the ASM coverage requirement. Vessels using extra-large mesh gillnet declaring into the GOM or PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 Offshore GB Broad Stock Areas will 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 Day-At-Sea (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 levels 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 adopted in this action supersedes the Framework 48 measure because it entirely removes 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 interannual 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. The measure adopted in this action will use 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 were used to predict the target ASM E:\FR\FM\02MYR3.SGM 02MYR3 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 84 / Monday, May 2, 2016 / Rules and Regulations mstockstill on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 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). 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 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. Filtering the Application of the 30Percent CV Standard for Determining Target Coverage The measure adopted in this action will filter the application of the 30percent CV standard for determining target coverage levels consistent with existing goals for the ASM program. Stocks that meet all of the following criteria will not be used as the predictor for the annual target ASM coverage level for all groundfish 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. None of the adjustments in this Framework, including this measure, eliminates the 30-percent CV standard or removes the Agency’s requirement to prevent overfishing. Rather, this measure is intended to reflect the Council’s policy that the target ASM coverage level should be based on stocks that are overfished, are subject to overfishing, or are more fully utilized— that is, 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:34 Apr 29, 2016 Jkt 238001 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 yearto-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 30-percent CV requirement for 2016. Clarification of Groundfish Monitoring Goals and Objectives As described in the preamble to the proposed rule, Framework Adjustment 48 revised and clarified the goals and objectives of groundfish monitoring programs to include, among other things, improving the documentation of catch, reducing the cost of monitoring, and providing additional data streams for stock assessments. However, Framework 48 did not prioritize these goals and objectives. This rulemaking clarifies that, consistent with Amendment 16, the primary goal of the sector ASM program is to verify area fished, catch and discards by species, and by gear type, and that when the Agency sets the target coverage rate, it should consider achieving this goal in the most cost effective manner practicable, which is consistent with Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements and Amendment 16’s overall goal. This clarification of the program goals would not affect the target ASM coverage levels. 7. Other Framework 55 Measures Formation of Sustainable Harvest Sector II This action approves the formation of a new sector, Sustainable Harvest Sector II, for operation in the 2016 fishing year. Allocations for Sustainable Harvest Sector II are included in section ‘‘8. Sector Measures for the 2016 Fishing Year’’ based on enrollment information submitted for this sector as of March 15, 2016. All permits enrolled in this sector, and the vessels associated with those permits, have until April 30, 2016, to withdraw from the sector and fish in the common pool for the 2016 fishing year. PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 26421 Final 2016 sector allocations, based upon final rosters, will be announced as soon as possible after the start of the 2016 fishing year. Modification of the Sector Approval Process This action modifies the sector approval process so that new sectors no longer have to be approved through an FMP amendment or framework adjustment. Under the process implemented in this final rule, new sectors must submit operations plans to both the Council and NMFS no later than September 1 of the fishing year prior to the fishing year they intend to begin operations. For example, if a new sector wishes to operate for the 2017 fishing year starting on May 1, 2017, it must submit its operations plan to the Council and NMFS no later than September 1, 2016. Once NMFS receives operations plans for any proposed sectors, it will notify the Council in writing of its intent to consider approving new sectors. NMFS will 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 will submit comments to NMFS in writing and indicate whether it endorses the formation of the new sector. NMFS will then make a final determination about new sector consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act. NMFS will not initiate a rulemaking to make final determinations on the formation of the new sector without the Council’s endorsement. This modified process is intended to shorten the timeline for, and increase the flexibility of, the sector approval process, while maintaining the same opportunities for Council approval and public involvement that the current process provides. No other aspects of the sector formation process, including the content of sector operations plan submissions, change as a result of this measure. Modification to the Definition of the Haddock Separator Trawl This action modifies requirements for 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 whether the gear is properly configured during vessel inspections. This rule requires the separator panel to be a contrasting color to the portions of the net that it separates in order to make E:\FR\FM\02MYR3.SGM 02MYR3 26422 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 84 / Monday, May 2, 2016 / Rules and Regulations the panel highly visible. The new requirement is intended to improve identification of the panel during vessel inspections, which is expected to allow for faster inspections and more effective enforcement. This modification does not affect rope or Ruhle trawls. We are delaying effectiveness of this measure by 6 months, until October 31, 2016 to allow affected fishermen time to replace their separator panels with contrasting netting. mstockstill on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Removal of Gulf of Maine Cod Recreational Possession Limit This final rule removes the prohibition on recreational possession of GOM cod that was established as part of the protection measures implemented for this stock in Framework 53. We currently set recreational management measures for GOM cod and haddock 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 Northeast Multispecies FMP. In removing the permanent prohibition on recreational possession of GOM cod, this measure returns the authority to us to set the recreational bag limit for GOM cod. We are implementing the 2016 recreational management measures for GOM cod and haddock in a separate, concurrent rulemaking to ensure the recreational fishery does not exceed its allocations for these stocks. Distribution of Eastern/Western GB Cod Sector Allocations This rule allows sectors to ‘‘convert’’ their eastern GB cod allocation into western GB cod allocation using the same process previously implemented for GB haddock in Framework Adjustment 51 (77 FR 22421; April 22, 2014). This measure is intended to prevent the Western U.S./Canada Area from prematurely closing to a sector before its overall GB cod allocation has been caught, and provides additional flexibility for sectors to harvest their GB cod allocations. Sectors are allowed to 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:34 Apr 29, 2016 Jkt 238001 requirements. Based on these factors, we would notify the sector if the conversion is approved or disapproved. Consistent with the existing GB haddock transfer provision, we intend 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. If we include additional criteria in the future as the basis for approving or disapproving reallocation of these requests, we will do so consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act. 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 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. The total catch limit for GB cod includes the U.S. quota for eastern GB cod, so this measure does 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 it’s 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. Although we are approving this measure, we recommend that the Council occasionally review this measure in the future to ensure that it is still appropriate, particularly if there is a drastic change in the stock assessment for GB cod or its eastern management unit. PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 8. Sector Measures for the 2016 Fishing Year This action also includes measures necessary to implement sector operations plan, including sector regulatory exemptions and annual catch entitlements, for all 19 sectors for the 2016 fishing year. In past years, sector operations measures have been approved through a separate, concurrent rulemaking, but are included in this rulemaking for efficiency. Sector Operations Plans and Contracts A total of 19 sectors are approved to operate in the 2016 fishing year, including: • Seventeen sectors that had operations plans 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 was approved for formation as part of Framework 55; and • Northeast Fishery Sector 12, which has not operated since 2013, but submitted an operations plan that is approved for the 2016 fishing year. Copies of the operations plans and contracts, and the EA, for all approved sectors are available at: https:// www.regulations.gov and from NMFS (see ADDRESSES). Sector Allocations Based on anticipated 2016 sector enrollment as of March 15, 2016, we have projected sector allocations for the 2016 fishing year in this final 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 the 2016 fishing year. We will publish final sector annual catch entitlements (ACEs) and common pool sub-ACL totals, 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 in this final rule are based on the 2016 fishing year 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 14. The information presented in Table 14 is the total percentage of the commercial sub-ACL each sector would receive for E:\FR\FM\02MYR3.SGM 02MYR3 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 84 / Monday, May 2, 2016 / Rules and Regulations mstockstill on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 the 2016 fishing year, based on preliminary 2016 fishing year rosters. Tables 15 and 16 show the allocations each sector would receive for the 2016 fishing year, based on their preliminary 2016 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:34 Apr 29, 2016 Jkt 238001 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 in Western GB. This rule approves 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 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 26423 sector’s 2016 fishing year allocation until we finalize fishing year 2015 catch information. In the past, we have typically finalized the prior year’s catch during the summer months. We expect to finalize 2015 catch information consistent with this past practice. We will allow sectors to transfer ACE from the 2015 fishing year for two weeks of the fishing year following our 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 any remaining overages in the 2015 fishing year. We will notify the Council and sector managers of this deadline in writing and will announce this decision on our Web site at: https:// www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/. BILLING CODE 3510–22–P E:\FR\FM\02MYR3.SGM 02MYR3 mstockstill on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 26424 VerDate Sep<11>2014 ... .s u Jkt 238001 Cl> Ill 'C 'C 0 Ill 0 0 Cl +-- 0 :iE 0 Cl ... u ... u 'C 'C 'C 'C J: Ill J: 0 OS Cl +-- 0 OS :iE 0 Cl ... }a> o"C -<:: ~~ IJIU. Cl ~ ... =~ ~§ <Co ~ii: w z Ill ... Cl> 'C 'Oi 'i ... "' o.2 :iE Cl> 'C :I Clu. (3~ OJ ++.2 "' 0 Cl> :I 'Oi ii: u Cl> 'C "' 0 :I ii: ... Cii >- .1: .l!! ~ ii: ... Cl> ... ... ea> ~-g :I Ill .B "' ~ :!EO Oii: Cl ~ ~~ <( :iE "' :I 0 wzu. - .1: ... o;:: J: ... u .l!! 0 Cl> "' 'C Cl> OS 0:: :;: Ill 3: 0 D.. ++ Cl PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 2.61 6.34 1.87 0.01 0.37 3.04 0.98 2.14 0.03 13.46 2.34 2.79 5.73 7.42 0.25 5.82 0.04 2.86 0.00 0.77 0.93 7.57 5.07 0.01 1.85 0.32 2.92 5.82 5.81 Maine Permit Bank 0.13 1.15 0.04 1.12 0.01 0.03 0.32 1.16 0.73 0.00 0.43 0.02 0.82 1.65 1.69 Northeast Coastal Community Sector (NCCS) 0.18 0.99 0.14 0.39 0.84 0.72 0.80 0.31 0.30 0.05 1.34 0.29 0.46 0.86 0.52 Northeast Fishery Sector (NEFS) 1 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NEFS2 5.77 19.70 10.64 17.78 1.86 1.73 19.92 9.54 13.57 3.21 19.39 3.50 15.05 6.94 12.95 NEFS 3 0.88 12.19 0.10 7.56 0.04 0.07 7.10 2.23 1.78 0.01 7.71 0.42 0.91 3.59 4.97 NEFS4 4.14 9.60 5.34 8.27 2.16 2.35 5.46 9.29 8.49 0.69 6.24 1.28 6.64 8.06 6.16 NEFS 5 0.54 0.00 0.86 0.00 1.35 23.04 0.21 0.46 0.62 0.47 0.02 13.36 0.02 0.11 0.05 2.87 2.96 2.92 3.86 2.70 5.26 3.73 3.89 5.20 1.50 4.55 1.94 5.31 3.91 3.31 NEFS 7 1.25 0.80 1.35 0.59 3.41 2.47 2.27 0.74 0.94 1.28 2.38 0.80 0.36 0.56 0.45 0.64 NEFS6 NEFS 8 6.59 0.16 6.11 0.08 10.64 5.21 2.93 2.19 2.60 21.18 0.71 9.02 0.55 0.51 E:\FR\FM\02MYR3.SGM 28.55 Sfmt 4725 GB Cod Fixed Gear Sector (FGS) Maine Coast Community Sector (MCCS) NEFS 9 13.17 3.01 11.24 7.39 25.19 8.71 10.61 9.71 9.41 32.56 2.94 17.94 9.05 6.38 6.36 NEFS10 0.34 2.41 0.16 1.36 0.00 0.53 4.54 1.10 1.75 0.01 9.22 0.50 0.33 0.62 0.70 NEFS 11 0.41 12.81 0.04 3.11 0.00 0.02 2.56 2.09 2.07 0.00 2.17 0.02 1.99 4.76 9.04 0.82 0.63 2.98 0.09 1.05 0.00 0.01 7.95 0.50 0.57 0.00 7.65 0.22 0.23 0.30 NEFS13 12.11 0.91 19.95 1.04 34.49 21.00 8.51 8.38 9.14 17.80 3.01 16.54 4.23 2.07 2.59 New Hampshire Permit Bank 0.00 1.14 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.02 0.08 0.11 Sustainable Harvest Sector 1 3.28 7.06 3.08 5.88 1.21 0.60 5.55 6.61 5.73 6.02 7.11 2.39 6.57 9.56 8.37 Sustainable Harvest Sector 2 0.29 0.35 0.40 0.07 2.21 2.24 1.14 0.72 0.62 0.46 1.33 1.11 0.26 0.34 0.27 Sustainable Harvest Sector 3 16.73 10.80 30.49 34.70 12.40 7.46 8.39 30.82 27.18 13.91 3.42 17.29 40.99 37.49 27.20 Sectors Total 98.12 97.47 99.34 99.03 98.54 82.59 96.02 98.32 97.92 99.20 95.05 89.28 99.49 99.34 99.43 Common 02MYR3 NEFS12 1.88 2.53 0.66 0.97 1.46 17.41 3.98 1.68 2.08 0.80 4.95 10.72 0.51 0.66 0.57 • The data in this table are based on preliminary fishing year 2016 sector rosters submitted March 15, 2016; sectors roster will be finalized on April30, 2016. Final allocations may differ as a result. t For fishing year 2016, 18.9 percent of the GB cod ACL would be allocated for the Eastern U.S./Canada Area, while 28.46 percent of the GB haddock ACL would be allocated for the Eastern U.S./Canada Area. ~ SNE/MA Yellowtail Flounder refers to the SNE/Mid-Atlantic stock. CC/COM Yellowtail Flounder refers to the Cape Cod/GOM stock. ER02MY16.002</GPH> Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 84 / Monday, May 2, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 20:34 Apr 29, 2016 Table 14. Cumulative PSC (percentage) each sector would receive by stock for fishing year 2016.* mstockstill on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 VerDate Sep<11>2014 Jkt 238001 ..., .s Cl> U) u; Ill w u; Cl> !!: ... ... (.) (.) 0 Ill (!) 0 Ill ... 0 (.) ::!!! 0 (!) (!) u; Ill w u; Cl> !!: ... .., ... ... ... .., ... ... J: Ill J: Ill 0 Ill (!) 0 Ill ... .., ... ... 0 Ill J: ::!!! 0 (!) (!) . ... ... .. Cl> ... c ... c c 0 0 :I 0 u: 1>- Ill (!) Cl> :I u: 1>< ::!!! iii z U) Cl> :I u: 1>- ::!!! 0 § .., Cl> ·; ii: c .., Ill ·;: Cl> E < .. ... c Cl> . ... Cl> c :I ... a; ... c :I u: ... ... c Cl> . 0 u: u: ~ 0 .c . .! c 3: 3: Ill ::!!! 0 :I 0 u: 2 3: (!) (.) (!) :I 0 .! c 3: < ::!!! ... Cl> .c II) Ill ... .., ... J: 0:: .c 0 a. o;:: Cl> ~ !!: 0 iii z PO 00000 U) Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 FGS 87 296 16 2120 5102 100 0 2 23 26 17 0 190 30 585 437 2915 MCCS 1 3 36 14 34 152 0 3 7 197 41 0 26 4 612 444 2282 Maine Permit Bank 0 1 7 15 36 60 0 0 2 30 6 0 6 0 173 126 665 NCCS 1 2 6 46 111 21 4 3 6 8 2 1 19 4 96 65 202 0 0 5088 NEFS 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 NEFS2 18 60 122 3559 8563 947 9 7 150 249 111 42 273 45 3160 529 NEFS 3 3 9 75 33 80 403 0 0 53 58 15 0 109 5 191 274 1952 NEFS4 13 43 59 1784 4293 441 10 10 41 242 69 9 88 17 1395 614 2420 Sfmt 4725 NEFS 5 NEFS7 4 13 5 452 1088 31 16 10 17 19 8 17 34 10 75 43 179 E:\FR\FM\02MYR3.SGM 2 6 0 286 689 0 6 96 2 12 5 6 0 172 5 9 19 NEFS6 9 30 18 978 2352 205 13 22 28 101 42 20 64 25 1115 299 1298 NEFS 8 20 68 1 2043 4916 4 49 22 22 57 21 275 10 116 116 39 251 2499 NEFS 9 40 136 19 3760 9047 394 117 36 80 253 77 423 41 231 1901 486 NEFS 10 1 4 15 55 132 73 0 2 34 29 14 0 130 6 68 47 274 NEFS 11 1 4 79 13 31 166 0 0 19 54 17 0 31 0 419 363 3551 NEFS 12 2 7 18 31 76 56 0 0 60 13 5 0 108 3 48 23 324 NEFS 13 37 125 6 6673 16054 55 160 88 64 219 75 231 42 213 889 158 1018 02MYR3 New Hampshire Permit Bank 0 0 7 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 4 6 44 Sustainable Harvest Sector 1 10 34 44 1030 2479 313 6 2 42 172 47 78 100 31 1379 729 3286 Sustainable Harvest Sector 2 1 3 2 134 323 4 10 9 9 19 5 6 19 14 55 26 105 Sustainable Harvest Sector 3 51 173 67 10196 24530 1848 58 31 63 804 222 181 48 223 8607 2859 10683 Sectors Total 299 1017 602 33225 79935 5275 458 344 722 2564 799 1290 1339 1151 20894 7576 39056 Common 6 20 16 219 528 52 7 73 30 44 17 10 70 138 107 50 224 • The data in this table are based on preliminary fishing year 2016 sector rosters submitted March 15, 2016; sectors roster will be finalized on April 30, 2016. Final allocations may differ as a result. 'Numbers are rounded to the nearest thousand lbs. In some cases, this table shows an allocation of 0, but that sector may be allocated a small amount of that stock in tens or hundreds pounds. " The data in the table represent the total allocations to each sector. NMFS will withhold 20 percent of a sector's total ACE at the start of the fishing year. Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 84 / Monday, May 2, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 20:34 Apr 29, 2016 Table 15. ACE (in 1,000 lbs), by stock, for each sector for fishing year 2016.*#A 26425 ER02MY16.003</GPH> mstockstill on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 26426 ._ Jkt 238001 ~ .. Ill .... "' w "' "C 0 .. 3: ti "C 0 (.) (.) Ill Ill (!) "C 0 (.) ::iE 0 (!) ti OS w ti ... u ~ ... u "C "C "C "C 0 OS 0 "' J: J: Ill (!) Ill (!) .. .. "C <:: 0 = = 0 u:: 1- 1- <( ::iE ·;: § <( ... u "C "C "C = 0 0 "' J: ::iE 0 (!) (!) . "C ._ u:: 1- > Ill (!) ._ c:: u:: > ~ z Ill ._ c:: > 0 .. u 'ftj ii: <:: OS . u E .. ._ . "C <:: 0 ._ "C = 0 u:: .c:: ~ (.) c:: = u:: ._ ~ § Ill (!) ._ .. lii "C "C c:: = 0 0 c:: u:: ._ .l!! <:: § ::iE 0 (!) .c:: . ... 1;::: J: = u:: .s c:: § "' .. "C 0:: <( ::iE ... u "' .l!! 0 :c 0 D.. 3: iiJ z PO 00000 Ill Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 FGS 39 134 7 962 2314 45 0 1 10 12 8 0 86 14 266 198 1322 MCCS 0 1 16 6 16 69 0 1 3 90 19 0 12 2 278 201 1035 Maine Permit Bank 0 1 3 7 16 27 0 0 1 14 3 0 3 0 78 57 302 NCCS 0 1 3 21 50 9 2 1 3 4 1 0 9 2 43 30 92 NEFS 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NEFS2 8 27 55 1614 3884 430 4 3 68 113 50 19 124 20 1433 240 2308 NEFS 3 1 4 34 15 36 183 0 0 24 26 7 0 49 2 87 124 885 NEFS4 6 19 27 809 1947 200 5 4 19 110 31 4 40 7 633 279 1098 Sfmt 4700 NEFS 5 NEFS7 2 6 2 205 494 14 7 5 8 9 3 8 15 5 34 19 81 E:\FR\FM\02MYR3.SGM 1 3 0 130 313 0 3 44 1 5 2 3 0 78 2 4 9 NEFS6 4 13 8 444 1067 93 6 10 13 46 19 9 29 11 506 135 589 NEFS 8 9 31 0 927 2230 2 22 10 10 26 10 125 5 53 53 18 114 NEFS 9 18 62 8 1706 4104 179 53 16 36 115 35 192 19 105 862 221 1133 NEFS 10 0 2 7 25 60 33 0 1 15 13 6 0 59 3 31 22 124 NEFS 11 1 2 36 6 14 75 0 0 9 25 8 0 14 0 190 165 1611 NEFS 12 1 3 8 14 34 25 0 0 27 6 2 0 49 1 22 10 147 NEFS 13 17 57 3 3027 7282 25 73 40 29 99 34 105 19 97 403 72 462 02MYR3 New Hampshire Permit Bank 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 20 Sustainable Harvest Sector 1 5 15 20 467 1124 142 3 1 19 78 21 36 45 14 626 331 1491 Sustainable Harvest Sector 2 0 1 1 61 147 2 5 4 4 9 2 3 8 6 25 12 48 Sustainable Harvest Sector 3 23 79 30 4625 11126 838 26 14 29 365 101 82 22 101 3904 1297 4846 Sectors Total 135 461 273 15071 36258 2393 208 156 327 1163 362 585 607 522 9478 3436 17715 Common 3 9 7 99 239 23 3 33 14 20 8 5 32 63 48 23 102 • The data in this table are based on preliminary fishing year 2016 sector rosters submitted March 15, 2016; sectors roster will be finalized on April 30, 2016. Final allocations may differ as a result. 'Numbers are rounded to the nearest metric ton, but allocations are made in pounds. In some cases, this table shows a sector allocation of 0 metric tons, but that sector may be allocated a small amount of that stock in pounds. "The data in the table represent the total allocations to each sector. NMFS will withhold 20 percent of a sector's total ACE at the start of the fishing year. ER02MY16.004</GPH> Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 84 / Monday, May 2, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 20:34 Apr 29, 2016 BILLING CODE 3510–22–C VerDate Sep<11>2014 Table 16. ACE (in metric tons), by stock, for each sector for fishing year 2016.*#A 26427 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 84 / Monday, May 2, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 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 implemented in this action, we evaluated whether the total potential catch in the 2016 fishing year would exceed the ABC if sectors carried over the maximum 10-percent of unused allocation from 2015 to 2016 (Table 17). Table 17 corrects errors presented in that table in the proposed rule, and provides analysis of maximum carryover for pollock, which was omitted from the table in the proposed rule. 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). However, 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 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 adopted in this rule, the de minimis carryover amount for the 2016 fishing year will 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 accountability measure (AM), occurred. TABLE 17—EVALUATION OF MAXIMUM CARRYOVER ALLOWED FROM THE 2015 TO 2016 FISHING YEARS [mt, live weight] 2016 U.S. ABC Stock GB Cod ................................................................................ GOM cod .............................................................................. GB Haddock ......................................................................... GOM Haddock ..................................................................... SNE Yellowtail Flounder ...................................................... CC/GOM Yellowtail Flounder ............................................... Plaice ................................................................................... Witch Flounder ..................................................................... GB Winter Flounder ............................................................. GOM Winter Flounder .......................................................... SNE/MA Winter Flounder .................................................... Redfish ................................................................................. White Hake .......................................................................... Pollock .................................................................................. 2016 Total ACL 762 500 56,068 3,630 267 427 1,297 460 668 810 780 10,338 3,754 21,312 Potential carryover (10% of 2015 sector subACL) 730 473 53,309 3,430 255 409 1,235 441 650 776 749 9,837 3,572 20,374 175 20 2,157 95 46 44 138 60 187 37 115 1,097 431 1,363 Total potential catch (2016 total ACL + potential carryover Difference between total potential catch and ABC 905 493 55,466 3,525 301 453 1,373 501 837 813 864 10,934 4,003 21,737 143 ¥7 ¥602 ¥105 34 26 76 41 169 3 84 596 249 425 mstockstill on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 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 Northeast Multispecies 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 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 Northeast Multispecies 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 FMP, all 19 sectors are granted 19 additional exemptions from the NE multispecies VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:34 Apr 29, 2016 Jkt 238001 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 are approving an additional sector exemption intended to complement the Framework 55 measure that removes the ASM coverage requirement for sector trips using 10-inch (25.4-cm) mesh, or larger, 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’’). The sector exemption allows vessels on these ASM-excluded sector trips to also target dogfish using 6.5-inch (16.5-cm) PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 mesh gillnet gear 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), or the Southern New England Dogfish Gillnet Exemption Area (May 1 to October 31). Allowing sectors to participate in these exempted fisheries for dogfish while simultaneously being excluded 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) is intended to maximize the viability and profitability of their businesses. The GB Fixed Gear Sector requested this exemption, and we will grant this exemption to any sectors that modify their operations plans to include this exemption. In this rule, we have also implemented regulatory text to detail the process for amending sector operations plans during the fishing year E:\FR\FM\02MYR3.SGM 02MYR3 26428 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 84 / Monday, May 2, 2016 / Rules and Regulations in section ‘‘10. Regulatory Corrections under Regional Administrator Authority.’’ We intend to monitor the use of this exemption using the existing vessel trip report (VTR) requirement. Vessels are currently required to send separate VTRs for each statistical area in which fishing occurred on a trip, and for each gear type used on a trip. Thus, consistent with the current regulations, vessels must submit a VTR to document catch on the extra-large mesh portion of the trip, and a separate VTR for the portion of the trip in which deploy the vessel deploys 6.5-inch (16.5-in) mesh gillnet gear within the footprint and season of the existing dogfish exempted areas. We will closely monitor this exemption to evaluate whether additional reporting measures are necessary, and will propose any changes to reporting requirements related to this measure consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act. While sector trips using this exemption will still be exempt from ASM coverage, any legal-sized allocated groundfish stocks caught during these trips must be landed and the associated landed weight (dealer or VTR) will be deducted from the sector’s ACE. 9. 2016 Fishing Year Annual Measures Under Regional Administrator Authority The Northeast Multispecies FMP gives us authority to implement certain types of management measures for the common pool fishery, the U.S./Canada Management Area, and Special Management Programs on an annual basis, or as needed. This action implements a number of these management measures for the 2016 fishing year. These measures are not part of Framework 55, and were not specifically considered by the Council. We are implementing them in conjunction with Framework 55 measures in this final rule for expediency purposes, and because they relate to the catch limits considered in Framework 55. Common Pool Trip Limits The initial fishing year 2016 DAS possession limits and maximum trip limits for common pool vessels are included in Tables 18 and 19. These possession limits were developed after considering changes to the common pool sub-ACLs and sector rosters from 2015 to 2016, catch rates of each stock during 2015, and other available information. During the fishing year, we will adjust possession and trip limits, as necessary, to facilitate harvest or prevent overages, of common pool catch limits. We have corrected an error in the per DAS limit for CC/GOM yellowtail flounder in Table 18. Table 19 in the proposed rule listed the CC/GOM yellowtail flounder limit as 75 lb (34 kg) per DAS. The limit should have been listed as 750 lb (340 kg) per DAS. After re-evaluating the common pool allocation, and in response to public comment, we are also setting the initial GOM haddock trip limit at 200 lb (91 kg) per DAS, up to 600 lb (272 kg) per trip. We have determined that this higher initial trip limit is warranted given the 175-percent increase in the 2016 GOM haddock common pool subACL, and will provide increased opportunity for common pool vessels to target GOM haddock. TABLE 18—INITIAL COMMON POOL POSSESSION AND TRIP LIMITS FOR THE 2016 FISHING YEAR Stock 2016 trip limit GB Cod (outside Eastern U.S./Canada Area) ......................................... GB Cod (inside Eastern U.S./Canada Area) ............................................ GOM Cod ................................................................................................. GB Haddock ............................................................................................. GOM Haddock .......................................................................................... GB Yellowtail Flounder ............................................................................. SNE/MA Yellowtail Flounder .................................................................... CC/GOM Yellowtail Flounder ................................................................... American plaice ........................................................................................ Witch Flounder ......................................................................................... GB Winter Flounder .................................................................................. GOM Winter Flounder .............................................................................. SNE/MA Winter Flounder ......................................................................... Redfish ...................................................................................................... White hake ................................................................................................ Pollock ...................................................................................................... Atlantic Halibut .......................................................................................... Windowpane Flounder .............................................................................. Ocean Pout. Atlantic Wolffish. 500 lb (227 kg) per DAS, up to 2,500 lb per (1,134 kg) per trip. 100 lb (45 kg) per DAS, up to 500 lb (227 kg) per trip. 25 lb (11 kg) per DAS up to 100 lb (45 kg) per trip. 100,000 lb (45,359 kg) per trip. 200 lb (91 kg) per DAS up to 600 lb (272 kg) per trip. 100 lb (45 kg) per trip. 250 lb (113 kg) per DAS, up to 500 lb (227 kg) per trip. 750 lb (340 kg) per DAS up to 1,500 lb (680 kg) per trip. 1,000 lb (454 kg) per trip. 250 lb (113 kg) per trip. 250 lb (113 kg) per trip. 2,000 lb (907 kg) per trip. 2,000 lb (907 kg) per DAS, up to 4,000 lb (1,814 kg) per trip. Unlimited. 1,500 lb (680 kg) per trip. Unlimited. 1 fish per trip. Possession Prohibited. TABLE 19—INITIAL COD TRIPS LIMITS FOR HANDGEAR A, HANDGEAR B, AND SMALL VESSEL CATEGORY PERMITS FOR THE 2016 FISHING YEAR mstockstill on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Permit 2016 trip limit Handgear A GOM Cod ............................................................................. Handgear A GB Cod ................................................................................ Handgear B GOM Cod ............................................................................. Handgear B GB Cod ................................................................................ Small Vessel Category ............................................................................. 25 lb (11 kg) per trip. 300 lb (136 kg) per trip. 25 lb (11 kg) per trip. 25 lb (11 kg) per trip. 300 lb (136 kg) of cod, haddock, and yellowtail flounder combined. Maximum of 25 lb (11 kg) of GOM cod and 100 lb (45 kg) of GOM haddock within the 300-lb combined trip limit. VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:34 Apr 29, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02MYR3.SGM 02MYR3 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 84 / Monday, May 2, 2016 / Rules and Regulations Closed Area II Yellowtail Flounder/ Haddock Special Access Program This action allocates zero trips for common pool vessels to target yellowtail flounder within the Closed Area II Yellowtail Flounder/Haddock Special Access Program (SAP) for fishing year 2016. Common pool vessels can 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 are not 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 Northeast Multispecies 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 2016 fishing year 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. mstockstill on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 10. Regulatory Corrections Under Regional Administrator Authority The following changes are being made using Magnuson-Stevens Act section 305(d) authority to clarify regulatory intent, correct references, inadvertent deletions, and other minor errors. In § 648.87(b)(4)(i)(G), text is revised 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 § 648.87(c)(2)(i)(A), the definition of the Fippennies Ledge Area is added after being inadvertently deleted in a previous action. In § 648.87(c)(4), regulatory text is added to detail the process for amending sector operations plans during the fishing year. VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:34 Apr 29, 2016 Jkt 238001 Comments and Responses on Measures Proposed in the Framework 55 Proposed Rule We received 35 comments during the comment period on the Framework 55 proposed rule. Public comments were submitted by the Council, two state officials and one state office, five nongovernmental organizations, seven sectors, six commercial fishing organizations, seven commercial fishermen, four recreational fishermen, and two individuals. We requested specific comment on whether the Council’s proposed measures in Framework 55 are consistent with the Northeast Multispecies FMP, as adjusted by Amendment 16 and Framework 48, the Magnuson-Stevens Act and its National Standards, and other applicable law. Responses to the comments received are below, and, when possible, responses to similar comments on the proposed measures have been consolidated. Status Determination Criteria Comment 1: The Council commented that the proposed rule did not accurately summarize the assessment peer review’s conclusion that the overfishing status for GB cod and Atlantic halibut is unknown. Response: The proposed rule noted that, based on the results of the 2015 assessment update for GB cod, the stock remains overfished and that overfishing is occurring. For halibut, the proposed rule noted the stock remains overfished and that overfishing is not occurring. These final NMFS stock status determinations differ slightly from the conclusions of the assessment peer review panel. Clarification of these determinations for GB cod and halibut is provided in section ‘‘2. Status Determination Criteria,’’ and is not repeated here. 2016 Fishing Year Shared U.S./Canada Quotas Comment 2: Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) supported the proposed 2016 fishing year shared U.S./Canada quotas for eastern GB cod, eastern GB haddock, and GB yellowtail flounder. Response: We agree, and this final rule implements these quotas for the 2016 fishing year. The 2016 shared U.S./ Canada quotas are based on the results of the 2015 TRAC assessment, which represents the best scientific information available. These quotas are also consistent with the recommendations of the TMGC and the SSC. PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 26429 Catch Limits for the 2016–2018 Fishing Years Comment 3: EDF supported all of the proposed catch limits for the 2016–2018 fishing years. Response: We agree, and are implementing these catch limits for the 2016–2018 fishing years. These catch limits are based on the 2015 stock assessments for these stocks, which represent the best scientific information available, and are consistent with the SSC’s recommendations and conservation objectives. Assessment updates are scheduled for 2017 for most groundfish stocks, which will provide the opportunity to update the 2018 catch limits implemented in this final rule, if warranted. Comment 4: Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) opposed the proposed 2016–2018 catch limits. CLF commented that catch limits have failed to effectively control fishing mortality for most groundfish stocks, and that the proposed 2016–2018 catch limits will not prevent overfishing. Response: We disagree. As noted above, the catch limits in Framework 55 are consistent with the best scientific information available, conservation objectives of the Northeast Multispecies FMP, and applicable law. In each year since Amendment 16 was implemented in 2010, ACLs have not been exceeded for a majority of groundfish stocks, with the exception of the windowpane flounder stocks in most of these years, and GOM haddock in 2013. When ACLs have been exceeded, we have implemented accountability measures (AMs) to prevent overfishing. We continue to use the best scientific information available from our stock assessments, trawl surveys, and catch history to set catch limits for groundfish stocks. In response to stock assessments, quotas for many poor-performing groundfish stocks have been substantially reduced. For example, the catch limit for GOM cod has been reduced by 95 percent since Amendment 16 was implemented. Although there are uncertainties in the stock assessments, the SSC uses some strategies (e.g., holding the ABC constant for a 3-year period if the stock is in poor condition) to account for this uncertainty. Further, although 2018 catch limits are adopted in this action, assessment updates are scheduled for most groundfish stocks for fall 2017. These assessment updates will provide the opportunity to update the 2018 catch limits adopted in this action and ensure that catch limits continue to be set consistent with conservation and E:\FR\FM\02MYR3.SGM 02MYR3 mstockstill on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 26430 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 84 / Monday, May 2, 2016 / Rules and Regulations management objectives of the Northeast Multispecies FMP. Comment 5: The Associated Fisheries of Maine (AFM) and Massachusetts state representative Antonio Cabral expressed concern for the GB cod catch limit and the economic impacts this quota reduction will have on groundfish vessels. State Representative Cabral suggested that the current 2015 catch limit should remain in place. AFM also commented that the SSC should have been provided with projections for stock growth under the status quo model in addition to the approach recommended by the assessment peer review panel. Response: We are adopting the Council’s recommended GB cod ABC of 1,249 mt for the 2016–2018 fishing years. This ABC is a 95-percent reduction compared to 2015, and available analysis indicates that GB cod, as well as other key groundfish stocks, will likely constrain the fishery in 2016. However, catch limits must first meet conservation objectives and satisfy applicable Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements to end overfishing and rebuild fish stocks, even if they result in negative economic impacts. The Council selected the ABC recommended by the SSC, which is the highest possible ABC allowed that will end overfishing and allow some stock rebuilding. The 2015 assessment review panel agreed that, in the event the 2015 assessment update for any stock was not accepted, an alternative assessment approach to specify catch advice would be based on the most recent 3-year average quota or catches. The assessment model for GB cod was rejected as a basis for catch advice. However, the assessment peer review panel was concerned that the status quo catch may not be appropriate for GB cod given current stock status and resource survey trends. As a result, the peer review panel recommended using an approach that reduced recent average catch by the same proportion as the most recent survey trend. The Council’s Groundfish Plan Development Team (PDT) provided the SSC with advice based on this approach and the SSC used this approach, which represents the best scientific information available, in developing its recommendation of 1,249 mt for the 2016 to 2018 fishing years. Comment 6: AFM commented that the U.S. assessment for GB cod and the TRAC assessment for eastern GB cod should use the same assumptions because it is a single stock. Response: In advance of the 2015 groundfish assessments, we anticipated conflicting results between the U.S. assessment for the entire GB cod stock VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:34 Apr 29, 2016 Jkt 238001 and the joint U.S.-Canada assessment for the shared portion of this stock. The discrepancy is due to the use of different models and natural mortality assumptions for each assessment, and would have resulted in a U.S.-Canada estimate for the shared portion of the stock that was larger than the U.S. estimate for the entire GB cod stock. During the July 2015 TRAC assessment, the model for the shared portion of the GB cod stock was accepted. However, the U.S. assessment for the total GB cod stock was rejected due to a strong retrospective pattern during the September 2015 groundfish assessments and instead, the 2016 catch recommendation was based on a recent average catch approach, described in the response to Comment 5. Since the 2015 assessments, we have continued to work with Canadian managers and scientists to resolve the differences in the assumptions used in both assessments. The TRAC has been directed to provide 2017 catch advice that better balances the different assumptions used in the GB cod and eastern GB cod assessment models. We are also planning to assess the structure of the cod stocks (GB and GOM) in 2017. The results of this analysis will help determine how many stocks there are, based on the biology of the stock, and inform discussions on the assumptions used in the GB cod and eastern GB cod assessment models. All of this analysis will ultimately support future benchmark assessments for the resulting cod stocks. Comment 7: NEFS XIII and one commercial fisherman commented that the Council should set GB cod management measures for party/charter boats that reflect the large reductions in allocations that have been imposed on the commercial fleet. The commercial fisherman suggested a two- to five-fish bag limit and a spawning closure for April, May and June. Response: Management measures for the GB cod recreational fishery were not considered by the Council in Framework 55. Amendment 16 only adopted recreational allocations and AMs for GOM cod and haddock, and did not establish recreational allocations or AMs for any other groundfish stocks. Amendment 16 specified that a recreational allocation would only be made if recreational catch, after accounting for recreational state waters catch, is less than 5 percent of total removals. At the time Amendment 16 was developed and implemented, recreational catches of GB cod did not meet this standard, and no allocation was made. For the purposes of catch accounting, Amendment 16 specified PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 that recreational catch of GB cod would be included in the other subcomponent, which is the portion of the U.S. ABC expected to be harvested by unidentified non-groundfish fishery components. The other sub-component is not considered an allocation, and the fisheries included in this component are not subject to specific AMs. The majority of other subcomponent catch from 2010–2014 was recreational landings; however, the Council has not yet considered whether a recreational allocation for GB cod may be necessary. Creation of a recreational allocation for this stock would have to be developed through the Council in a future management action. Comment 8: AFM, the Northeast Seafood Coalition (NSC), and the Sustainable Groundfish Association (SGA) expressed concern for the witch flounder ABC of 460 mt. AFM commented in opposition to the witch flounder ABC. All three organizations noted that a higher ABC, equal to the SSC’s recommendation, could have been adopted. Both AFM and NSC also noted that the difference in stock growth between the three witch flounder ABC alternatives (399 mt; 460 mt; and 500 mt) is not statistically significant. Response: We are adopting the Council’s recommended witch flounder ABC of 460 mt for the 2016–2018 fishing years. A description of the SSC and Council discussions regarding the witch flounder ABC, and the development of various catch alternatives, is included in the preamble to the proposed rule and Appendix I of the Framework 55 EA, and is not repeated here. The SSC’s ABC recommendation is a limit that the Council may not exceed when developing its final ABC recommendation. However, this does not, and should not, preclude the Council from selecting an ABC that is lower than the SSC’s catch advice. Although the Council could have selected a higher ABC equal to the SSC’s recommendation of 500 mt, the Council recommended a slightly lower ABC (460 mt) to balance the need to provide flexibility for groundfish vessels while reducing the risk of overfishing. The Council recommended this ABC after consideration of stock growth, the probability of overfishing, and the economic impacts of the various ABC alternatives. An ABC of 460 mt complies with Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements, including achieving optimum yield and taking into account the needs of fishing communities, without compromising conservation objectives to prevent overfishing and rebuild the stock. E:\FR\FM\02MYR3.SGM 02MYR3 mstockstill on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 84 / Monday, May 2, 2016 / Rules and Regulations As noted in the proposed rule, a benchmark assessment for witch flounder is scheduled for fall of 2016. Assessment results would likely be available in time to re-specify witch flounder catch limits for the 2017 fishing year, if necessary. Thus, although a 3-year constant ABC is adopted in this action, the limits may only be in place for 1 year and will be replaced if updated information shows it is necessary. NSC correctly noted that the preamble to the proposed rule did not correctly reference the December 2015 Council motion for the SSC to reconsider the witch flounder ABC. The preamble inadvertently included text from the Council’s larger discussion leading to the final motion that discussed consideration of incidental non-target catch of witch flounder. However, the proposed rule included the correct ABC of 460 mt, and the error does not affect the rationale for the catch limit adopted in this final rule. Comment 9: NSC and the Fisheries Survival Fund (FSF) commented that the 2015 assessment update for SNE/ MA yellowtail flounder should have been rejected, but supported the SSC’s alternative ABC approach and the final ABC recommendation. FSF also questioned why the GB cod assessment was rejected but the SNE/MA yellowtail assessment was not. NSC supports additional scientific examination of the datasets, model formulation, and source of the retrospective error in this assessment. Response: We are adopting a 267-mt ABC for SNE/MA yellowtail flounder for the 2016–2018 fishing years, as recommended by the Council and SSC. A description of the SSC discussion regarding the SNE/MA yellowtail flounder ABC is included in the preamble to the proposed rule, and is not repeated here. When developing its ABC recommendations for SNE/MA yellowtail flounder, the SSC discussed the disparate treatment of the GB cod and SNE/MA yellowtail flounder assessment. The SSC noted that, although the decisions for each assessment seem inconsistent, there are important differences between the assessments that justified these respective decisions. For example, the magnitude of the retrospective bias for SNE/MA yellowtail flounder (106 percent) was substantially less than for GB cod (240 percent). In addition, the SNE/MA yellowtail flounder assessment performed better than the GB cod assessment by other diagnostic measures. We agree that these are reasonable distinctions that support the VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:34 Apr 29, 2016 Jkt 238001 SSC’s decisions. The SSC’s discussion is summarized in more detail in the SSC’s November 17, 2017, memorandum to the Council on 2016–2018 groundfish ABCs, included in Appendix I to the Framework 55 EA. Although the SNE/MA yellowtail flounder assessment update was not rejected, as supported by the commenters, the SSC acknowledged the poor condition of the stock, substantial uncertainty in the assessment, and procedural issues with the assessment terms of reference in recommending a 3year ABC of 267 mt. This ABC is based on a combination of the assessment catch projections and an estimate of 2015 catch, which appropriately balances the new understanding of this stock’s status and uncertainty in the assessment, while allowing as much flexibility as practicable for groundfish and scallop vessels. Because SNE/MA yellowtail flounder is now overfished, a rebuilding program must be developed for the stock. We will work with the Council to develop an appropriate rebuilding program, particularly in light of some of the difficulties that the assessment results presented in developing 2016–2018 catch advice. Comment 10: Two recreational fishermen opposed to the 60-percent increase in the GOM winter flounder ABC. One commented that the stock is not healthy enough to justify a 60percent quota increase. Both commented that the recreational fishery will be harmed if the quota increase causes more commercial fishing effort. One suggested a commercial moratorium to allow the stock to rebuild. Response: GOM winter flounder catch limits are based on the 2015 assessment for the stock. Overfishing is not occurring, but biomass reference points are unavailable for this stock. The assessment model relies on resource survey data, so current biomass and fishing mortality estimates, as well as catch advice, tend to vary with interannual variations in the survey. After declines in the survey indices for the last 5 years (2009–2013), there was an increase in survey catch in 2014, which resulted in the increase in catch advice. The assessment review panel expressed concern that the recent biomass estimates substantially decreased despite relatively low catch, and noted that reasons for this apparent decline are unknown. In spite of the uncertainties in the assessment, it was approved as a basis for catch advice. Because catch advice fluctuates with area-swept assessments, the assessment PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 26431 review panel recommended stabilizing catch advice by averaging the areaswept fall and spring survey. This results in an ABC of 745 mt. The PDT provided the SSC with this option, but the SSC ultimately chose an ABC consistent with 75% FMSY. NMFS disagrees that a commercial moratorium is necessary to limit catch of GOM winter flounder. While this is a relatively large ABC increase compared to 2015, recent catches have been well below the overfishing threshold. In addition, available catch information suggests that a majority of GOM winter flounder catch comes from the same statistical areas as the majority of GOM cod catch. We expect that the low catch limit for GOM cod will continue to limit catch of GOM winter flounder. Comment 11: One commercial fisherman suggested that NMFS increase allowed landings of Atlantic halibut to three fish per trip for limited access permits because it could convert discards to landings, maximize value of quota, and support the collection of biological samples for this stock. Response: Framework 55 did not consider adjustments to the Atlantic halibut trip limit. Adjustments of the trip limit for halibut are outside of the scope of this action. Any changes to the trip limit would have to be developed through the Council process in a future management action. Comment 12: A number of commenters expressed concern about specific assessments and about the assessment process in general. Several commenters proposed alternative data sources or assessment models. Response: The Framework 55 proposed rule did not propose or solicit public comment on assessment methods or processes. NMFS can only approve, partially approve, or disapprove the status determination criteria and catch limits proposed in this action based on an evaluation of their compliance with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Northeast Multispecies FMP, and other applicable law. The 2015 assessment updates replicated the methods recommended in the most recent benchmark decisions, as modified by any subsequent operational assessments or updates, with the intention of simply adding years of data. Only minor flexibility in the assessment assumptions was allowed to address emerging issues. Thus, the commenters’ suggestions for alternative data sources or assessment models would not have been appropriate for the 2015 assessment updates. The NEFSC has made significant efforts over the past few years to E:\FR\FM\02MYR3.SGM 02MYR3 26432 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 84 / Monday, May 2, 2016 / Rules and Regulations increase transparency and promote an understanding of the assessment process. These efforts include outreach meetings, data workshops, and providing informational materials in advance of the peer review meetings. We encourage the commenters to continue to engage with the NEFSC to ensure that their concerns and suggestions are raised as early in the process as possible. Comment 13: The Council identified a transcription error in the groundfish sub-ACL for GB cod for 2017 and 2018 in its February 19, 2016, submission of the Framework 55 EA. This error is also reflected in Tables 6 and 7 in the proposed rule. Response: We have corrected this error in Tables 6 and 7 under section ‘‘4. Catch Limits for the 2016–2018 Fishing Years.’’ The groundfish sub-ACL was incorrectly listed as 608 mt for both years. It should have been listed as 997 mt. mstockstill on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Default Catch Limits for the 2019 Fishing Year Comment 14: The Council noted that the transcription error in the GB cod sub-ACL (see Comment 13) was carried into the default specifications for the 2019 fishing year. The Council also noted that the proposed rule inadvertently omitted default specifications for 2018 for GB yellowtail flounder. Response: We have corrected the omission of the GB yellowtail flounder default specifications under section ‘‘5. Default Catch Limits for the 2018 and 2019 Fishing Years.’’ Default catch limits for the 2018 fishing year for GB yellowtail flounder were inadvertently omitted in the proposed rule because the Council only recommended specifications for the 2016 and 2017 fishing year for this stock. This error has been corrected here. The transcription error in the GB cod groundfish sub-ACL did not affect the 2019 default specifications presented in the proposed rule for this stock. Groundfish At-Sea Monitoring Program Adjustments Comment 15: AFM, the SHS, New Hampshire Governor Margaret Wood Hassan, the Gloucester Fisheries Commission (GFC), the SGA, the Northeast Seafood Coalition, NEFS II, NEFS VII, NEFS VIII, NEFS XII, NEFS XIII, and the Massachusetts Office of the Attorney General commented in support of the changes to the ASM program. Response: We agree, and are implementing the full set of proposed changes to the ASM program. This action does not specify a fixed ASM VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:34 Apr 29, 2016 Jkt 238001 coverage target for all future years, and is not approving a lower target ASM coverage level in perpetuity. Rather, using information gained from past ASM coverage levels, this action refines the process we use for predicting the level of ASM coverage necessary in a given year to achieve the required 30percent CV. In comparison to previous years, the refinements made in this action could lead to lower or higher ASM coverage target rates in future years. Based on these changes, this rule also announces our determination that the target ASM coverage level is 14 percent (ASM + NEFOP observer coverage) for the 2016 fishing year. This level of coverage provides a reliable estimate of overall catch by sectors to monitor annual catch levels in the most costeffective means practicable. This interpretation is justified in light of the requirement for conservation and management measures to be consistent with all National Standards, specifically, National Standards 2, 5, 7, and 8, which speak, respectively, to the need to use the best scientific information available; efficiency in the use of fishery resources; the need to minimize costs and avoid unnecessary duplication, where practicable; and the need to take into account impacts on fishing communities and minimize adverse economic impacts, to the extent practicable. We have conducted analyses, and considered both precision and accuracy issues in determining the appropriate level of coverage that provides a reliable estimate of overall catch while reducing the cost burden to sectors and NMFS. A more detailed summary of the supporting analyses, and an explanation and justification supporting our determination that an atsea coverage level of 14 percent (10 percent ASM + 4 percent NEFOP) is sufficient is contained in the EA. Comment 16: The Georges Bank Cod Fixed Gear Sector, the SGA, and The Nature Conservancy (TNC) commented in support of the alternative to exempt extra-large mesh gillnet trips in Broad Stock Areas 2 and 4 from ASM coverage. The NSC, the GFC, NEFS II, NEFS VII, NEFS VIII, NEFS XII, NEFS XIII also support this measure, provided that this change does not increase coverage levels on other sector trips. Response: We agree, and are adopting this alternative as proposed. These trips have negligible groundfish catch and are receiving the same level of coverage as other sector trips, with no resultant benefit to the overall precision and accuracy of groundfish discard estimates. By exempting these trips from ASM coverage, those resources can be PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 directed to cover trips with meaningful catches of groundfish and, thereby, improve the estimates of groundfish discards. These extra-large mesh gillnet sector trips will be excluded from the trips considered in setting and monitoring ASM coverage levels. However, we are not yet able to determine how removing the ASM coverage requirement from certain trips will impact the overall variability of the remaining population of sector trips, or how it will affect the coverage necessary to meet the 30percent CV requirement in future years. The economic impact section of the EA (Section 7.4) discusses this uncertainty, and notes that, if ASM coverage were to be shifted onto other components of the fleet, there would be no overall cost savings to sectors. Nonetheless, we are approving this measure because it prioritizes limited resources and monitoring coverage for trips that actually catch groundfish. Comment 17: Many commenters questioned the appropriateness of the ASM program’s 30-percent CV precision standard. EDF, Oceana, and TNC urge NMFS to disapprove the ASM measures in Framework 55, and implement higher coverage levels they contend are necessary to precisely and accurately monitor catch and discards. They encourage us to continue to work with the Council to develop measures to monitor the fishery based on the best available science and to assure accountability to prevent overfishing. Cape Cod Commercial Fishermen’s Alliance and Penobscot East Resource Center did not comment in detail on the groundfish monitoring program adjustments proposed in Framework 55, but expressed their view that it is necessary to work towards an effective and affordable groundfish monitoring program that meets the goals and objectives of the Northeast Multispecies FMP. Response: We are approving the measures in Framework 55. Framework 55 only includes administrative modifications to the ASM program using information gained from ASM program performance in the past 5 years, and was narrowly focused on adjusting the method used to set the target coverage level for the industryfunded ASM program. The Council has identified groundfish monitoring as a priority for 2016, and the PDT is already working on analysis to inform more extensive changes to the groundfish monitoring program (e.g., possibly adjusting the 30-percent CV precision standard) in a future action. We note that to administer the monitoring program each year, we set target ASM E:\FR\FM\02MYR3.SGM 02MYR3 mstockstill on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 84 / Monday, May 2, 2016 / Rules and Regulations coverage levels to achieve monitoring program requirements. Consistent with this practice, we would have implemented a 17-percent target ASM coverage level had Framework 55 been disapproved, using several of the administrative approaches analyzed in this action, namely the removal of our internal standard of monitoring 80 percent of discards at a 30-percent CV and using multiple years of data to determine target ASM coverage levels. We support the Council’s efforts to evaluate groundfish monitoring programs through our membership on the Groundfish PDT, the Groundfish Committee, and the Council. Comment 18: TNC opposed changes to the method used to set the target coverage level for the industry-funded ASM program, citing the executive summary in the draft EA, which stated that we will likely miss the 30-percent CV standard. Response: We clarify that we are approving a method to set the target ASM coverage level, but we are not changing the requirements to achieve the 30-percent CV precision standard and meet the goals and objectives of the monitoring program. As stated in the preamble to the proposed rule, we expect that the Framework 55 changes in the method used to set the ASM target coverage level will result in target coverage levels that will meet the 30percent CV precision standard and will reliably estimate catch. We also expect that the 2016 target coverage level of 14 percent announced in this action will achieve results consistent with prior years. The commenter cites an inaccurate portrayal of the intent of the measures contained in the text of the draft version of the EA. The text states that we will likely miss the 30-percent CV standard, but these measures were always intended to meet the 30-percent CV standard and the monitoring goals and objectives of the FMP. We released an advance draft of the EA to support the publication of the proposed rule prior to completing our full review process. We are not required to finalize the EA at the proposed rule stage, but have routinely published draft EAs in the past to allow the public time to consider and comment on the full range of potential impacts of actions under consideration in our region. We have clarified our intent for these measures in our development the final EA. Our proposed rule and this final rule provide the analysis for our conclusion that we expect the method used to set the target ASM coverage level, and the 14-percent 2016 target coverage level, to meet the 30-percent CV precision standard VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:34 Apr 29, 2016 Jkt 238001 specified in the Northeast Multispecies FMP. We have not changed our requirement to ensure that the target coverage level will achieve the required CV standard. If the target coverage level resulting from this method was too low to ensure we would achieve the 30percent CV standard, we would set a different target coverage level to achieve that standard. Comment 19: Oceana, EDF, and TNC questioned the effectiveness of the 30percent CV standard as a mechanism for setting monitoring levels, and commented that this precision standard may not accurately determine sector catch and ACE utilization. These commenters noted the worsening retrospective patterns in the assessments, and that overfishing occurred every year that the ASM program met the 30-percent CV standard, even as reported landings and discards stayed below ACE levels. EDF highlighted that lower coverage levels will undermine stock assessments and lead to overfishing, which violates National Standard 1. EDF and Oceana noted that the changes included in Framework 55 violate our obligation under the Magnuson-Stevens Act to ‘‘assess and specify the present . . . condition of the fishery’’ and ‘‘assess the amount and type of bycatch’’ occurring in the fishery. EDF also asserted that additional reporting mechanisms meant to support the ASM program, such as vessel and dealer reports, and enforcement mechanisms, are not working. Response: Framework 55 does not alter Amendment 16’s primary goal for ASM monitoring to verify area fished, catch, and discards by species, by gear type. Rather, it underscores it. Framework 55 further clarifies that Amendment 16’s goals and objectives as identified in Framework 48 must meet this goal by the most cost-efficient means practicable. This is consistent with the Magnuson-Steven Act requirement to take into account cost considerations without compromising conservation. To effectuate this goal, the specific ASM measures included in Framework 55 are narrowly focused on adjusting the method used to set the target coverage level for the industryfunded ASM program in order to meet the 30-percent CV requirement, among the other existing goals and objectives of the program. During the development of Framework 55, we advised the Council that any larger changes to the ASM program would likely require an amendment rather than a framework adjustment. Framework 48’s goals and objectives for the ASM program include PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 26433 performing periodic reviews of the monitoring program’s effectiveness. Framework 55 does not change this goal, and we agree with the commenters that review should include evaluating the groundfish monitoring program beyond this action, including whether the 30-percent CV standard is the most appropriate way to set ASM coverage levels. NMFS, and now industry, are both devoting considerable financial resources to achieving this precision standard, and it is important to fully consider whether this expenditure is appropriate to meet the groundfish monitoring goals and objectives. Further evaluation is also warranted in light of the 2015 assessment results, potential changes in the fishery since 2010, and now that the sector program has been operational for over 5 years. As noted in previous responses to comments, this evaluation must occur through the Council, and is already underway. We agree with the commenters that an evaluation of the ASM program must include a review of its performance for providing data for stock assessments and reducing management and/or biological uncertainty, along with all of the other goals and objectives identified by Framework 48. The CV standard, however, only sets the level of precision that will be achieved through catch sampling. A precision standard for atsea monitoring by itself cannot account for the entirety of scientific and management uncertainty. For example, we recognize that overfishing is still occurring for many groundfish stocks despite the fact that we have met the CV standard, and ACL overages have not occurred. A 2013 NMFS publication (Methot, R. 2013) discusses this possibility, and explains ‘‘that scientific and management uncertainty mean that simply setting targets below limits does not necessarily prevent the stock from experiencing overfishing’’ (p. 63). The overfishing status of a stock can be based on an estimate of fishing mortality compared to the threshold, or catch being greater than OFL. However, because the fishing mortality threshold and the OFL are based on estimates, they cannot perfectly reflect what is happening to the fish stock. Further, overfishing can be caused by a number of factors, including a lack of effective management controls and scientific uncertainty in fishing mortality estimates or environmental factors. As is the case with many groundfish stocks, new scientific information and updated assessments have changed the perception of stock status from when catch limits were specified. As the commenters point out, achieving a certain level of precision E:\FR\FM\02MYR3.SGM 02MYR3 mstockstill on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 26434 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 84 / Monday, May 2, 2016 / Rules and Regulations around the discard estimate does not guarantee that overfishing will not occur. Rather, the suite of management measures used for any fishery is designed to minimize the probability that overfishing occurs. Assuming that the ACLs are set correctly, the groundfish sector program includes an array of accountability measures beyond monitoring, such as restricted gear areas and common pool trip limits. These measures are regularly evaluated and adjusted in response to updated scientific information to ensure they are meeting their intended goal. The buffer between the OFL and ABC can also be adjusted to better account for scientific uncertainty, and the SSC frequently uses this approach to set groundfish catch limits. We will continue to use the information in the assessments to adjust catch limits and management measures to prevent overfishing. EDF and Oceana noted that the changes included in Framework 55 violate our obligation under the Magnuson-Stevens Act to ‘‘assess and specify the present . . . condition of the fishery’’ and ‘‘assess the amount and type of bycatch’’ occurring in the fishery. However this requirement is satisfied by the Greater Atlantic Region SBRM, not the ASM program. The sector ASM program is a separate program with distinct goals. Providing additional data for stock assessments is one of the goals of groundfish monitoring programs and is considered when evaluating the ASM program and setting the target coverage level. This statement is not meant to diminish the information benefits the ASM program provides for stock assessments, but is meant to clarify that the changes to the ASM program in Framework 55 are not in violation of our SBRM requirements under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Last, we do not use the CV standard alone to reliably estimate catch. There are many reporting requirements that vessels adhere to, and there are strong incentives for vessels to report accurately. Enforcing reporting requirements is currently a high priority for the Northeast Division of the NOAA Office of Law Enforcement, and the threat of a civil or criminal enforcement action creates a strong incentive for compliance. There is also a strong incentive for sectors to promote internal compliance, because a sector and the fishing businesses in a sector can be held jointly and severally liable for overages and misreporting of catch, including both landings and discards. The percent of overall catch composed of discards has a larger impact on monitoring ACLs than the 30-percent CV standard. Landings remain the VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:34 Apr 29, 2016 Jkt 238001 largest portion of catch for allocated stocks and are reported by dealers, vessels, and sectors. Despite uncertainty that exists in assessments and the degree of imprecision in monitoring inherent in the 30-percent CV standard, we will continue to use the information in the assessments to adjust catch limits and management measures to prevent overfishing. National Standard Guidelines recognize that scientific and management uncertainty exists and requires consideration of, and accounting for, such uncertainty when setting catch limits. To that end, significant additional uncertainty buffers are established in the setting of ACLs that help make up for any lack of absolute precision and accuracy in estimating overall catch by sector vessels. Although the commenters focus on uncertainties in assessments that merit consideration when evaluating the information provided by the ASM program in future actions, the commenters provide no concrete evidence of a link between Framework 55’s coverage target adjustments to our ability to adequately monitor sector catch and provide information sufficient for assessments. We conclude that sector monitoring requirements overall, including the adjustments to the method used to set the ASM coverage level, are sufficient to monitor sector ACE and prevent overfishing. Comment 20: Oceana, EDF, TNC, and PERC expressed fear that the ASM coverage level for 2016 will be too low, will incentivize illegal discards, and will create harmful bias. Oceana and EDF cited numerous Groundfish PDT analyses that identified the likelihood of observer bias (i.e., behavioral differences between fishing trips with or without an observer). EDF argued that lease prices and recent cod discard rates are evidence that discarding is high in the groundfish fishery, and is likely resulting in catch in excess of the annual catch limits. Response: The ASM portion of sector monitoring program relies on the assumption that calculated discard rates on observed trips can be applied to unobserved trips. However, if vessel operators discard fish at higher rates when there are no observers on board, then catch (and overall mortality of fish) will be higher than estimated. For the 2013–2015 fishing years, we have published a summary report explaining and justifying the ASM coverage level needed to monitor catch levels for each year (https://www.greateratlantic. fisheries.noaa.gov/aps/monitoring/ nemultispecies.html). The summary PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 report includes the most recent considerations of accuracy related to the ASM program, both completed during the 2012 fishing year. Oceana and EDF both cite the major analyses on accuracy done in support of ASM coverage levels, namely a NMFS analysis evaluating the possibility of an observer effect in monitoring discards in the groundfish fishery, and a NMFS analysis on the probability of exceeding catch limits based on a hypothetical increase in the rate of discarding on unobserved trips. Overall, the available analyses suggest that potential biases in ASM data do not negate the utility of the discard estimates provided by the program. EDF cites our analysis of at-sea monitoring requirements for the Northeast multispecies sector fishery, but draws the unsupported conclusion that discarding increases on unobserved trips. An analysis contained in that report examined if there were indications of an observer effect on groundfish trips that could result in either systematic or localized biases, which would suggest that observer data used to generate discard estimates may not be representative. This study evaluated whether differences in performance occur when a vessel carried an observer and when it did not. The study found evidence for some differences in fishing behavior between observed and unobserved groundfish trips; however, the analysis could not conclude whether the apparent differences would necessarily result in discard rates on unobserved trips that are different (higher or lower) than on observed trips. If the discard rate is unchanged, then the apparent differences would not affect total discard estimates. Oceana cited another NFMS analysis, included in the same ASM summary report, which found that even if there is some bias that increases unreported discards, the discard rate for the groundfish sector trips studied would need to be five to ten times higher on unobserved trips to appreciably increase the risk for total catch to exceed the ABC or OFL. None of the analyses conducted to date suggest behavioral differences on observed versus unobserved trips of this magnitude. Neither commenter provides evidence of the magnitude of potential discarding. The analysis concluded that, given that landings are below the total sector ACLs, setting a monitoring coverage level that meets the 30-percent CV requirement at the stock level provides a reasonable level of certainty that observer bias would have to be much larger than plausible before the risk of exceeding the OFL would exceed E:\FR\FM\02MYR3.SGM 02MYR3 mstockstill on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 84 / Monday, May 2, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 5 percent. Based on the discussion in these analyses, we have not recommended an adjustment to the target ASM coverage level, or to other monitoring requirements, to address bias in this and past fishing years because there is no scientific information available at this time to estimate a reliable adjustment factor. None of the commenters provided information showing that a reduction in the target coverage level will coincide with or cause increased bias involving increased discards on unobserved trips, or the magnitude of any such increased discards. EDF commented that there is an economic incentive for a vessel to fish differently when an observer is on board. There may be economic incentives to discard stocks with low catch limits to avoid reaching those limits. It is unclear, however, whether and how this incentive changes as target monitoring levels increase or decrease, or when a vessel is required to pay for an at-sea monitor’s services and warrants further review when evaluating the ASM program. For example, at the June 2015 Council meeting during the development of Framework 55, EDF commented that observer bias was due to NMFS subsidizing ASM costs for industry since 2010. Because sectors have not had to pay for ASM, EDF noted the incentive for bias exists to catch less on observed trips. This argument posits that the bias incentive occurs when fishermen do not pay for ASM services, presumably because they can better afford a trip that avoids discarding and results in less catch. Based on this argument, one may equally infer that, when industry pays for ASM, their economic incentive to fish differently on monitored trips may change. In the absence of any studies or analysis to support these conclusions, or that show the magnitude of any such incentives and changed behavior, we have no reasonable basis for setting different coverage target rates or using a different method than provided for in this action. We have determined that changes to the method used to set the target ASM coverage level, and the resulting 14percent coverage level set for fishing year 2016, are expected to reach a 30percent CV, and will provide accurate and precise enough discard estimates to monitor sector ACEs and ACLs. Finally, EDF and TNC argue that the low GOM cod catch and ACE lease price in the 2015 fishing year is evidence that vessels are illegally discarding GOM cod on unobserved trips. This allegation is based on many assumptions about the abundance, distribution, and catchability of GOM cod, and the ability VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:34 Apr 29, 2016 Jkt 238001 of vessels to avoid GOM cod. EDF and TNC ignore the simplest logical deduction, that if the stock assessment has accurately characterized the abundance of GOM cod as truly low and the population as highly concentrated, and that vessels are successfully avoiding GOM cod, then we would expect to see a decline in catch and resultant decrease in ACE leasing price. Amendment 16 specified that ASM coverage levels should be less than 100 percent, which requires estimating the discard portion of catch, and thus total catch. While it is required that the overall ASM coverage level must meet at least a 30-percent CV precision standard, that level of coverage also must minimize effects of potential monitoring bias to the extent practicable while maintaining as much flexibility as possible to enhance fleet viability. In order to assure perfect accuracy (i.e., zero bias), 100-percent observer coverage would be required. However, complete coverage is not only prohibited by Amendment 16, but would be expensive, not in the public interest, and inconsistent with National Standards 5, 7, and 8. Ultimately, the target ASM coverage level should meet the 30-percent CV standard and provide confidence that the overall catch estimate is accurate enough to ensure that sector fishing activities are consistent with National Standard 1 requirements to prevent overfishing while achieving on a continuing basis optimum yield from each fishery. We have determined that applying the method we approve in this action to set the 2016 target coverage level of 14 percent will meet this goal. Our determination incorporates all of our sector monitoring and reporting requirements, including obligations on sectors to self-monitor and self-report, which is linked to Agency monitoring. For the most part, the commenters have generally asserted that this system and level of monitoring is not adequate without providing any specific justification or information to support their assertion. As noted in other responses, this action does not specify a fixed ASM coverage target for all future years, and only refines the process we use for predicting the level of ASM coverage necessary in a given year to achieve the 30-percent CV requirement. In comparison to previous years, the refinements made in this action could lead to lower, or higher, ASM coverage target rates in future years. We agree that it would be beneficial to complete additional analysis of the potential sources of bias. However, it is difficult to quantify bias, or make PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 26435 definitive conclusions on these types of analyses, because data must be used to infer activity that may not be observed or documented. Available analyses suggest that bias is not likely to undermine our ability to monitor ACLs. We support the continued improvement of available analyses, especially in light of the recent declines in groundfish catch limits, and expect that as additional data become available, these types of analyses will improve. Comment 21: EDF commented that the only accountability measure in the groundfish fishery is the pound-forpound payback provision. Response: Framework 55 did not address groundfish accountability measures, and this comment is outside the scope of this action. Nonetheless, we disagree that the only accountability measure in the groundfish fishery is the pound-for-pound payback provision. That provision is only one of a complex set of proactive and reactive accountability measures designed to prevent overfishing. These measures were implemented in Amendment 16, and modified through a number of subsequent framework adjustments. The accountability measures include inseason closures and possession limit adjustments, area closures, and selective gear requirements in addition to the pound-for-pound payback provision. These measures are required to comply with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and reflect the spectrum of AMs recognized in the National Standard 1 guidelines. Comment 22: CLF suggests abandoning ASM and relying instead on only VTRs. Response: We disagree. We have determined the adjustments to the method used to calculate the target ASM coverage level will result in coverage levels that will provide information comparable to past years. In addition, we expect the 14-percent target ASM coverage level approved in this action will achieve the 30-percent CV requirement. As noted elsewhere in our responses, the ASM program is only one component of a larger sector monitoring system designed to ensure that sector catch stays below ACLs. As a result, the overall system, including NEFOP coverage, ASM, VTRs, dealer reports, and other factors, provides benefits over relying only on VTRs for catch monitoring. Comment 23: EDF comments that low levels of monitoring will have a direct negative impact on enforcement. Response: We disagree that ASM levels will negatively affect enforcement. ASM is not part of our enforcement program. At-sea monitors are aboard vessels strictly for data E:\FR\FM\02MYR3.SGM 02MYR3 mstockstill on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 26436 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 84 / Monday, May 2, 2016 / Rules and Regulations collection. To the extent that the presence of at-sea monitors on fishing trips encourages compliance, it is a benefit, but is not the goal or objective of placing monitors aboard vessels. Comment 24: EDF claims that ASM reductions will have the greatest impact on non-allocated stocks. Response: We agree that reductions in ASM coverage levels may disproportionately affect our catch estimates for non-allocated stocks because catch for these stocks is mostly comprised of discards. However, we expect that the approved adjustments to the method used to calculate the target ASM coverage level and the resulting 14-percent target coverage level for 2016 announced in this action will achieve the required 30-percent CV on discard estimates for all groundfish stocks. Looking back at the coverage levels required to meet a 30-percent CV for the five non-allocated stocks, coverage levels under roughly 8 percent would have resulted in a 30-percent CV in each year from 2010 to 2014. In each year from 2010 to 2014, catch of Atlantic halibut, ocean pout, and wolffish was below the ACL. The Council addressed ACL overages for the windowpane flounder stocks with reactive accountability measures by requiring the use of selective trawl gear. Nonetheless, because these stocks have the potential to be most impacted by the changes in Framework 55, they will need to be a focal point of consideration of the Council’s efforts to revise groundfish monitoring programs. Comment 25: EDF recommends increasing management uncertainty buffers to account for the additional uncertainty that will result from lower ASM coverage levels. They allege that reducing ASM without adjusting uncertainty buffers violates the Magnuson-Stevens Act and is arbitrary and capricious. They assert that the Agency can no longer rely on the assumption that discarding is minimal, and that observer bias can be estimated to an effect of nearly zero as justification for not adjusting management uncertainty buffers. Response: Each time catch limits are set, the PDT reviews the management uncertainty buffers used for each fishery component and recommends necessary adjustments. For Framework 55, the PDT reviewed the current management uncertainty buffers, as well as previous analysis completed in support of Framework 50. Both the PDT and the Council have periodically discussed the possibility of increasing the buffers due to evidence that fishing behavior may differ on observed and unobserved trips, possibly VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:34 Apr 29, 2016 Jkt 238001 resulting in an underestimate of discards. However, to date, there is no scientific basis for determining either the direction or magnitude of bias sufficient for the PDT to estimate the amount of suspected bias on unobserved trips. As a result the PDT has been unable to determine whether any adjustments to the existing buffers would be warranted to address potential bias. The PDT concluded that no new information is available at this time that would warrant any changes to the buffers previously adopted in Framework 50, and recommended no changes to the management uncertainty. The commenters provide no quantitative evidence of a specific amount of unobserved discarding, and do not suggest a method to quantify bias in order to adjust the management uncertainty buffer. As stated above, we agree that it would be beneficial to complete additional analysis of the potential sources, magnitude, and direction of bias. However, it is difficult to quantify bias, or make definitive conclusions on these types of analyses, since data must be used to infer activity that may not be observed or documented. Thus, at this time, we are not able to reasonably determine an appropriate adjustment to the management uncertainty buffer than is already used. Using the best scientific information available is neither arbitrary, nor capricious, but is consistent with the National Standards. Comment 26: Commenters make various claims about the economic analysis of the ASM program. Oceana claims that, though the adjustments in Framework 55 are built on the Council’s desire to control ASM costs, the economic analysis shows that the estimated declines in groundfish revenues on groundfish trips when comparing both the ‘‘No Action’’ alternative (41 percent target ASM coverage) to the adjusted program (14 percent target ASM coverage) are virtually identical when compared to predicted groundfish revenues for the 2015 fishing year. They conclude that substantial changes to the ASM program to minimize costs are not even achieving that goal. EDF points out that the cost savings of adjusting the ASM program as proposed is overestimated because sectors are able to negotiate lower rates for ASM. Finally, EDF notes that the IRFA and economic analysis fail to analyze the cost of lower monitoring in the potential form of overfishing or on the leasing market. Response: Oceana correctly notes that the model results indicate that gross revenues are predicted to be essentially unchanged when comparing 14 percent PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 ASM coverage to 41 percent ASM coverage. This does not, however, reflect the change in costs or profitability of those revenues. Section 7.4 of the EA contains the economic analysis done in support of this action; details of the economic analysis are not repeated here. The model is intended to capture fishery-wide behavior changes related to both catch limits and other management changes such as ASM coverage levels, and can overestimate landings in a number of circumstances. The EA highlights that the predicted groundfish revenue is nearly identical when there is 14 percent ASM coverage ($52.4 million) and 41 percent ASM coverage ($52.3 million), and attributes this finding to the model assumptions. The economic model simulates fishing activity until all quotas have been reached in all broad stock areas, and assumes that ACE flows freely from lessor to lessee (which underestimates trips costs). Within the model, trips that become unprofitable due to ASM costs are not selected. Because of this, one might expect revenues to decline more substantially with higher ASM coverage levels. However, as more trips are unprofitable under the options with industry-funded ASM, the model is forced to select a greater number of profitable trips. With higher ASM coverage levels (and higher ASM costs), more sector trips become unprofitable. As the ACE from these trips that are no longer profitable flows to another sector member, then revenue from these trips is still realized in the model. The result is that revenues appear nearly equal between options with 14 percent and 41 percent ASM coverage. In reality, because ACE does not flow freely between sectors, and not all vessels can opt for all types of trips, higher ASM coverage levels may in fact reduce gross revenues. The analysis in the EA assumes ASM costs are $710 per seaday, based on the cost that NMFS was able to negotiate with service providers. As EDF points out, sectors were successfully able to negotiate lower seaday costs for ASM. However, the fact that sectors were able to negotiate lower costs does not diminish the significant economic impact of the industry-funded ASM program on individual fishery participants and sectors. Our economic analyses predict economic impacts for average vessels in different size classes, or the fishery as a whole, but could mask very real economic impacts at the vessel or community scale. We disagree with the comment that the EA fails to consider the costs of lower monitoring in the form of overfishing. Section 7.4 of the EA E:\FR\FM\02MYR3.SGM 02MYR3 mstockstill on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 84 / Monday, May 2, 2016 / Rules and Regulations discusses that it is not possible to determine the overall economic benefits of ASM at this time. The EA notes that, while increased coverage can improve discard estimates, the marginal value of each percent increase in ASM coverage is unknown. We agree that additional analysis is warranted to attempt to determine the marginal benefits of the ASM program in terms of the stock biology. Until additional information is available, we will continue to implement the existing groundfish monitoring program, and will continue to set ASM coverage levels that meet the program goals and precision standards. Similarly, for the leasing market, the EA concludes that additional precision may or may not lead to changes in available ACE to a sector (i.e., assumed discards were too high or too low). Thus, the marginal value of added precision from each percent increase in ASM coverage is unknown. The NEFSC conducts annual retrospective analyses of the leasing market in its groundfish fishery performance reports. The most recent version of the report, which analyzes the 2013 groundfish fishing year, is available here: https:// www.nefsc.noaa.gov/read/socialsci/pdf/ groundfish_report_fy2013.pdf. Comment 27: EDF notes that Framework 55 fails to analyze the possibility of reducing costs to fishermen by using electronic monitoring, consistent with RFA requirements. EDF and TNC both urge NMFS to expedite the implementation of electronic monitoring and reporting programs, and that electronic monitoring would reduce uncertainty in catch data and improve stock assessments at a lower seaday cost than ASM. Response: Last year, in collaboration with the Gulf of Maine Research Institute (GMRI), Archipelago Marine Research, Ltd., Saltwater, Inc., and EcoTrust Canada, we developed an assessment of the potential costs of an electronic monitoring program for a hypothetical Northeast multispecies fishery sector, and compared it to the costs of the existing ASM program, which it could replace or augment. We are also in the process of updating that assessment. Based on how an electronic monitoring program is designed and implemented, video review and storage costs can be substantial. Thus, we do not agree with the commenter’s characterization of the potential cost savings with electronic monitoring at this time. The commenters promote the potential for lower costs with electronic monitoring than with at-sea monitors, but provide no cost estimates to substantiate the claim that it is less VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:34 Apr 29, 2016 Jkt 238001 expensive than ASM. Electronic monitoring costs will be determined largely by the purpose and scope of particular electronic monitoring coverage and the available technology to meet those needs. The Northeast Multispecies FMP already allows sectors to use electronic monitoring in place of at-sea monitors if the technology is deemed sufficient for a specific trip, based on gear type and area fished, if approved by NMFS. We had been working with TNC, GMRI, EcoTrust Canada, and several sectors for the last year, to implement a program that would have used electronic monitoring to monitor the fishery. We have approved an exempted fishing permit to allow a number of sector vessels to participate in an experiment using electronic monitoring in lieu of ASM to further develop a program based on electronic monitoring for sectors. NMFS will continue to support development of electronic monitoring as a potential tool where it is fitting and appropriate. Comment 28: EDF and TNC suggests that NMFS should have considered the weighted discard proportional approach, as published by Dr. Jenny Sun, as an alternative to lowering the overall target ASM coverage level in Framework 55. EDF also notes that this method may reduce cost to small entities, and thus address requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). Response: The PDT has discussed this approach at meetings in September 2012 and from May–August 2015; however, the Council did not elect to consider this approach in past actions, or as an alternative in Framework 55, because it did not meet all of the goals and objectives in Amendment 16 and Framework 48. This approach assigns ASM coverage proportional to the weight of discards anticipated on a given trip, and does not include consideration of the 30-percent CV requirement specified in the regulations. At both times, the PDT concluded that more trips would require coverage than those included in the proposed analysis, which would erode some of the cost savings in the proposed approach. The PDT also discussed that allocating ASM coverage to focus on larger, offshore vessels that account for more of the discards would potentially lead to under-coverage of sectors with smaller, inshore vessels that are responsible for catch of species of concern, such as GOM cod and SNE/MA yellowtail flounder, as well as unallocated stocks with zero possession. The PDT, other NMFS reviewers, and several commenters have noted that the objective of the ASM program is not PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 26437 simply to determine the lowest cost approach to observe the most catch across the groundfish sectors in total, or to only reduce the costs of monitoring to small vessels. Rather, the objective is to achieve sampling that ensures precise and unbiased real-time estimates of catch by stock, sector, and gear. This weighted approach would also have to address cost discrepancies in imposing ASM coverage primarily on larger, offshore vessels over smaller vessels, inshore vessels. Dr. Sun recently published a peerreviewed article (Sun and Fine, 2016) that included additional adjustments to the approach, in which coverage is further weighted to account for stocks with high utilization. This article was published on December 29, 2015, after the Council developed and took final action on Framework 55. The Groundfish PDT received a presentation on the revised analysis at its March 30, 2016, meeting, and intends to review this approach, along with other monitoring approaches, as part of the development of the forthcoming groundfish monitoring amendment. The Council can choose to further develop this approach if it meets the Council’s goals and objectives for groundfish monitoring programs. We reiterate that adopting this approach to groundfish monitoring would require a Council amendment, because it would change the objectives and standards for the groundfish monitoring program established in Amendment 16 and Framework 48. As stated elsewhere in this rule, this action does not specify a fixed ASM coverage target for all future years, and is not approving a lower target ASM coverage level in perpetuity. Rather, this action refines the process we use for predicting the level of ASM coverage necessary in a given year to achieve the 30-percent CV required. In comparison to previous years, the refinements made in this action could lead to lower, or higher, ASM coverage target rates in future years. Thus, while the Council and our analysis considers the impacts of a reduced ASM coverage level for 2016, we do not necessarily expect that the lower coverage level will persist for future fishing years. Comment 29: EDF and Oceana claim that the changes proposed in Framework 55 ignore National Standard 1 in favor of National Standard 7. EDF notes that costs may only be considered when two alternatives achieve similar conservation goals. EDF and TNC note the EA states that reducing ASM coverage will have negative biological impacts compared to the No Action alternative. E:\FR\FM\02MYR3.SGM 02MYR3 mstockstill on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 26438 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 84 / Monday, May 2, 2016 / Rules and Regulations Response: The Framework 55 adjustments to the method used to set that target ASM coverage level achieve the required Northeast Multispecies FMP precision standards without compromising conservation goals. The 30-percent CV standard, and the requirement under Amendment 16 to sufficiently verify area fished, catch, and discards by species, by gear type, remain unaltered. Framework 48 clarified the objectives of Amendment 16’s ASM program to ensure that ASM coverage levels must be consistent with the goals and objectives of groundfish monitoring programs, the National Standards, and the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, including but not limited to costs to sector vessels and NMFS. This is consistent with Amendment 16’s goals of achieving economic efficiency and minimizing adverse impacts to fishing communities that are included in Framework 48’s goals of reducing monitoring costs and balancing actual costs against the opportunity costs of insufficient monitoring. Framework 55 simply further clarifies that monitoring must be implemented in the most cost-efficient means practicable. In addition, the goals of Amendment 16 and Frameworks 48 and 55, are consistent with our requirement to take into account the National Standard, and in particular National Standards 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, and 9 in making our determination of the appropriate level of ASM coverage for sectors on an annual basis. These National Standards specifically speak to preventing overfishing; using the best scientific information available; efficient use of fishery resources; minimizing costs, and avoiding duplications where practicable; taking into account impacts on fishing communities; minimizing adverse economic impacts to the extent practicable; and minimizing bycatch and bycatch mortality to the extent practicable. We agree that the EA characterizes the impacts of lower ASM coverage levels as negative compared to higher ASM coverage levels. The EA notes that positive impacts of higher ASM coverage levels could include better information for stock assessments and reduced uncertainty around discard estimates. However, any quantification of the magnitude of these types of benefits is speculative, and can only be discussed as marginal because it is not yet possible to quantify the biological outcomes relative to the information gained with each additional percentage of monitoring coverage. A similar concept is highlighted in the economic analysis in section 7.4 of the Framework VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:34 Apr 29, 2016 Jkt 238001 55 EA, in terms of the overall benefit of added precision in discard estimates. The EA notes that the marginal value of added precision from each percent increase in ASM coverage is unknown. Hence, the EA describes any impact potential as low. We have generally characterized the benefits of higher monitoring coverage levels as positive compared to lower monitoring coverage levels in other actions in this region (e.g., the joint New England/Mid-Atlantic Council Industryfunded Omnibus Amendment), and have largely tied this positive benefit to the potential for improvements in stock assessments and on the types of management measures that may be necessary to address bycatch. However, as we have discussed in these related analyses, there are several reasons why these types of potential downstream effects (e.g., improvements to stock assessments) are considered too remote and speculative to be evaluated quantitatively. First, this action adjusts the method used to set target ASM coverage levels. The adjustments to the method used to set target ASM coverage levels do not, by themselves, automatically allow for higher ASM coverage in future fishing years. While increases in target ASM coverage levels may be expected to improve data quality, realization of an increase in the target coverage level compared to past fishing years depends on the coverage levels generated by the changes approved in this action. As noted elsewhere in this section, in comparison to previous years, the changes in this action could lead to lower or higher ASM coverage target rates in future years. Thus, while the Council’s and our analysis considers the impacts of a reduced ASM coverage level for 2016, we do not necessarily expect that the lower coverage level will persist for future fishing years. Second, in addition to the uncertainty of what target coverage rates will be set in future years, the potential effects of increased data deriving from a method setting target coverage rates are too remote and speculative to be quantitatively evaluated in the EA because there is no way to predict the effect that an improvement in data quality would have for managing the groundfish fishery. Improvements in data quality would give assessment scientists and fishery managers more confidence in the data. However, there is no way to predict the type of new information that would arise from future catch estimations (e.g., higher or lower discard estimates). Because changes in direction of catch estimation cannot be predicted at this time, there is no way PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 to predict whether changes in management would be required to address any potential issues that may arise. Thus, while acknowledging that it is not possible to quantify the biological benefit for higher coverage, the EA makes conclusions concerning environmental impacts from lower or higher coverage based on the idea that more information from monitoring tends to reduce uncertainty in setting catch limits and assessments. However, by this principle alone, and without consideration of other factors, one would be required to conclude that coverage rates should never be reduced, and should always be increased if possible. To underscore the imprudence of following this logic, in similar fashion one could conclude that fishing should always be reduced because less fishing mortality generally benefits fish stocks. The National Standards, Amendment 16, and Frameworks 48 and 55 require consideration of other factors, however. Specifically, we must consider the efficient use of resources for monitoring catch limits and preventing overfishing. In this instance, we have considered the target coverage rate required to monitor catch rates in the most efficient manner practicable. While one may conclude that a generally higher coverage rate may provide more catch information that would potentially reduce uncertainty, any potential benefit to fish stocks in the future from more information is more attenuated than the sufficiency of the information for the immediate task of monitoring of catch limits and the cost benefits that come from the efficient use of monitoring resources to achieve that purpose. We are required by law to consider these other factors when determining a rate of coverage that meets conservation requirements. Comment 30: EDF claims that the Agency failed to explain its decision to depart from the 80-percent of discard pounds observed at a 30-percent CV standard, and that it is arbitrary and capricious for the Agency to remove this standard without explaining why. Response: We disagree that we failed to explain our decision to depart from this discretionary, administrative standard. As discussed in the proposed rule, and in the Summary of Analyses Conducted To Determine At-Sea Monitoring Requirements for Multispecies Sectors for Fishing Year 2015 (available here: https:// www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/ aps/monitoring/nemultispecies.html), we had previously concluded that it is desirable to maintain a 30-percent CV or better for at least 80 percent of the E:\FR\FM\02MYR3.SGM 02MYR3 mstockstill on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 84 / Monday, May 2, 2016 / Rules and Regulations discarded pounds in the fishery. We applied this standard in the initial years that the ASM program operated for a number of reasons. First, the program was new, and we lacked experience and data. In the initial years that the program was implemented, when we did not have coverage information from previous years, this standard was chosen to guide setting target ASM coverage levels to achieve results consistent with the initial monitoring year, when the realized observer coverage was highest. When Federal funding was available to cover industry costs for the ASM program, we could justify applying a discretionary standard that resulted in higher coverage levels than required by the program because it did not impose an additional economic burden on industry. During the development of Framework 55, using coverage information that was unavailable when the administrative standard was first adopted, the PDT reevaluated this administrative standard, and determined that it was not necessary to accomplish the goals of the ASM program. As noted in the proposed rule, this standard is not necessary to satisfy the CV requirement of the ASM program to accurately monitor sector catches, or meet the other monitoring program goals, and it was not required by the Northeast Multispecies FMP. Further, imposing a standard that results in coverage higher than necessary to meet the program goals would not be consistent with National Standards 5, 7, and 8, which relate to efficiency in the use of fishery resources; minimizing costs and avoiding duplications where practicable; efficiency in the use of fishery resources; and taking into account impacts on fishing communities and minimizing adverse economic impacts to the extent practicable. Removing this administrative standard makes the method used to set the target ASM coverage level more efficient, while still addressing groundfish monitoring program objectives. Comment 31: Oceana claims that enlarging the data set used to include the volatile, anomalous period from 2012 to 2014 is inappropriate for setting coverage levels. Oceana asserted that we failed to provide evidence supporting the claim that this longer period is a better foundation for forecasting monitoring than most recent complete year. They go on to say that using an averaged approach ignores the fact that the dynamics of the fishery have led to a different stock driving the ASM coverage level in each year to date. They assert that using multiple years of data violates National Standard 2 because it VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:34 Apr 29, 2016 Jkt 238001 would amount to using an unrepresentative sample of the data. Finally, they claim that the multiyear approach is not able to respond to emergent trends in the fishery in a timely fashion. They assert that NMFS must retain the ability to respond to changes in fishing behavior quickly to ensure accurate and precise fishery monitoring. Response: We disagree. Currently, the coverage level for year 3 is set prior to the end of year 2, using data from year 1 because that is the most recent complete set of data available. Because of this need to plan ahead using older data, relying on a single year of data does not necessarily give us a more accurate representation of current or future conditions than using three years of data. Looking at 5 years of data from fishing years 2010–2014, it is clear that the stock with the greatest variability in discards, and greatest need for ASM coverage, not only varies from year to year, but the species requiring the most ASM coverage in year 3 has never been accurately predicted by year 1 data. Section 7.1 of the Framework 55 EA compares the performance of basing the target coverage level on 1 year of data to 2- and 3-year averages to evaluate their ability to predict the coverage level necessary to achieve a 30-percent CV in 2014. To predict the target coverage level using 1 year of data, the 2012 target coverage level was used to predict the coverage necessary to achieve a 30percent CV for 2014. For the 2-year average, data for 2011–2012 was used. For the 3-year average, data from 2010– 2013 was used. Overall, the 3-year average performed relatively well compared to using a single year, or 2year average. The EA acknowledges that, because the ASM program only started in 2010, there are a limited number of years of data available to make this comparison, and that more years of data and analysis are necessary to make the final conclusion regarding the most appropriate approach. Therefore, using multiple years of data may reveal true trends while minimizing non-significant fluctuations, which provides for additional stability for industry consistent with National Standards 5 and 8. In addition, averages are routinely used in fisheries management to smooth interannual variability. In the Greater Atlantic Region, the recreational fisheries for GOM cod, GOM haddock, summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass base the determination of whether catch has exceeded the recreational subACL by comparing the 3-year moving average of recreational catch to the 3year moving average of the recreational PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 26439 sub-ACL. For overfished skate species, the 3-year average of the appropriate weight per tow from the trawl survey index is used as a proxy for stock biomass, and is a trigger to indicate whether the additional management measures are necessary to promote stock rebuilding. We have determined that using three years of data will minimize unnecessary fluctuations in the target ASM coverage level while meeting our need to reliably estimate discards. Comment 32: Oceana commented that exempting extra-large mesh gillnet trips from ASM coverage in Broad Stock Areas 2 and 4 could increase uncertainty around bycatch estimates for protected resources in locations that are especially prone to protected species interactions. Response: First, the Greater Atlantic Region has observer programs explicitly funded to support Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) and Endangered Species Act (ESA) information requirements. The MMPA and ESA observers are allocated across fisheries based on the estimated likelihood of protected resources interactions. Allocation of observers related to these acts is separate from the allocations of observers under our region’s SBRM program and the ASM program. We agree that ASM has provided a wealth of information about protected species interactions in commercial fishing gear, particularly in the extralarge mesh gillnet fisheries. The full discussion of the protected species impacts of this alternative is provided in the EA in Section 7.3.3.1.4, and is not repeated in full here. In terms of data collection, the EA notes that removing the ASM coverage requirement for these trips may reduce the amount of information available on protected species interactions in extra-large mesh gillnet gear. From 2010–2014, the number of hauls observed through the ASM program in the extra-large mesh fishery exceeded the number of hauls observed by traditional NEFOP observers, constituting 60 percent of all observed extra-large mesh hauls. Moreover, ASM documented 63 percent of all protected species interactions in the extra-large mesh fisheries. Data collected on protected species interactions through ASM has also reduced uncertainty in bycatch estimates for almost all gear types used in the groundfish fishery. The EA characterizes this potential reduction in information benefits on protected resources interactions in extra-large mesh gear as an indirect, low negative impact on protected resources. In spite of the information collection benefits the ASM program has provided E:\FR\FM\02MYR3.SGM 02MYR3 mstockstill on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 26440 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 84 / Monday, May 2, 2016 / Rules and Regulations for protected resources, gathering this information is not included in the ASM program goals and objectives. Thus, any benefits of the ASM program in terms of protected resources information are ancillary to the program goal. We acknowledge that removing the ASM coverage on extra-large mesh gillnet trips may increase uncertainty in protected resources interactions for this gear type. However, now that industry is paying for the costs of monitoring, it is not reasonable to expect for them to pay for the costs of information collection above and beyond the amount required to support the program goals. In addition, discards of all groundfish stocks are still required to meet the 30percent CV standard, even if certain trips are excluded from coverage. Comment 33: In regards to the alternative that filters the application of the 30-percent CV standard, Oceana asserts that exempting a population from ASM coverage requirements is not permitted in the Northeast Multispecies FMP. They note the proposed rule itself states that none of the proposed adjustments remove the obligation under Amendment 16 and Framework 48 to ensure sufficient ASM coverage to achieve a 30-percent CV. Response: We agree that none of the measures in Framework 55 remove our obligation to achieve a 30-percent CV on all stocks. The measures in this action adjust the process we use for predicting the level of ASM coverage necessary in a given year to achieve the 30-percent CV. The filtering alternative does not exempt stocks from meeting the 30percent CV standard. Instead, it enacts the Council’s policy preference to not use stocks that are healthy and less than fully utilized to predict for the target ASM coverage level for the upcoming year. We are still required to set coverage at a level that is sufficient to achieve the 30-percent CV standard for all stocks and would set a target rate sufficient to achieve this standard and meet the program goals and objectives. Comment 34: Oceana and TNC question NMFS’s ability to effectively apply filtering criteria given uncertainty in stock status and catch data. TNC noted that it is inappropriate to set coverage levels based on a current assessment’s understanding of stock status when it is likely the stock status will change with next assessment. Response: Consistent with National Standard 2, we base our management decisions, including determinations of stock status and annual catch limits, on the most recent assessment information, which is considered the best scientific information available. Because the information from the stock assessments VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:34 Apr 29, 2016 Jkt 238001 and catch data is used as the basis for most other management decisions for groundfish stocks, including annual quota setting and implementation of proactive and reactive accountability measures for each stock, it is entirely appropriate to also base evaluation of the filtering criteria on this information. We cannot base management decisions on the potential that a future stock assessment may indicate that stock status may change. Further, neither commenter provided data to support the assertion that the information we use to make management decisions are so uncertain or of such poor quality as to render it unusable. For these reasons, we have determined it is consistent with National Standard 2 to evaluate the filtering criteria using the most recent available catch data and most recent stock assessment information. The filtering alternative is designed to be conservative. It does not exempt stocks from coverage necessary to meet the 30-percent CV requirement. Rather, it removes healthy stocks with low utilization and low discards as predictors for the target ASM coverage level. In addition, target ASM coverage levels are evaluated and updated on an annual basis in order to incorporate the most recent available data. This means that, if new stock status or catch information indicates that a stock no longer meets all of the criteria, then the stock must be used as a predictor for target ASM coverage levels for the upcoming fishing year. For example, if, in setting the coverage level for 2017, 2015 redfish catch data indicated that over 75 percent of the groundfish subACL was caught, or more than 10 percent of 2015 catch were comprised of discards, the stock would not be removed a predictor for the 2017 ASM target coverage level. Further, we are required to set target coverage at a level that is sufficient to achieve the 30percent CV standard and other groundfish monitoring program objectives. Comment 35: TNC asserts that declining target coverage levels since 2010 are especially concerning, given that from 2010 to 2014, realized coverage levels have been less than the target set at the beginning of the year. Response: We disagree with the TNC’s concern. Though realized coverage has been less than the target coverage in past fishing years, we have still consistently achieved the 30-percent CV requirement for the vast majority of groundfish stocks in each fishing year. 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 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 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. Due to fluctuations in fishing activity over the year, it is difficult to deploy observers throughout the year and ensure that target coverage levels are attained. The realized level of coverage was below the target each year, though only slightly in the 2014 fishing year. Despite this, since the start of the ASM program in 2010, the realized annual ASM coverage levels have been more than adequate to achieve the 30-percent CV requirement for a vast majority of the 20 groundfish stocks. Only two stocks had a realized CV above 30 over the past 5 years; and on only two other occasions has a stock approached a CV of 30 during this time. In the 2013 fishing year, SNE/MA yellowtail flounder had a realized CV of 31.45; and in the 2014 fishing year, redfish had a CV of 41.69. Given the biological diversity of the northeast multispecies stocks, the range of quotas, and the varying vessels and gears engaged in the fishery, this record is an indicator of success. In 2014, the high CV for redfish is attributed to a single anomalous trip, which reinforces the value of filtering stocks in future years. If we set the target ASM coverage level for the 2016 fishing year at 41 percent based on that one redfish trip in 2014, we would be unnecessarily tripling our and the industry’s costs in a vain attempt to capture a rare event that is unlikely to recur and likely not representative of the groundfish fishery, and would not appreciably increase our ability to effectively monitor the sector fishery. Comment 36: Oceana and EDF commented that the changes in this action should have been included in an FMP amendment instead of a framework because they are substantial and entirely inconsistent with the goals and objectives of the Northeast Multispecies FMP. Response: We disagree that sector monitoring requirements cannot be revised through a framework action. Sector monitoring requirements, including coverage levels and the performance standard, are listed under sector administration provisions in Amendment 16, which is listed as a frameworkable measure in section 4.8.2 of the Amendment 16 environmental impact statement (EIS). The regulations at § 648.90(a)(2)(iii) list ASM requirements among the measures that may be modified through the biennial review process, as well as AMs, changes to other administrative measures, and any other measures currently included in the Northeast Multispecies FMP. E:\FR\FM\02MYR3.SGM 02MYR3 mstockstill on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 84 / Monday, May 2, 2016 / Rules and Regulations These changes are elaborations on Amendment 16’s goals and objectives for determining appropriate monitoring levels. They do not fundamentally alter the goal of verifying area fished, catch, and discards, by gear type or the requirement to achieve the goals of economic efficiency or minimizing to the extent practicable adverse impacts on fishing communities. Similar changes in Framework 48 were found to be appropriately accomplished through a framework adjustment in Oceana, Inc. v. Pritzker, 26 F. 3d 33 (D.D.C. 2014). We also disagree that these changes are inconsistent with the goals and objectives of the Northeast Multispecies FMP. As noted in the proposed rule and this final rule, Framework 55 does not change the 30-percent CV requirement or the monitoring program goals and objectives, and only adjusts the method used to set target coverage levels to meet this requirement. The Council deemed the regulations necessary to accomplish these adjustments as consistent with their intent in Framework 55. Thus, we have determined that these changes are lawful under the combination of allowable framework provisions of the Northeast Multispecies FMP and section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act which authorizes NMFS to implement regulations necessary to ensure that Council measures are carried out in a manner consistent with the Act. Comment 37: Oceana and EDF make a number of claims regarding the NEPA analysis for this action. They claim that the reduction in monitoring resulting from the ASM program changes in Framework 55 will have a significant impact on the environment, and thus should have been analyzed in an EIS instead of an EA. Regarding the EA’s compliance with NEPA, the commenters raise the following concerns: The EA fails to consider a reasonable range of alternatives, including other monitoring options such as electronic monitoring; the EA fails to consider cumulative environmental impacts; the EA fails to adequately assess how changes in the realized CVs may impact assessment error, projections, and scientific and/or management uncertainty. Response: We disagree with the commenters’ assertion that Framework 55 violated NEPA because an EIS was not prepared. Consistent with NEPA, Council for Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations, and NOAA administrative policy, NMFS and the Council collaborated to prepare an EA to evaluate the significance of the environmental impacts expected as a result of the measures in Framework 55. According to the CEQ regulations, and all available guidance on the subject, an VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:34 Apr 29, 2016 Jkt 238001 EIS need only be prepared when an EA or other related analysis identifies significant effects on the environment or if the facts available to the action agency cannot support the conclusion required to make a finding of no significant impact (FONSI). The Framework 55 EA fully evaluated the expected direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts likely to result from the implementation of the action. The results of this assessment are provided in section 8.2 of the EA, which supports the FONSI, signed on April 13, 2016. The commenters claim that reducing monitoring levels materially reduces our ability to monitor groundfish catch limits, but provided no evidence, nor any claims, that the conclusion in the FONSI are not supported by the facts presented in the EA for this finding. We also disagree that the EA fails to consider the cumulative environmental impacts of Framework 55. Section 7.6 of the EA explicitly provides a discussion of the expected cumulative impacts associated with this action. We have determined that this treatment of the cumulative impacts is consistent with CEQ regulations and current NOAA policy. The overall sector monitoring program is not changed by the measures in Framework 55. Specifically, the requirement to set the target ASM coverage levels to achieve a 30-percent CV on discard estimates for groundfish stocks is not changed. We have determined that the modifications to the method used to determine the target ASM coverage level are reasonable and should result in target coverage levels that will meet the 30-percent CV requirement. While we have determined that a 2016 target ASM coverage level of 14 percent can be expected to meet the 30-percent CV target, we note again that this coverage level is not set in perpetuity. This means that, in future fishing years, higher or lower coverage levels could result from the method approved in this action, and we are still required to set target coverage levels at a rate that are expected to achieve the 30-percent CV standard. In addition, this action does not approve any other notable changes to the total sector monitoring program (e.g., other monitoring and reporting requirements). Given that the limited scope of the changes to the sector monitoring program approved in Framework 55, we have determined that the FONSI is well supported. Comment 38: Several commenters make claims regarding the timing of this action. Oceana and EDF assert that a 15day comment period was too short to allow the public a meaningful PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 26441 opportunity to comment. Oceana suggested extending the comment period. EDF claims that MagnusonStevens Act requires NMFS to immediately (within 5 days of transmittal by the Council) initiate an evaluation of proposed regulations, and make determination within 15 days. They claim that the proposed rule should have been published in the Federal Register on March 14, 20 days after submission by the Council on February 19th, instead of on March 21. They also make the contradictory claim that, because NMFS published the proposed rule less than 1 month following Council submission, that there was too little time for NMFS to have conducted its own environmental analysis of the proposed changes to the Northeast Multispecies FMP. Finally, EDF claims that the Agency may have pre-judged the outcome of the EA in order to ensure that Framework 55 measures would be published in time for May 1. They note that 1 month before Framework 55 was formally submitted, NMFS argued in a preliminary injunction hearing in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire that harm to the plaintiff was not significant because of the likelihood that NMFS would approve Framework 55 measures and reduce monitoring levels. Response: We disagree that the 15-day comment period was not enough time to allow commenters to provide meaningful comments. The Council initiated Framework 55 at its June 2015, meeting and developed alternatives over several meetings including their September and December meetings, as well as the September 3, 2015, and the November 18, 2015, Groundfish Oversight Committee meetings. The alternatives were also discussed at numerous Groundfish PDT meetings from July–November 2015. Representatives from EDF and Oceana were present at the December Council meeting, when the Council took final action on the ASM alternatives in Framework 55. The analysis presented at the December meeting included biological and economic analyses of the alternatives. The alternatives described in the Framework 55 EA and presented in the proposed rule are unchanged from those adopted by the Council in December. Council presentations and documents throughout the development of Framework 55 included a clear outline of the expected timing of the Council and rulemaking process. The public was well aware that the intent was to implement these measures in time for the start of the 2016 groundfish fishing year on May 1, 2016. Therefore, E:\FR\FM\02MYR3.SGM 02MYR3 mstockstill on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 26442 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 84 / Monday, May 2, 2016 / Rules and Regulations we conclude that the public, including Oceana and EDF, had more than adequate opportunity to consider and prepare comments on the ASM program adjustments in anticipation of the proposed rulemaking, in spite of the 15day comment period. We agree that there is a MagnusonStevens Act requirement to initiate an evaluation of proposed regulations for implementing or modifying FMPs or amendments, to determine whether they are consistent with the FMP and applicable law within 15 days, and to publish such regulations for a public comment period of 15 to 60 days. We published the proposed rule within the bounds of the comment period provided for in that provision and the final rule is expected to be published well in advance of the outside time limit specified in the same provision. We believe the publication timeline has provided a meaningful opportunity for full and fair public comment and participation. Each year since 2013, we have published the target coverage level that we expect is sufficient to achieve the Northeast Multispecies FMP’s monitoring goals. This target rate was determined using internal administrative standards we developed to ensure coverage was at a rate based on past experience where we could reasonably expect to achieve these goals. Prior to the Council’s adoption of the measures in Framework 55 or approval of this final rule, we developed two of the adjustments to our administration of the ASM program that were also proposed as part of Framework 55. We would have been required to apply these administrative adjustments in the absence of Framework 55 measures as part of default changes had Framework 55 not been published in time for the beginning of the fishing year. Specifically, we planned to stop using our internal standard of monitoring 80 percent of discarded pounds at a 30percent CV. We also planned to use multiple years of information to set the target ASM coverage level. Because these were changes to our internal mechanisms for administering the ASM program, they were outside of the Council process and did not require public comment. As we were considering these changes and expecting to implement them in time for the new fishing year, we worked with the Council to evaluate these changes in the context of a framework adjustment for the purpose of transparency, and to allow the public the maximum opportunity to participate in the development and evaluation of these VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:34 Apr 29, 2016 Jkt 238001 changes. The measures in Framework 55 were always subject to our approval or disapproval under the MagnusonStevens Act. Our intent to make a subset of administrative adjustments did not pre-determine what impacts may occur and the assessment of those potential impacts of all of the Framework 55 measures. It also did not foreclose the Council’s consideration of other alternatives included in Framework 55, their impacts, and an assessment of how they all interacted. Last, we expressed our concern that these adjustments complied with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, its National Standards, and the groundfish FMP’s goals and objectives. For example, in our proposed rule we specifically requested comments on whether the Council’s proposed revisions to the groundfish ASM program met the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, its National Standards, and the groundfish FMP to engage the public in our evaluation of the proposed measures. Comment 39: One individual commented that industry should pay for monitoring. Response: As described in the proposed rule, Amendment 16 requires industry to pay for ASM. For the 2010 and 2011 fishing year, there was no requirement for industry-funded ASM. NMFS assumed industry’s monitoring costs for industry after the industryfunded ASM requirement became effective in the 2012 fishing year, and until March 2016. Sectors have been paying for ASM costs since March 2016, and 2016 will be the first full fishing year where industry will be responsible for its costs for ASM. Comment 40: Two commercial fishermen commented in opposition to having small boat commercial fishermen pay for ASM, especially those fishing for dogfish and skate. Response: We share the commenter’s concern about the financial burden of industry-funded ASM. Nonetheless, ASM coverage is critical to monitoring sector ACE and meeting the goals and objectives described in Amendment 16 and Framework 48. The ASM requirement applies to all vessels participating in sectors, regardless of vessel size. We agree that our limited monitoring resources should be focused on sector trips with groundfish catch. This action approves a measure to exempt extralarge mesh gillnet trips in SNE and Inshore GB Broad Stock Areas from ASM coverage requirement, as well as a sector exemption to allow these same vessel to target dogfish in existing dogfish exemption areas. These trips PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 have low groundfish catch, and primarily target non-groundfish species such as dogfish and skate. As noted above, these trips will still be subject to NMFS-funded NEFOP coverage requirements, and all groundfish catch on these trips will still be deducted from a sector’s ACE. We will evaluate these trips on an annual basis to ensure that groundfish catch is still minimal enough to continue exempting these trips for ASM coverage requirements. Comment 41: One recreational fisherman commented in opposition to requiring industry-funded monitors on recreational vessels when commercial vessels are the problem. Response: The industry-funded ASM program only applies to limited access commercial groundfish vessels enrolled in the sector program. There are currently no ASM coverage requirements in the Northeast Multispecies FMP for recreational groundfish trips. Other Framework 55 Measures Comment 42: AFM, SHS, and EDF supported the formation of Sustainable Harvest Sector II. Response: We are approving the formation of Sustainable Harvest Sector II in this action. Comment 43: SHS and EDF supported the proposed modification to the sector approval process. SHS commented that streamlining the approval process will allow industry to more quickly adapt to regulatory changes. Response: We agree, and are approving this alternative as proposed. This measure maintains the Council’s authority to approve of new sectors and the opportunity for public participation in the sector approval process, while reducing the total time necessary for sector approval. Comment 44: The Council commented that, though clear in the proposed regulatory text, the text in the preamble to the proposed rule does not make clear that sector applications need to be simultaneously submitted to the Council and NMFS. Response: We agree with the Council that the process is correctly described in the regulatory text, and have adjusted to description of this provision in section ‘‘7. Other Framework 55 Measures’’ to clarify the Council’s intent. Comment 45: AFM and EDF commented in support of the modification to the definition of haddock separator trawl gear. Response: We agree. This measure will improve enforceability of this selective trawl gear. We intend to delay the effectiveness of this measure by 6 E:\FR\FM\02MYR3.SGM 02MYR3 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 84 / Monday, May 2, 2016 / Rules and Regulations mstockstill on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 months to allow industry to replace separator panels. Comment 46: EDF commented in support of removing the permanent prohibition on recreational possession of GOM cod. Response: We agree. This measure returns the authority to the Regional Administrator to set the recreational bag limit for GOM cod. This will provide greater flexibility for setting annual management measures that will help the recreational fishery achieve, but not exceed, its quota for GOM cod. We have approved recreational possession limits for GOM cod for 2016 in a separate, concurrent rulemaking. Comment 47: AFM, SHS, NSC, the SGA, and EDF commented in support of allowing sectors to ‘‘convert’’ their eastern GB cod allocation into western GB cod allocation. SHS noted the current mechanism that allows sectors to convert eastern GB haddock allocation into western GB haddock allocation, and that it is an effective tool. Response: We agree with the commenters, and are implementing this measure as proposed. We anticipate that this measure will maximize flexibility for fishing vessels operating on GB. Eastern GB cod is a management unit of the total GB stock that is used to manage the shared U.S./Canada portion of this stock. As a result, the analysis supporting this measure concluded that there would be negligible biological impact to the stock. In our approval, we recommend that the Council occasionally review the measure in the future to ensure that it is still necessary and appropriate, particularly if there is a change in the stock assessment or the perception of stock status in the future. Sector Measures for the 2016 Fishing Year Comment 48: The GB Fixed Gear Sector supported the proposed sector exemption to target dogfish, noting that the exemption supports the current behavior of the fleet, and will maximize viability and profitability. Response: We are granting this exemption as proposed. This exemption will allow greater opportunities for sector vessels to target non-groundfish species, which may help mitigate some of the negative economic impacts of recent catch limit reductions. As noted earlier in this final rule, allowing sectors to participate in these exempted fisheries for dogfish while simultaneously being excluded from ASM coverage on extra-large mesh sector trips is intended to maximize the viability and profitability of their businesses. We will continue to closely VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:34 Apr 29, 2016 Jkt 238001 monitor catch from any trips fishing under this exemption to ensure that they continue to have low groundfish catch. Comment 49: NSC commented in support of the Northeast Fishery Sector XII sector operations plan. Response: We agree, and are approving the NEFS XII 2016 operations plan in this action. Comment 50: In light of the significant quota reductions for several key groundfish stocks, AFM supports the maximum 10-percent carryover allowed by law. They noted that significant precaution is built into the ABC and ACL recommendations, and that there is no biological justification for less than the 10-percent carryover. Response: Framework 55 did not consider adjustments to the sector carryover provision, and these types of adjustments are beyond the scope and authority relating to this action. Framework 53, which was approved and implemented at the start of the 2015 fishing year, modified the sector carryover provision that was approved and implemented in Amendment 16. This change was in response to a 2013 court ruling in Conservation Law Foundation v. Pritzker, et al. (Case No. 1:13–CV–0821–JEB). Details of this court ruling, and the corresponding changes to the sector carryover provision, are provided in the final rules for Framework 50 (78 FR 2617; May 3, 2013) and Framework 53 (80 FR 25110; May 1, 2015). Sectors may still carry over up to 10 percent of their unused allocation as long as this amount, plus the total ACL for the upcoming fishing year, does not exceed the ABC. If the full 10-percent carryover possible would exceed the ABC, the Northeast Multispecies FMP requires that we reduce the available carryover for each sector. This provision limits the amount of carry-over to ensure that the ABC is not exceeded for a stock. For 2016, total potential catch would exceed the 2016 ABC for all groundfish stocks, except for GOM and GB haddock, if sectors carried over the maximum 10-percent of unused allocation allowed. 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). The final adjustment will depend on each sector’s final 2015 catch. As noted in the preamble, we will make adjustments as soon after May 1 as possible. PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 26443 2016 Fishing Year Annual Measures Under Regional Administrator Authority Comment 51: The Council requested clarification regarding the proposed GOM cod trip limit for the common pool and questioned why the trip limit is proposed to decline by 50 percent when the ACL is proposed to increase in 2016. Response: We attempt to set trip limits that will allow fishing access for an entire trimester while preventing any overages from occurring. In 2015, the initial GOM cod trip limit was 50 lb (22.5 kg) per DAS, up to 200 lb (91 kg) per trip, for Category A DAS vessels. The initial trip limit for Handgear A and B permits was 50 lb (22.5 kg) and 25 lb (11.3 kg) per trip, respectively. Even at these low limits, by late May, about half of the Trimester 1 quota had been harvested. Therefore, in early June, we prohibited retention for all common pool vessels to reduce the likelihood of an overage and an area closure. However, by mid-June, the Trimester 1 quota was exceeded due to catch that occurred prior to the trip limit reduction. We were required to close portions of the GOM Cod Trimester TAC Area through the end of August as a result of the overage. The 2016 common pool sub-ACL for GOM cod is only expected to increase by approximately 2.5 mt from 2015, which translates to a marginal increase to the TAC for each trimester. Thus, for 2016, we are setting the initial trip limit more conservatively compared to the initial 2015 trip limit to prevent area closures and allow continued access to healthier stocks, such as GOM haddock and pollock. We will monitor common pool catch inseason, and if necessary or warranted, will make adjustments to the common pool trip limits implemented in this rule. Comment 52: One commercial fisherman commented that the witch flounder trip limit will lead to increase in discards for the stock, and that the low catch limit is not consistent with landings seen on the waters. The commenter did not provide suggestions for an alternative trip limit. Response: We disagree that the witch flounder trip limit is too low. The overall 2016 witch flounder catch limit is a 41-percent reduction compared to 2015. As a result, the 2015 trip limit of 1,000 lb (454 kg) per trip is likely too high to prevent overages of the common pool quota. The 250-lb (113-kg) trip limit implemented in this rule is intended to provide continued access to other healthy groundfish stocks by preventing premature closure of the trimester TAC for witch flounder. We E:\FR\FM\02MYR3.SGM 02MYR3 mstockstill on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 26444 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 84 / Monday, May 2, 2016 / Rules and Regulations will monitor common pool catch inseason, and if necessary or warranted, will make adjustments to the common pool trip limits implemented in this rule. Comment 53: One commercial fisherman commented that the CC/GOM yellowtail flounder trip limits are too low, but did not suggest an alternative trip limit. The commenter also noted that the daily trip limit listed incorrectly in proposed rule as 75 lb/day (34 kg/ day), when it should have been 750 lb/ day (340 kg/day). Response: The commenter correctly identified our error in the CC/GOM yellowtail flounder trip limit in the proposed rule. The trip limit is corrected in this final rule. Comment 54: Two commercial fishermen opposed the 100-lb (45-kg) trip limit for GOM haddock, particularly in light of the recreational bag limit of 15 fish per day. One commenter suggested that the common pool trip limit should be 200 lb (91 kg) per trip. Response: The recreational fishery receives an allocation for GOM haddock, and annual recreational management measures are set to ensure the fishery achieves, but does not exceed, its allocation. A description of the 2016 recreational management measures, their rationale, and supporting analyses, is provided in the final rule implementing those measures, and is not repeated here. After re-evaluating the common pool allocation, and in response to public comment, we are also setting the initial GOM haddock trip limit at 200 lb (91 kg) per DAS, up to 600 lb (272 kg) per trip. This increase is warranted given the increase to the 2016 GOM haddock common pool sub-ACL compared to 2015, as described further in section ‘‘9. 2016 Fishing Year Annual Measures Under Regional Administrator Authority.’’ We will monitor common pool catch in-season, and if necessary or warranted, will make adjustments to the common pool trip limits implemented in this rule. Comment 55: Two commercial fishermen opposed the common pool trimester TAC system. One noted that the distribution of the quota among trimesters should be adjusted. Response: Framework 55 did not consider adjustments to the trimester TAC system and these types of adjustments are beyond the scope and authority relating to this action. The trimester allocation of the common pool sub-ACL was developed as part of Amendment 16, and was based on landings through fishing year 2009. These distributions have been unchanged since the implementation of VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:34 Apr 29, 2016 Jkt 238001 Amendment 16. Any changes to the existing common pool measures would have to be developed through the Council process in a future management action. However, the Council could reconsider common pool management measures, including the trimester TAC distribution, at any time provided these measures still meet necessary conservation requirements. Changes From the Proposed Rule This final rule contains a number of minor adjustments from the proposed rule. We clarify a discrepancy in the status determination criteria for GB cod and Atlantic halibut. This rule corrects errors in the CC/GOM yellowtail flounder common pool trip limit and the 2016 sector carry-over table, adds inadvertently omitted default specifications for GB yellowtail flounder, and correct the GB cod groundfish catch limits for 2017 and 2018. We are also implementing a higher initial 2016 GOM haddock common pool trip limit than announced in the proposed rule. Classification Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that the management measures implemented in this final rule are necessary for the conservation and management of the Northeast groundfish fishery and consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law. This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866. This final rule does not contain policies with Federalism or ‘‘takings’’ implications as those terms are defined in E.O. 13132 and E.O. 12630, respectively. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries finds good cause, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), to waive the 30-day delayed effectiveness of this action. This action sets 2016 catch limits for all groundfish stocks, and adopts several other measures to improve the management of the groundfish fishery. This final rule must be in effect at the beginning of the 2016 fishing year to fully capture the conservation and economic benefits of Framework 55 and sector administrative measures. This rulemaking incorporates information from updated stock assessments for all 20 groundfish stocks. The development of Framework 55 was timed to incorporate the results of the 2015 groundfish stock assessments, which were finalized in October 2015. As a result, this rulemaking could not be PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 completed further before this date. Therefore, in order to have this action effective at the beginning of the 2016 fishing year, which begins on May 1, 2016, it is necessary to waive the 30-day delayed effectiveness of this rule. If this action is delayed, the coverage level for the industry-funded ASM program would be 17 percent beginning on May 1, 2016, based on default measures for 2016 published in a separate rulemaking. When combined with the default groundfish specifications (set at 35 percent of the 2015 allocations), a delay in the implementation of these measures would result in direct economic loss for the groundfish fleet due to the high costs of ASM and the low default groundfish specifications, which may restrict fishing effort or temporarily alter business plans. In addition, this action approves two new sectors for operation on May 1, 2016. These sectors would be unable to operate and their vessels would be unable to fish until this action is finalized, which would result in direct economic loss for these vessels. The groundfish fishery already faced substantial catch limit reductions for many key groundfish stocks over the past 5 years, and this rule implements additional catch limit reductions. However, the negative economic impacts of implementing the default catch limits on May 1 would exceed any negative economic impacts anticipated from this action. Any further disruption to the fishery that would result from a delay in this final rule could worsen the severe economic impacts to the groundfish fishery. While this action includes several catch limit decreases for several stocks in poor condition, it also includes catch limits increases for a number of healthy groundfish stocks. These increases in catch limits for healthy groundfish stocks may help mitigate the economic impacts of the reductions in catch limits for other key groundfish stocks. The allocation changes for GOM haddock and GOM cod in this action would allow for increases in the recreational possession limits for both stocks through a separate, concurrent rulemaking. A delay in this action would delay setting recreational measures for the 2016 fishing year and the economic benefits that these measures would provide. Additionally, recreational fishermen book fishing trips months in advance for the upcoming fishing year. Thus, delays in finalizing recreational measures result in additional negative impacts on the recreational fishing industry due to uncertainty and the inability to book trips. E:\FR\FM\02MYR3.SGM 02MYR3 26445 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 84 / Monday, May 2, 2016 / Rules and Regulations Overall, a delay in implementation of this action would greatly diminish any benefits of these specifications and other approved measures. For these reasons, a 30-day delay in the effectiveness of this rule is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. mstockstill on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Section 604 of the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 604, requires Federal agencies to prepare a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) for each final rule. The FRFA describes the economic impact of this action on small entities. The FRFA includes a summary of significant issues raised by public comments, the analyses contained in Framework 55 and its accompanying Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review/ Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), the IRFA summary in the proposed rule, as well as the summary provided below. A statement of the necessity for and for the objectives of this action are contained in Framework 55 and in the preamble to this final rule, and is not repeated here. A Summary of the Significant Issues Raised by the Public in Response to the IRFA, a Summary of the Agency’s Assessment of Such Issues, and a Statement of Any Changes Made in the Final Rule as a Result of Such Comments Our responses to all of the comments received on the proposed rule, including those that raised significant issues with the proposed action, or commented on the economic analyses summarized in the IRFA, can be found in the Comments and Responses section of this rule. As outlined in that section, significant issues were raised by the public with respect to the GB cod catch limits for 2016–2018 and the combined suite of groundfish ASM program adjustment. Comment 5 discussed that the GB cod catch limit, as well as catch limits for other key groundfish stocks, are expected to constrain the commercial groundfish fishery. Comment 26 discusses compares economic impacts of the No Action ASM alternative to the combined suite of ASM program adjustments, and the economic analysis in the IRFA. Comments 27 and 28 discuss alternatives to the proposed changes to the ASM program that were not considered in this action, namely electronic monitoring and an alternative approach for allocating ASM coverage. Detailed responses are provided to each of these specific comments and are not repeated here. There were no other comments directly related to the IRFA; VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:34 Apr 29, 2016 Jkt 238001 the Chief Counsel for the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA) did not file any comments. No changes to the proposed rule measures were necessary as a result of these public comments. 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 Description and Estimate of the Number was created on June 1, 2015, based on of Small Entities to Which the Rule calendar year 2014 and contains average Would Apply gross sales associated with those The SBA defines a small business as permits for calendar years 2012 through one that is: 2014. • Independently owned and operated; In addition to classifying a business • Not dominant in its field of (ownership entity) as small or large, a operation; business can also be classified by its • Has annual receipts that do not primary source of revenue. A business exceed— is defined as being primarily engaged in Æ $20.5 million in the case of fishing for finfish if it obtains greater commercial finfish harvesting entities than 50 percent of its gross sales from 1 114111) (NAIC sales of finfish. Similarly, a business is Æ $5.5 million in the case of defined as being primarily engaged in commercial shellfish harvesting entities fishing for shellfish if it obtains greater (NAIC 114112) than 50 percent of its gross sales from Æ $7.5 million in the case of for-hire sales of shellfish. fishing entities (NAIC 114119); or A description of the specific permits • Has fewer than— that are likely to be impacted by this Æ 750 employees in the case of fish action is provided below, along with a processors; or discussion of the impacted businesses, Æ 100 employees in the case of fish which can include multiple vessels and/ dealers. or permit types. This final rule impacts commercial and recreational fish harvesting entities Regulated Commercial Fish Harvesting engaged in the groundfish fishery, the Entities small-mesh multispecies and squid Table 20 describes the total number of fisheries, the midwater trawl herring commercial business entities potentially fishery, and the scallop fishery. regulated by this action. As of June 1, Individually-permitted vessels may hold 2015, there were 1,359 commercial permits for several fisheries, harvesting business entities potentially regulated species of fish that are regulated by by this action. These entities participate several different FMPs, even beyond in, or are permitted for, the groundfish, those impacted by this action. small-mesh multispecies, squid, herring Furthermore, multiple-permitted vessels midwater trawl, and scallop fisheries. and/or permits may be owned by For the groundfish fishery, this action entities affiliated by stock ownership, directly regulates potentially affected common management, identity of entities through catch limits and other interest, contractual relationships, or management measures designed to economic dependency. For the purposes achieve the goals and objectives of the of the Regulatory Flexibility Act Northeast Multispecies FMP. For the analysis, the ownership entities, not the non-groundfish fisheries, this action individual vessels, are considered to be includes allocations for groundfish the regulated entities. stocks caught as bycatch in these Ownership entities are defined as fisheries. For each of these fisheries, those entities with common ownership there are accountability measures that personnel as listed on the permit application. Only permits with identical are triggered if their respective allocations are exceeded. As a result, the ownership personnel are categorized as likelihood of triggering an an ownership entity. For example, if accountability measure is a function of five permits have the same seven changes to the ACLs each year. persons listed as co-owners on their permit application, those seven persons TABLE 20—COMMERCIAL FISH HARwould form one ownership entity that VESTING ENTITIES REGULATED BY holds those five permits. If two of those THIS ACTION seven owners also co-own additional 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. PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 Type Primarily finfish ....... Primarily shellfish .... E:\FR\FM\02MYR3.SGM 02MYR3 Total number 385 480 Classified as small businesses 385 462 26446 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 84 / Monday, May 2, 2016 / Rules and Regulations TABLE 20—COMMERCIAL FISH HAR- small, and all but one of which are VESTING ENTITIES REGULATED BY finfish commercial harvesting businesses. THIS ACTION—Continued Limited Access Scallop Fisheries The limited access scallop fisheries Type include Limited Access (LA) scallop permits and Limited Access General Primarily for hire ..... 297 297 Category (LAGC) scallop permits. LA No Revenue ............ 197 197 scallop businesses are subject to a Total .................... 1,359 1,341 mixture of DAS restrictions and dedicated area trip restrictions. LAGC scallop businesses are able to acquire Limited Access Groundfish Fishery and trade LAGC scallop quota, and there This action will directly impact is an annual cap on quota/landings. The entities engaged in the limited access scallop fishery receives an allocation for groundfish fishery. The limited access GB and SNE/MA yellowtail flounder groundfish fishery consists of those and southern windowpane flounder. If enrolled in the sector program and those these allocations are exceeded, in the common pool. Both sectors and accountability measures are the common pool are subject to catch implemented in a subsequent fishing limits and accountability measures that year. These accountability measures prevent fishing in a respective stock close certain areas of high groundfish area when the entire catch limit has bycatch to the scallop fishery, and the been caught. Additionally, common length of the closure depends on the pool vessels are subject to DAS magnitude of the overage. restrictions and trip limits. All permit Of the total commercial business holders are eligible to enroll in the entities potentially affected by this sector program; however, many vessels action (1,359), there are 169 scallop remain in the common pool because fishing entities. The majority of these they have low catch histories of entities are defined as shellfish groundfish stocks, which translate into businesses (166). However, three of low PSCs. Low PSCs limit a vessel’s these entities are defined as finfish viability in the sector program. In businesses, all of which are small. Of general, businesses enrolled in the the 169 total scallop fishing entities, 154 sector program rely more heavily on entities are classified as small entities. sales of groundfish species than vessels Midwater Trawl Fishery enrolled in the common pool. As of June 1, 2015 (just after the start There are five categories of permits for of the 2015 fishing year), there were the herring fishery. Three of these 1,068 individual limited access permit categories are limited access, and multispecies permits. Of these, 627 were vary based on the allowable herring enrolled in the sector program, and 441 possession limits and areas fished. The were in the common pool. For fishing remaining two permit categories are year 2014, which is the most recent open access. Although there is a large complete fishing year, 717 of these number of open access permits issued limited access permits had landings of each year, these categories are subject to any species, and 273 of these permits fairly low possession limits for herring, had landings of groundfish species. account for a very small amount of the Of the 1,068 individual limited access herring landings, and derive relatively multispecies permits potentially little revenue from the fishery. Only the impacted by this action, there are 661 midwater trawl herring fishery receives distinct ownership entities. Of these, an allocation of GOM and GB haddock. 649 are categorized as small entities, Once the entire allocation for either and 12 are categorized as large entities. haddock stock has been caught, However, these totals may mask some midwater trawl vessels may not fish for diversity among the entities. Many, if herring or haddock in the respective not most, of these ownership entities area for the remainder of the fishing maintain diversified harvest portfolios, year. Additionally, if the midwater trawl obtaining gross sales from many fishery exceeds its allocation, the fisheries and not dependent on any one. overage is deducted from its allocation However, not all are equally diversified. in the following fishing year. This action is most likely to affect those Of the total commercial business entities that depend most heavily on entities potentially regulated by this sales from harvesting groundfish action (1,359), there are 63 herring species. There are 61 entities that are fishing entities. Of these, 39 entities are groundfish-dependent (obtain more than defined as finfish businesses, all of 50 percent of gross sales from which are small. There are 24 entities groundfish species), all of which are that are defined as shellfish businesses, mstockstill on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Total number VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:34 Apr 29, 2016 Classified as small businesses Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 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 smallmesh 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 (0.45 kg) 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 E:\FR\FM\02MYR3.SGM 02MYR3 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 84 / Monday, May 2, 2016 / Rules and Regulations mstockstill on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 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 forhire 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, Record-Keeping, and Other Compliance Requirements This action contains a change to an information collection requirement, which has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under OMB Control Number 0648–0605: Northeast Multispecies Amendment 16 Data Collection. This action adjusts the ACE transfer request requirement implemented through Amendment 16. This rule adds a new entry field to the ACE transfer request form to allow a sector to indicate how many pounds of eastern GB cod ACE it intends to reallocate 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-allocate eastern GB haddock ACE to the Western U.S./Canada Area, via an online or paper form to the Regional Administrator. The change only adds a single field to this form, and does not affect the number of entities required to comply with this requirement. Therefore, the change is not 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:34 Apr 29, 2016 Jkt 238001 with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. Description of the Steps the Agency Has Taken To Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities Consistent With the Stated Objectives of Applicable Statutes The economic impact of each measure is discussed in more detail in sections 7.4 and 8.11 of the Framework 55 EA and are not repeated here. Although small entities are defined based on gross sales of ownership groups, not physical characteristics of the vessel, it is reasonable to assume that larger vessels are more likely to be owned by large entities. The economic impacts of this action are anticipated to result in aggregate gross revenue losses of approximately $8 million for the 2016 fishing year, compared to predicted revenues for the 2015 fishing year. However, the impacts of the approved catch limits would not be uniformly distributed across vessels size classes and ports. Some vessel size classes and ports are predicted to have 50- to 80percent declines in revenues from groundfish. Because predicted losses are expected to primarily affect small businesses, this action has the potential to place small entities at a competitive disadvantage relative to large entities. This is mainly because large entities may have more flexibility to adjust to, and accommodate, the measures. However, as discussed in more detail below, the additional declines in gross revenues expected as a result of this action will pose serious difficulties for all groundfish vessels and their crew. Status Determination Criteria This action updates the numerical estimates of the status determination criteria for all groundfish stocks in order to incorporate the results of the 2015 stock assessments. For many stocks, these updates result in lower values of MSY. For some of these, the lower values of MSY result in lower ACLs in the short-term, which is expected to have negative economic impacts (i.e., lower net revenues). However, the updates to the status determination criteria are expected to have positive stock benefits by helping to prevent overfishing. Thus, in the long-term, the changes to status determination criteria are expected to result in higher and more sustainable landings when compared to the No Action option. All of the revisions are based on the 2015 stock assessments, and are therefore PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 26447 based on the best scientific information available. Status determination criteria are formulaic based on the results of a stock assessment. As a result, the only other alternative considered for this action was the No Action option, which would not update the status determination criteria for any groundfish stocks based on the 2015 stock assessments. This option would not incorporate the best scientific information available, and would not be consistent with Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements, and, as a result, was not selected. This option would not have any immediate economic impacts. However if this option resulted in overfishing in the long-term, then it would have severe negative economic impacts for the fisheries affected by this action. Groundfish Annual Catch Limits This action sets 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 nonselected alternatives to the adopted 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. 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 approved 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 approved 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 E:\FR\FM\02MYR3.SGM 02MYR3 mstockstill on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 26448 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 84 / Monday, May 2, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 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 approved 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 groundfish revenues relative to 2015, and Point Judith expected to see a 58-percent decline. Boston and Gloucester, meanwhile, are predicted to have groundfish 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 that considered a witch flounder ABC of 399 mt, gross revenues were predicted to be the same as the approved catch limit (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 was also expected to provide the same changes in gross revenue by vessels size class. In the alternative that considered a witch flounder ABC of 500 mt, gross revenues were predicted to be slightly lower than the approved catch limit, 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 were expected to see gross revenue increases of 4 percent. Vessels in the 50–75 ft (15– 23 m) size class were expected to see revenue increases of 15 percent. The largest vessels (75 ft (23 m) and greater) were 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 be required to operate under default specifications of catch limits at 35 percent of the levels used last fishing year and would have 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:34 Apr 29, 2016 Jkt 238001 vessels compared to the proposed action due to lost revenues as a result of being unable to fish. The adopted 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 adopted 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 catch limits approved in this action are based on the latest stock assessment information, which is considered the best scientific information available, and the applicable requirements in the Northeast Multispecies FMP and the Magnuson-Stevens Act. With the exception of witch flounder, the only other possible alternatives to the catch limits 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 Northeast Multispecies FMP, or the Magnuson-Stevens Act, particularly the requirement to prevent overfishing. The Magnuson-Stevens Act and case law prevent implementation of measures that conflict with conservation requirements, even if it means negative impacts are not mitigated. The catch PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 limits 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 in this action, which would not mitigate the economic impacts of the approved catch limits. Groundfish At-Sea Monitoring Program This action approves a set of four alternatives that, in combination, result in a 2016 target ASM coverage level of 14 percent. The four selected alternatives will: (1) Remove ASM coverage for extra-large mesh gillnet trips fishing in Broad Stock Areas 2 and/or 4; (2) remove the administrative standard that 80 percent of discards be estimated at a 30-percent CV; (3) use 3 years of discard information to predict ASM coverage levels; and (4) base the target coverage level on the predictions for stocks that would be at a higher risk for an error in the discard estimate. The No Action alternative would have resulted in a 2016 ASM coverage level of 41 percent. The combination of ASM alternatives would result in a lower level of ASM coverage (14 percent) relative to the No Action alternative (41 percent) thereby resulting in a reduction in cost to sectors. Selecting the alternatives in combination has the maximum economic impact mitigation compared to No Action. Assuming NEFOP coverage of 4 percent for the 2016 fishing year, industry would be responsible for paying for ASM coverage on an estimated 10 percent of trips under the combined ASM alternatives, and an estimated 37 percent of trips under the No Action alternative. Assuming 20,000 days absent, and a cost of $710 per ASM seaday, the cost of ASM to sectors would be $1.4 million (20,000*.10*$710). This would represent cost savings of $3.9 million relative to the No Action alternative ($5.3 million). The $710 per ASM seaday is based on NMFS cost estimates for the ASM program. If sectors are able to negotiate lower per seaday rates for ASM coverage with service providers, these figures may be overestimates. Each of the four selected alternatives, if approved in isolation, would have also resulted in a lower ASM coverage level relative to the No Action alternative. Using the effort and ASM cost assumptions noted above, removing ASM coverage for extra-large mesh gillnet trips fishing in Broad Stock Areas 2 and/or 4 would result in a cost savings of $64,610 relative to the No Action alternative. Remove the E:\FR\FM\02MYR3.SGM 02MYR3 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 84 / Monday, May 2, 2016 / Rules and Regulations administrative standard that 80 percent of discards be estimated at a 30-percent CV would result in 2016 ASM costs of $4.7 million, an estimated $0.6 million decrease relative to the No Action alternative. Using 3 years of discard information to predict ASM coverage levels would result in 2016 ASM costs of $1.8 million, a savings of $3.5 million relative to No Action. Finally, basing the target coverage level on the predictions for stocks that would be at a higher risk for an error in the discard estimate would in ASM costs of $3.1 million, an estimated $2.2 million decrease in ASM costs relative to the No Action alternative. Formation of Sustainable Harvest Sector II This action approves the formation of a new sector, Sustainable Harvest Sector II, for operation for the 2016 fishing year. The No Action alternative was the only alternative to the approved action, and would not approve the formation of Sustainable Harvest Sector II. Allowing the formation of the new sector increases flexibility for groundfish fishery participants within the sector management system, and is thus anticipated to have positive economic impacts. mstockstill on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Modification of the Sector Approval Process This action modifies the sector approval process such that a Council framework adjustment or amendment is no longer needed to approve a new sector. The No Action alternative was the only alternative to the approved action, and would maintain the existing process for sector approval. Modifying the sector approval process decreases the administrative cost of approving a new sector, and allows more time for new sectors to prepare operations plans and analysis to support the formation of a new sector. The additional time to prepare operations plans may have minor economic benefits to fishery participants. Modification of the Definition of the Haddock Separator Trawl This action modifies 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:34 Apr 29, 2016 Jkt 238001 approved 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. In order to minimize impact of this measure, we are delaying the effective date of this requirement by 6 months to allow affected fishermen time to replace their separator panels with contrasting netting. Removal of GOM Cod Recreational Possession Limit For the recreational fishery, the removal prohibition on GOM cod possession, coupled with measures in the recreational rule, are expected to result in short-term positive economic impacts. The measures implemented for 2016 in that rule are expected to result in an increase in the number of trips taken by anglers, and increased catch, while staying within the recreational quotas for 2016. Under the No Action alternative, vessels would be prohibited from harvesting GOM cod, which would have negative economic impacts compared to the selected alternative. Distribution of Eastern/Western GB Cod Sector Allocation The action allows sectors to convert their eastern GB cod allocation to western GB cod allocation and provide sectors additional flexibility to harvest more of their total GB cod allocation. Only the No Action alternative and the selected alternative were considered. Compared to the No Action alternative, this measure is expected to have positive economic impacts on groundfish-dependent small entities that participate in the sector program due to increased operational flexibility. This measure is also expected to prevent the Western U.S./Canada Area from being closed to a sector prematurely, before the sector harvests all of its GB cod allocation, which will ultimately prevent foregone yield in the fishery. Given the sizable decreases in the GB cod catch limit for 2016, the ability of sectors to convert their eastern GB cod allocation to western GB cod may be of critical importance for allowing members to maintain fishing operations on Georges Bank through 2016. In the absence of GB cod allocation, sectors members are not permitted to fish in the Inshore and Offshore Georges Bank broad stock areas. Small Entity Compliance Guide Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 states that, for each rule or group of related rules for which an agency is PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 26449 required to prepare a FRFA, the agency shall publish one or more guides to assist small entities in complying with the rule, and shall designate such publications as ‘‘small entity compliance guides.’’ The agency shall explain the actions a small entity is required to take to comply with a rule or group of rules. As part of this rulemaking process, a small entity compliance guide will be sent to all holders of Federal permits issued for the Northeast multispecies fisheries, as well as the scallop and herring fisheries that receive an allocation of some groundfish stocks. In addition, copies of this final rule and guides (i.e., information bulletins) are available from NMFS at the following Web site: https:// www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/. List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648 Fisheries, Fishing, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements. Dated: April 25, 2016. Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service. For the reasons stated in the preamble, NMFS amends 50 CFR part 648 as follows: PART 648—FISHERIES OF THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES 1. The authority citation for part 648 continues to read as follows: ■ Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. 2. In § 648.14, revise paragraph (k)(16)(iii)(B) to read as follows: * * * * * (k) * * * (16) * * * (iii) * * * (B) Fail to comply with the requirements specified in § 648.81(f)(5)(v) when fishing in the areas described in § 648.81(d)(1), (e)(1), and (f)(4) during the time periods specified. * * * * * ■ 3. In § 648.85, revise paragraph (a)(3)(iii)(A) to read as follows: ■ § 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 E:\FR\FM\02MYR3.SGM 02MYR3 26450 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 84 / Monday, May 2, 2016 / Rules and Regulations upper extension, and the bottom extension shall be left open and have no codend attached. A horizontal largemesh 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. * * * * * ■ 4. In § 648.87: ■ a. Revise paragraphs (a)(1) and (2), (b)(1)(i)(B)(2), (b)(1)(v)(B) introductory text, (b)(1)(v)(B)(1)(i),; ■ b. Add paragraph (b)(1)(v)(B)(1)(ii); ■ c. Revise paragraph (b)(4)(i)(G); ■ d. Add paragraphs (c)(2)(i)(A) and (B) and (c)(4); and ■ e. Revise paragraphs (d) and (e)(3)(iv). The revisions read as follows: mstockstill on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 § 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:34 Apr 29, 2016 Jkt 238001 the new sector, a complete sector operations plan and preliminary sector contract, prepared as described in paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(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 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 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 reallocated to the Western U.S./Canada Area through written request to the Regional Administrator. This request must include the name of the sector, the PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 amount of ACE to be re-allocated, and the fishing year in which the ACE reallocation 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 § 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 E:\FR\FM\02MYR3.SGM 02MYR3 mstockstill on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 84 / Monday, May 2, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 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 § 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 atsea/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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:34 Apr 29, 2016 Jkt 238001 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 § 648.10(k)(3)(ii), and/or the SNE Broad Stock Area, as defined at § 648.10(k)(3)(iv), is not subject to the coverage level 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 10inches (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 § 648.2. A sector trip fishing with 10inch (25.4-cm) mesh or larger gillnets will still be subject to the annual coverage level if the trip declares its intent to fish in any part of the trip in the GOM Stock area, as defined at § 648.10(k)(3)(i), or the Offshore GB Stock Area, as defined at § 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: FIPPENNIES LEDGE AREA Point 1 2 3 4 1 ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ N. latitude 42°50.0′ 42°44.0′ 42°44.0′ 42°50.0′ 42°50.0′ W. longitude 69°17.0′ 69°14.0′ 69°18.0′ 69°21.0′ 69°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 * PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 26451 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 E:\FR\FM\02MYR3.SGM 02MYR3 26452 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 84 / Monday, May 2, 2016 / Rules and Regulations § 648.89 [Amended] 5. In § 648.89, remove and reserve paragraph (f)(3)(ii). ■ [FR Doc. 2016–10051 Filed 4–29–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–22–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 648 [Docket No. 160120042–6337–02] RIN 0648–BF69 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northeast Groundfish Fishery; Fishing Year 2016; Recreational Management Measures 2016 fishing year. This action is intended to increase recreational fishing opportunities for cod and haddock consistent with the 2016 catch limits for these stocks, while ensuring the quotas are not exceeded. This action is expected to facilitate the recreational fishery achieving the recreational quotas for 2016. DATES: Effective May 1, 2016. ADDRESSES: Copies of a supplemental environmental assessment (EA) to Framework Adjustment 55 to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan prepared by the Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office and Northeast Fisheries Science Center; and the Framework 55 EA prepared by the New England Fishery Management Council for this rulemaking are available from: John K. Bullard, Regional Administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. The Framework 55 EA and supplement are also accessible via the Internet at: https:// www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/ sustainable/species/multispecies/. These documents are also accessible via the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https:// www.regulations.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Grant, Sector Policy Analyst, phone: 978–281–9145; email: Mark.Grant@noaa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Final rule. Background SUMMARY: This action sets the recreational management measures for Gulf of Maine cod and haddock for the Statutory Authority Under the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (FMP), For 2016, the GOM haddock recreational sub-ACL is increasing 149 percent compared to 2015, based on continued growth of the stock biomass. Although GOM cod remains overfished and subject to overfishing, biomass has increased slightly, and the GOM cod recreational sub-ACL is increasing 30 percent compared to 2015. A more detailed summary of these catch limits, and the removal of the cod prohibition, mstockstill on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 AGENCY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:34 Apr 29, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 specific sub-annual catch limits (subACL) for the recreational fishery are established for each fishing year for Gulf of Maine (GOM) cod and haddock. The regulations at 50 CFR 648.89(f)(3) authorize the Regional Administrator, in consultation with the New England Fishery Management Council (Council), to modify the recreational management measures for the upcoming fishing year to ensure the recreational fishery achieves, but does not exceed, the recreational fishery sub-ACLs. The proposed rule for this action published in the Federal Register (81 FR 11168; March 3, 2016) provides details on the consultation with the Council and how the Council developed its recommendations; that information is not repeated here. Fishing Year 2016 Recreational Management Measures After consulting with the Council, we are increasing recreational fishing opportunities for GOM cod and haddock. Starting May 1, 2016, anglers may retain 1 cod per day during August and September, and may keep up to 15 haddock per day for most of the fishing year. Table 1 provides the new measures effective with the start of fishing year 2016 (May 1, 2016) compared to the current measures. These measures are based on the fishing year 2016 recreational quotas, and removal of the GOM cod retention prohibition approved and implemented as part of Framework Adjustment 55 to the Northeast Multispecies FMP. is provided in the Framework 55 final rule and not repeated here. Changes From Proposed Rule On March 3, 2016, we published a proposed rule in the Federal Register E:\FR\FM\02MYR3.SGM 02MYR3 ER02MY16.005</GPH> bank’s MOAs with NMFS, a stateoperated 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. * * * * *

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 84 (Monday, May 2, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 26411-26452]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-10051]

[[Page 26411]]

Vol. 81

Monday,

No. 84

May 2, 2016

Part III

Department of Commerce

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

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

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

50 CFR Part 648

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Provisions;
Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northeast Groundfish
Fishery; Framework Adjustment 55 and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act Provisions; Fisheries of the
Northeastern United States; Northeast Groundfish Fishery; Fishing Year
2016; Recreational Management Measures; Final Rules

Federal Register / Vol. 81 , No. 84 / Monday, May 2, 2016 / Rules and
Regulations

[[Page 26412]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 648

[Docket No. 151211999-6343-02]
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: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule approves and implements Framework Adjustment
55 to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan. This rule
sets 2016-2018 catch limits for all 20 groundfish stocks, adjusts the
groundfish at-sea monitoring program, and adopts 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 final 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: Effective on May 1, 2016, except for the amendment to Sec.
648.85(a)(3)(iii)(A), which is effective October 31, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Copies of Framework Adjustment 55, including the
Environmental Assessment, the Regulatory Impact Review, and the Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis prepared in support of the proposed
rule 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.
Copies of each sector's final operations plan and contract, and the
Fishing Year 2015-2020 Northeast Multispecies Sector Operations Plans
and Contracts Programmatic Environmental Assessment, are available from
the NMFS Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office: John K. Bullard,
Regional Administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service, 55 Great
Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. These documents are also
accessible via the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other
aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this
final rule may be submitted to NMFS, Greater Atlantic Regional
Fisheries Office, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930, and by
email to 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 Approved 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 2018 and 2019 Fishing Years
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 Approved Measures

This action approves and implements the management measures in
Framework Adjustment 55 to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery
Management Plan (FMP). The measures implemented in this final rule
include:
2016-2018 specifications for all 20 groundfish stocks;
2016 shared U.S./Canada quotas for Georges Bank (GB)
yellowtail flounder and Eastern GB cod and haddock;
Modifications to the industry-funded sector at-sea
monitoring program;
Approval of a new sector;
Modifications to the sector approval process;
Adjustments to selective trawl gear requirements;
Removal of the Gulf of Maine (GOM) cod prohibition for
recreational anglers; and
A mechanism for sectors to transfer GB cod quota from the
Eastern U.S./Canada Area to the western area.
This action also implements a number of other measures that are not
part of Framework 55, but that were considered under our authority
specified in the Northeast Multispecies FMP. We are including these
measures in Framework 55 for expediency purposes, and because these
measures are related to the catch limits implemented in Framework 55.
The additional measures implemented in this action are:
Management measures necessary to implement sector
operations plans--this action approves 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 implements initial 2016 fishing year trip limits for the common
pool fishery.
Other regulatory corrections--this action makes several
administrative revisions to the regulations to clarify their intent,
correct references, remove unnecessary text, and make other minor
edits. Each correction is described in 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 at: https://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/groundfish/operational-assessments-2015/. This action revises status determination criteria,
as necessary, and provides 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).
Status determination relative to reference points is no longer
possible for GB cod and Atlantic halibut. The assessment peer review
panel determined that available information for both stocks indicates
they are still in poor condition and that stock size has not increased.
Therefore, the panel recommended the status remain overfished for both
stocks, consistent with the information from previous assessments.
However, in the absence of fishing mortality estimates to compare to
overfishing reference points, the

[[Page 26413]]

panel recommended that the overfishing status be unknown for both
stocks.
Although the review panel concluded that the overfishing status
should be unknown for GB cod and halibut, the final NMFS determinations
for these stocks are different from the review panel's recommendations.
NMFS has developed a national approach to addressing common status
determination situations for the purposes of completing the annual
report to Congress on the Status of U.S. Fisheries and the Fisheries
Stock Sustainability Index. For cases like GB cod and Atlantic halibut,
where the stock assessment update is not accepted by the peer review
process, NMFS bases the status determination on the most recent
accepted assessment. Based on this approach, the stock status for GB
cod will remain overfished, with overfishing occurring, consistent with
the determination from the 2013 GB cod benchmark assessment. The status
for Atlantic halibut will remain overfished, with overfishing not
occurring, consistent with the 2012 assessment update for this stock.
These status determinations will remain until an assessment can provide
new reference points and/or numerical estimates of existing status
determination criteria.
The numerical estimates for the status determination criteria for
both stocks is still not available based on the results of the 2015
assessment updates, as reflected in Table 1. In the draft Framework 55
EA available to the Council when selecting preferred alternatives and
taking final action, numerical estimates were not provided consistent
with these results. However, following initial submission of Framework
55 to NFMS for review, and after the close of the public comment period
on the proposed rule (81 FR 15003; March 21, 2016) and analysis, the
Council changed the numerical estimates provided in the document to
those from the previous 2013 GB cod assessment. Presumably, this change
was made to provide estimates consistent with the assessment review
panel's recommendation that the previous assessment is the best
scientific information available for determining stock status. However,
this change to the document was made after the Council took final
action on Framework 55, and after close of the public comment period on
the proposed rule and analysis, and is not consistent with our standard
approach for developing numerical estimates for status determination
criteria. When the stock assessment is not accepted, NMFS retains the
status determination from the previous assessment because there are no
new, or updated, numerical estimates of status determination criteria
available to reliably evaluate whether stock status has changed.
However, NMFS does not consider the numerical estimates of the status
determination criteria from the previous assessment valid because the
assessment update was not accepted.
The stock status changes for GB cod and halibut 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.

Table 1--Numerical Estimates of Status Determination Criteria
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biomass target (mt) Maximum fishing mortality
Stock (SSBMSY or proxy) threshold (FMSY or proxy) MSY (mt)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GB Cod.................................. NA........................ NA........................ NA
GOM Cod:
M = 0.2 Model....................... 40,187.................... 0.185..................... 6,797
1Mramp 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...................... 700
Southern Windowpane Flounder............ 0.247 kg/tow.............. 2.027..................... 500
Ocean Pout.............................. 4.94 kg/tow............... 0.76...................... 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; GOM
= Gulf of Maine; SNE = Southern New England; MA = Mid-Atlantic; CC = Cape Cod.
Note. A brief explanation of the two assessment models for GOM cod is provided in section ``4. Catch Limits for
the 2016-2018 Fishing Years.''

[[Page 26414]]

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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Management of Transboundary Georges Bank Stocks

As described in the proposed rule, eastern GB cod, eastern GB
haddock, and GB yellowtail flounder are jointly managed with Canada
under the United States/Canada Resource Sharing Understanding. This
action adopts shared U.S./Canada quotas for these stocks for fishing
year 2016 based on 2015 assessments and the recommendations of the
Transboundary Management Guidance Committee (TMGC) (Table 3). 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/.

Table 3--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 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 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 Catch Limits

This action adopts catch limits for all 20 groundfish stocks for
the 2016-2018 fishing years based on the 2015 operational assessment
updates. Catch limit increases are adopted for 10 stocks; however, for
a number of stocks, the catch limits adopted in this action are
substantially lower than the catch limits set for the 2015 fishing year
(with decreases ranging from 14 to 67 percent). The catch limits
implemented in this action, including overfishing limits (OFLs),
acceptable biological catches (ABCs), and annual catch limits (ACLs),
can be found in Tables 4 through 11. A summary of how these catch
limits were developed, including the distribution to the various
fishery components, was provided in the proposed rule and is not
repeated here. Additional information on the development of these catch
limits is also provided in the Framework 55 EA and its supporting
appendices. We have adjusted the groundfish sub-ACL for GB cod for 2017
and 2018 in Tables 6 and 7 to correct a transcription error in the
proposed rule. The sub-ACL for 2017 and 2018 was incorrectly listed as
608 mt, but should have been listed as 997 mt. Although the 2017 and
2018 groundfish sub-ACL was listed incorrectly, the components of the
groundfish sub-ACL, namely the preliminary sector sub-ACL (975 mt) and
the preliminary common pool sub-ACL (22 mt), were correct in the
proposed rule.
The sector and common pool catch limits implemented in this action
are based on potential sector contributions for fishing year 2016 and
fishing year

[[Page 26415]]

2015 sector rosters. 2016 sector rosters will not be finalized until
May 1, 2016, because individual permit holders have until the end of
the 2015 fishing year (April 30, 2016) to drop out of a sector and fish
in the common pool fishery for 2016. Therefore, it is possible that the
sector and common pool catch limits in this action may change due to
changes in the sector rosters. If changes to the sector rosters occur,
updated catch limits will be announced as soon as possible in the 2016
fishing year to reflect the final sector rosters as of May 1, 2016.
Sector-specific allocations for each stock can be found in section ``8.
Sector Administrative Measures.''

Table 4--Fishing Years 2016-2018 Overfishing Limits and Acceptable Biological Catches (mt, Live Weight)
[Total ABC provided for 2016 to show limit prior To deduction of Canadian catch for GB Cod, GB haddock, GB yellowtail flounder, GB winter flounder,
white hake, and Atlantic halibut]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2016 2017 2018
Stock ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OFL Total ABC U.S. ABC OFL U.S. ABC OFL U.S. ABC
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GB Cod....................................................... 1,665 1,249 762 1,665 1,249 1,665 1,249
GOM Cod...................................................... 667 500 500 667 500 667 500
GB Haddock................................................... 160,385 77,898 56,068 258,691 48,398 358,077 77,898
GOM Haddock.................................................. 4,717 3,630 3,630 5,873 4,534 6,218 4,815
GB Yellowtail Flounder....................................... Unk 354 269 Unk 354 ........... ...........
SNE/MA Yellowtail Flounder................................... Unk 267 267 Unk 267 Unk 267
CC/GOM Yellowtail Flounder................................... 555 427 427 707 427 900 427
American Plaice.............................................. 1,695 1,297 1,297 1,748 1,336 1,840 1,404
Witch Flounder............................................... 521 460 460 732 460 954 460
GB Winter Flounder........................................... 957 755 668 1,056 668 1,459 668
GOM Winter Flounder.......................................... 1,080 810 810 1,080 810 1,080 810
SNE/MA Winter Flounder....................................... 1,041 780 780 1,021 780 1,587 780
Redfish...................................................... 13,723 10,338 10,338 14,665 11,050 15,260 11,501
White Hake................................................... 4,985 3,816 3,754 4,816 3,624 4,733 3,560
Pollock...................................................... 27,668 21,312 21,312 32,004 21,312 34,745 21,312
N. Windowpane Flounder....................................... 243 182 182 243 182 243 182
S. Windowpane Flounder....................................... 833 623 623 833 623 833 623
Ocean Pout................................................... 220 165 165 220 165 220 165
Atlantic Halibut............................................. 210 158 124 210 124 210 124
Atlantic Wolffish............................................ 110 82 82 110 82 110 82
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unk = Unknown; 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.

Table 5--Fishing Year 2016 Catch Limits
[mt, live weight]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Midwater State
Stock Total ACL groundfish Preliminary Preliminary Recreational trawl Scallop Small-mesh waters sub- Other sub-
fishery sector common pool fishery fishery fishery fisheries component component
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GB Cod....................................................... 730 608 595 13 ............ ........... ........... ........... 23 99
GOM Cod...................................................... 473 437 273 8 157 ........... ........... ........... 27 10
GB Haddock................................................... 53,309 51,667 51,209 458 ............ 521 ........... ........... 561 561
GOM Haddock.................................................. 3,430 3,344 2,385 31 928 34 ........... ........... 26 26
GB Yellowtail Flounder....................................... 261 211 207 4 ............ ........... 42 5 NA 3
SNE/MA Yellowtail Flounder................................... 255 182 145 37 ............ ........... 39 ........... 5 29
CC/GOM Yellowtail Flounder................................... 409 341 325 16 ............ ........... ........... ........... 43 26
American Plaice.............................................. 1,235 1,183 1,160 23 ............ ........... ........... ........... 26 26
Witch Flounder............................................... 441 370 361 8 ............ ........... ........... ........... 12 59
GB Winter Flounder........................................... 650 590 584 6 ............ ........... ........... ........... NA 60
GOM Winter Flounder.......................................... 776 639 604 35 ............ ........... ........... ........... 122 16
SNE/MA Winter Flounder....................................... 749 585 514 71 ............ ........... ........... ........... 70 94
Redfish...................................................... 9,837 9,526 9,471 55 ............ ........... ........... ........... 103 207
White Hake................................................... 3,572 3,459 3,434 25 ............ ........... ........... ........... 38 75
Pollock...................................................... 20,374 17,817 17,705 112 ............ ........... ........... ........... 1,279 1,279
N. Windowpane Flounder....................................... 177 66 na 66 ............ ........... ........... ........... 2 109
S. Windowpane Flounder....................................... 599 104 na 104 ............ ........... 209 ........... 37 249
Ocean Pout................................................... 155 137 na 137 ............ ........... ........... ........... 2 17
Atlantic Halibut............................................. 119 91 na 91 ............ ........... ........... ........... 25 4
Atlantic Wolffish............................................ 77 72 na 72 ............ ........... ........... ........... 1 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 26416]]

Table 6--Fishing Year 2017 Catch Limits
[mt, live weight]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Midwater State
Stock Total ACL groundfish Preliminary Preliminary Recreational trawl Scallop Small-mesh waters sub- Other sub-
fishery sector common pool fishery fishery fishery fisheries component component
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GB Cod....................................................... 1,197 997 975 22 ............ ........... ........... ........... 37 162
GOM Cod...................................................... 473 437 273 8 157 ........... ........... ........... 27 10
GB Haddock................................................... 46,017 44,599 44,204 395 ............ 450 ........... ........... 484 484
GOM Haddock.................................................. 4,285 4,177 2,979 39 1,160 42 ........... ........... 33 33
GB Yellowtail Flounder....................................... 343 278 273 5 ............ ........... 55 7 NA 4
SNE/MA Yellowtail Flounder................................... 255 187 145 37 ............ ........... 39 ........... 5 29
CC/GOM Yellowtail Flounder................................... 409 341 325 16 ............ ........... ........... ........... 43 26
American Plaice.............................................. 1,272 1,218 1,195 23 ............ ........... ........... ........... 27 27
Witch Flounder............................................... 441 370 361 8 ............ ........... ........... ........... 12 59
GB Winter Flounder........................................... 650 590 584 6 ............ ........... ........... ........... NA 60
GOM Winter Flounder.......................................... 776 639 604 35 ............ ........... ........... ........... 122 16
SNE/MA Winter Flounder....................................... 749 585 514 71 ............ ........... ........... ........... 70 94
Redfish...................................................... 10,514 10,183 10,124 59 ............ ........... ........... ........... 111 221
White Hake................................................... 3,448 3,340 3,315 24 ............ ........... ........... ........... 36 72
Pollock...................................................... 20,374 17,817 17,705 112 ............ ........... ........... ........... 1,279 1,279
N. Windowpane Flounder....................................... 177 66 na 66 ............ ........... ........... ........... 2 109
S. Windowpane Flounder....................................... 599 104 na 104 ............ ........... 209 ........... 37 249
Ocean Pout................................................... 155 137 na 137 ............ ........... ........... ........... 2 17
Atlantic Halibut............................................. 119 91 na 91 ............ ........... ........... ........... 25 4
Atlantic Wolffish............................................ 77 72 na 72 ............ ........... ........... ........... 1 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 7--Fishing Year 2018 Catch Limits
[mt, live weight]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Midwater State
Stock Total ACL groundfish Preliminary Preliminary Recreational trawl Scallop Small-mesh waters sub- Other sub-
fishery sector common pool fishery fishery fishery fisheries component component
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GB Cod....................................................... 1,197 997 975 22 ............ ........... ........... ........... 37 162
GOM Cod...................................................... 473 437 273 8 157 ........... ........... ........... 27 10
GB Haddock................................................... 74,065 71,783 71,147 636 ............ 724 ........... ........... 779 779
GOM Haddock.................................................. 4,550 4,436 3,163 39 1,231 45 ........... ........... 35 35
GB Yellowtail Flounder....................................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ............ ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
SNE/MA Yellowtail Flounder................................... 255 179 142 37 ............ ........... 38 ........... 5 29
CC/GOM Yellowtail Flounder................................... 409 341 325 16 ............ ........... ........... ........... 43 26
American Plaice.............................................. 1,337 1,280 1,256 24 ............ ........... ........... ........... 28 28
Witch Flounder............................................... 441 370 361 8 ............ ........... ........... ........... 12 59
GB Winter Flounder........................................... 650 590 584 6 ............ ........... ........... ........... NA 60
GOM Winter Flounder.......................................... 776 639 604 35 ............ ........... ........... ........... 122 16
SNE/MA Winter Flounder....................................... 749 585 514 71 ............ ........... ........... ........... 70 94
Redfish...................................................... 10,943 10,598 10,537 61 ............ ........... ........... ........... 115 230
White Hake................................................... 3,387 3,281 3,257 24 ............ ........... ........... ........... 36 71
Pollock...................................................... 20,374 17,817 17,705 112 ............ ........... ........... ........... 1,279 1,279
N. Windowpane Flounder....................................... 177 66 na 66 ............ ........... ........... ........... 2 109
S. Windowpane Flounder....................................... 599 104 na 104 ............ ........... 209 ........... 37 249
Ocean Pout................................................... 155 137 na 137 ............ ........... ........... ........... 2 17
Atlantic Halibut............................................. 119 91 na 91 ............ ........... ........... ........... 25 4
Atlantic Wolffish............................................ 77 72 na 72 ............ ........... ........... ........... 1 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 26417]]

Table 8--Common Pool Trimester Total Allowable Catches for Fishing Years 2016-2018
[mt, live weight]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2016 2017 2018
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stock Trimester Trimester Trimester Trimester Trimester Trimester Trimester Trimester Trimester
1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GB Cod............................. 3.3 4.9 5.0 5.4 8.0 8.2 5.4 8.0 8.2
GOM Cod............................ 2.1 2.7 2.8 2.1 2.7 2.8 2.1 2.7 2.8
GB Haddock......................... 123.5 151.0 183.0 106.6 130.3 158.0 171.6 209.8 254.3
GOM Haddock........................ 8.4 8.1 14.6 10.5 10.1 18.2 11.1 10.7 19.3
GB Yellowtail Flounder............. 0.8 1.2 2.1 1.0 1.6 2.8 ........... ........... ...........
SNE/MA Yellowtail Flounder......... 8.2 14.4 16.4 8.1 14.3 16.2 8.0 14.1 16.0
CC/GOM Yellowtail Flounder......... 5.5 5.5 4.7 5.5 5.5 4.7 5.5 5.5 4.7
American Plaice.................... 5.4 8.1 9.1 5.6 8.4 9.3 5.9 8.8 9.8
Witch Flounder..................... 2.3 2.6 3.6 2.3 2.6 3.6 2.3 2.6 3.6
GB Winter Flounder................. 0.5 1.4 3.9 0.5 1.4 3.9 0.5 1.4 3.9
GOM Winter Flounder................ 12.8 13.2 8.7 12.8 13.2 8.7 12.8 13.2 8.7
Redfish............................ 13.7 17.0 24.2 14.7 18.2 25.9 15.3 19.0 26.9
White Hake......................... 9.5 7.8 7.8 9.2 7.5 7.5 9.0 7.4 7.4
Pollock............................ 31.4 39.3 41.5 31.4 39.3 41.5 31.4 39.3 41.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: An empty cell indicates that no catch limit has been set yet for these stocks. These catch limits will be set in a future management action.

Table 9--Common Pool Incidental Catch Caps for Fishing Years 2016-2018
[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 ..............
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--Common Pool Incidental Catch Total Allowable Catches Distribution to Each Special Management Program
[Percentage]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Closed Area I Eastern U.S./
Stock Regular B days- hook gear CA haddock
at-sea (%) haddock (%) (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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--Common Pool Incidental Catch Total Allowable Catches for Each Special Management Program
[mt, live weight]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regular B days-at-sea Closed Area I hook gear haddock Eastern U.S./Canada haddock
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 26418]]

5. Default Catch Limits for the 2018 and 2019 Fishing Years

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 through July 31 of that fishing
year. If this value exceeds the Council's recommendation for the
upcoming fishing year, the default catch limit must be reduced to an
amount equal to the Council's recommendation. 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).
This rule announces default catch limits for the 2018 fishing year
for GB yellowtail flounder, and for the 2019 fishing year for all
remaining groundfish stocks. Default catch limits for the 2018 fishing
year for GB yellowtail flounder were inadvertently omitted in the
proposed rule, but are included here because the Council only
recommended specifications for the 2016 and 2017 fishing year for this
stock. The GB yellowtail flounder default specifications will become
effective May 1, 2018, through July 31, 2018, unless otherwise replaced
by final specifications. Similarly, for the remaining groundfish
stocks, default specifications will become effective May 1, 2019,
through July 31, 2019, unless otherwise replaced by final
specifications. The default catch limits for 2018 GB yellowtail
flounder are summarized in Table 12, and the default catch limits for
2019 for all other stocks are summarized in Table 13.
The preliminary sector and common pool sub-ACLs in Table 12 and 13
are based on existing 2015 sector rosters, and will be adjusted based
on rosters from the 2017 or 2018 fishing years. In addition, prior to
the start of the 2018 or 2019 fishing years, we will evaluate whether
any of the default catch limits announced in this rule exceed the
Council's recommendations for 2018 for GB yellowtail flounder, or for
2019 for the remaining groundfish stocks. If necessary, we will
announce adjustments prior to implementing the default specifications.
The midwater trawl fishery is the only non-groundfish fishery with
an inseason accountability measure for its groundfish allocation. When
the GOM or GB haddock catch cap specified for the default
specifications period is caught, the directed herring fishery would be
closed for all herring vessels fishing with midwater trawl gear for the
remainder of the default specifications time period, unless final
specifications were set prior to July 31. For other non-groundfish
fisheries that receive a groundfish allocation (e.g., scallop, small-
mesh), the default measures will not affect fishing operations because
these fisheries do not have inseason accountability measures.

Table 12--Fishing Year 2018 Default Specifications for GB Yellowtail Flounder
[mt, live weight]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Preliminary Preliminary
Stock U.S. ABC Total ACL Groundfish sector sub- common pool
sub-ACL ACL sub-ACL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GB Yellowtail Flounder.................... 39 39 32 31 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 13--Fishing Year 2019 Default Specifications
[mt, live weight]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Preliminary Preliminary Midwater
Stock U.S. ABC Total ACL Groundfish sector sub- common pool trawl
sub-ACL 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 ........... 64 ...........
S. Windowpane Flounder............ 292 218 218 ........... 218 ...........
Ocean Pout........................ 77 58 58 ........... 58 ...........
Atlantic Halibut.................. 74 55 55 ........... 55 ...........
Atlantic Wolffish................. 39 29 29 ........... 29 ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 26419]]

6. Groundfish At-Sea Monitoring Program Adjustments

This action adjusts the groundfish sector at-sea monitoring (ASM)
program to ensure the likelihood that discards for all groundfish
stocks are monitored at a 30-percent coefficient of variation (CV)
while making the program more cost-effective. 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
unable to pay for industry's portion of ASM costs for the 2016 fishing
year. A description of the existing industry-funded ASM program, and
historic determination of ASM coverage levels, is included in the
preamble to the proposed rule and is not repeated here.

ASM Program Adjustments

This final rule modifies 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. These adjustments provide
for setting target coverage levels sufficient to meet the 30-percent CV
requirement while making the program more cost effective and smooth the
fluctuations in the annual coverage level to provide additional
stability for the fishing industry. The changes in this action 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.
None of the adjustments implemented in this action remove our
obligation under Amendment 16 and Framework 48 to ensure sufficient ASM
coverage to achieve a 30-percent CV for all stocks, nor do they change
our requirement to monitor catch sufficiently to prevent overfishing.
The changes result in a target coverage level of 14 percent for the
2016 fishing year, including SBRM coverage paid in full by the
Northeast Fisheries Observer Program (NEFOP). Assuming NEFOP covers 4
percent of trips as it has in recent years, this action results in
sectors paying for ASM on approximately 10 percent of their vessels'
trips in 2016.
We have determined that all of the adjustments to the ASM program
in Framework 55 are consistent with the Northeast Multispecies FMP,
including Amendment 16 and Framework 48, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) and its National
Standards, and other applicable law. Amendment 16 stated that the
primary goal of at-sea monitors is to verify area fished, catch, and
discards by species and gear type. Amendment 16's overall goals
included achieving goals of economic efficiency and minimizing adverse
economic impacts on fishing communities to the extent practicable.
Framework 48 clarified the objectives of the ASM program and included
these goals. It further elaborated that target ASM coverage levels must
balance the goals and objectives of groundfish monitoring programs, the
National Standards, and the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act,
including, but not limited to, costs to us and sector vessels. In
making our determination of the annual ASM coverage level, we must take
into account the National Standards, in particular National Standards
1, 2, 5, 7, 8, and 9. These National Standards specifically speak to
preventing overfishing; using the best scientific information
available; minimizing costs and avoiding duplications where
practicable; efficiency in the use of fishery resources; taking into
account impacts on fishing communities and minimizing adverse economic
impacts to the extent practicable; and minimizing bycatch to the extent
practicable. The adjustments in Framework 55 are consistent with
Amendment 16, Framework 48, and the National Standards. They further
refine our ability to address groundfish monitoring objectives while
setting a more efficient target ASM coverage level.
The measures included in this action are reasonable, narrowly-
focused adjustments to the method used to calculate the target ASM
coverage level for 2016 and future fishing years. Rather than
specifying a fixed ASM coverage target for all future years, this
action refines the process we use for predicting the level of ASM
coverage necessary in a given year to achieve the 30-percent CV
requirement. While these adjustments result in a lower target ASM
coverage level for the 2016 fishing year compared to previous years,
there is no guarantee that the changes will result in reduced target
coverage levels in future fishing years (i.e., using the same methods
approved 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 for each stock, 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 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 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 level 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 14-percent coverage level 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 have been 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, a sizeable
portion of the SNE/MA yellowtail flounder 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 30-percent CV, the risk to these stocks of erring in the
discard estimates is very low.

[[Page 26420]]

Further, the ASM program is only a portion of overall sector
monitoring. The ASM program provides a basis for sector discard
estimation. For most allocated stocks, discards are only a small
portion of total catch. To monitor total sector catch, not just
discards, NMFS and sector managers rely on a number of data sources,
including NEFOP data, vessel monitoring systems (VMS), vessel trip
reports, VMS catch reports, and dealer reports, all subject to
extensive reconciliation processes. In addition, due to joint and
severable liability of sector members for certain violations, including
illegal discarding and misreporting of catch, there is a strong
incentive for sector members to self-enforce monitoring and reporting
requirements to ensure the sector has the most accurate information
available. To account for any lack of absolute precision and accuracy
in estimating overall catch by sector vessels, uncertainty buffers are
included when establishing commercial groundfish fishery catch limits.
In light of these requirements, and based on the available analyses of
groundfish monitoring programs, we conclude that the sector monitoring
requirements overall, including the adjustments to the method used to
set the ASM coverage level in conjunction with other available data,
are sufficient to monitor sector allocations and prevent overfishing.

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

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 Northeast Multispecies FMP. This action clarifies 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.

Removing ASM Coverage Requirement for Extra-Large Mesh Gillnet Trips

This Council action removes 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 an efficient
use of the limited resources for the ASM program. These trips will
still be subject to SBRM coverage through NEFOP, and monitoring
coverage levels would be consistent with non-sector trips that target
non-groundfish species.
This measure is intended to reduce ASM costs to sectors with
members that take this type of extra-large mesh gillnet trip. Reducing
ASM coverage for these trips allows resources to be used to monitor
trips that catch more groundfish, which could improve discard estimates
for directed groundfish trips. All other sector trips will still be
required to meet the 30-percent 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.
Because this subset of trips will have a different coverage level
than other sector trips in the SNE/MA and Inshore GB Broad Stock Areas,
we will create a 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 will allow us
to easily identify trips that are exempt from ASM coverage.
To minimize the possibility that this measure could 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 will be
exempt from the ASM coverage requirement. Vessels using extra-large
mesh gillnet declaring into the GOM or Offshore GB Broad Stock Areas
will 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
Day-At-Sea (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 levels 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 adopted in this
action supersedes the Framework 48 measure because it entirely removes
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.
The measure adopted in this action will use 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 were used to predict the target ASM

[[Page 26421]]

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). 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 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.

Filtering the Application of the 30-Percent CV Standard for Determining
Target Coverage

The measure adopted in this action will filter the application of
the 30-percent CV standard for determining target coverage levels
consistent with existing goals for the ASM program. Stocks that meet
all of the following criteria will not be used as the predictor for the
annual target ASM coverage level for all groundfish 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.
None of the adjustments in this Framework, including this measure,
eliminates the 30-percent CV standard or removes the Agency's
requirement to prevent overfishing. Rather, this measure is intended to
reflect the Council's policy that the target ASM coverage level should
be based on stocks that are overfished, are subject to overfishing, or
are more fully utilized--that is, 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 30-percent CV requirement for
2016.

Clarification of Groundfish Monitoring Goals and Objectives

As described in the preamble to the proposed rule, Framework
Adjustment 48 revised and clarified the goals and objectives of
groundfish monitoring programs to include, among other things,
improving the documentation of catch, reducing the cost of monitoring,
and providing additional data streams for stock assessments. However,
Framework 48 did not prioritize these goals and objectives. This
rulemaking clarifies that, consistent with Amendment 16, the primary
goal of the sector ASM program is to verify area fished, catch and
discards by species, and by gear type, and that when the Agency sets
the target coverage rate, it should consider achieving this goal in the
most cost effective manner practicable, which is consistent with
Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements and Amendment 16's overall goal. This
clarification of the program goals would not affect the target ASM
coverage levels.

7. Other Framework 55 Measures

Formation of Sustainable Harvest Sector II

This action approves the formation of a new sector, Sustainable
Harvest Sector II, for operation in the 2016 fishing year. Allocations
for Sustainable Harvest Sector II are included in section ``8. Sector
Measures for the 2016 Fishing Year'' based on enrollment information
submitted for this sector as of March 15, 2016. All permits enrolled in
this sector, and the vessels associated with those permits, have until
April 30, 2016, to withdraw from the sector and fish in the common pool
for the 2016 fishing year. Final 2016 sector allocations, based upon
final rosters, will be announced as soon as possible after the start of
the 2016 fishing year.

Modification of the Sector Approval Process

This action modifies the sector approval process so that new
sectors no longer have to be approved through an FMP amendment or
framework adjustment. Under the process implemented in this final rule,
new sectors must submit operations plans to both the Council and NMFS
no later than September 1 of the fishing year prior to the fishing year
they intend to begin operations. For example, if a new sector wishes to
operate for the 2017 fishing year starting on May 1, 2017, it must
submit its operations plan to the Council and NMFS no later than
September 1, 2016.
Once NMFS receives operations plans for any proposed sectors, it
will notify the Council in writing of its intent to consider approving
new sectors. NMFS will 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
will submit comments to NMFS in writing and indicate whether it
endorses the formation of the new sector. NMFS will then make a final
determination about new sector consistent with the Administrative
Procedure Act. NMFS will not initiate a rulemaking to make final
determinations on the formation of the new sector without the Council's
endorsement.
This modified process is intended to shorten the timeline for, and
increase the flexibility of, the sector approval process, while
maintaining the same opportunities for Council approval and public
involvement that the current process provides. No other aspects of the
sector formation process, including the content of sector operations
plan submissions, change as a result of this measure.

Modification to the Definition of the Haddock Separator Trawl

This action modifies requirements for 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 whether the gear is properly configured during vessel
inspections. This rule requires the separator panel to be a contrasting
color to the portions of the net that it separates in order to make

[[Page 26422]]

the panel highly visible. The new requirement is intended to improve
identification of the panel during vessel inspections, which is
expected to allow for faster inspections and more effective
enforcement. This modification does not affect rope or Ruhle trawls. We
are delaying effectiveness of this measure by 6 months, until October
31, 2016 to allow affected fishermen time to replace their separator
panels with contrasting netting.

Removal of Gulf of Maine Cod Recreational Possession Limit

This final rule removes the prohibition on recreational possession
of GOM cod that was established as part of the protection measures
implemented for this stock in Framework 53. We currently set
recreational management measures for GOM cod and haddock 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 Northeast Multispecies FMP. In removing the permanent
prohibition on recreational possession of GOM cod, this measure returns
the authority to us to set the recreational bag limit for GOM cod. We
are implementing the 2016 recreational management measures for GOM cod
and haddock in a separate, concurrent rulemaking to ensure the
recreational fishery does not exceed its allocations for these stocks.

Distribution of Eastern/Western GB Cod Sector Allocations

This rule allows sectors to ``convert'' their eastern GB cod
allocation into western GB cod allocation using the same process
previously implemented for GB haddock in Framework Adjustment 51 (77 FR
22421; April 22, 2014). This measure is intended to prevent the Western
U.S./Canada Area from prematurely closing to a sector before its
overall GB cod allocation has been caught, and provides additional
flexibility for sectors to harvest their GB cod allocations.
Sectors are allowed to 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 would notify the sector if the conversion is approved
or disapproved. Consistent with the existing GB haddock transfer
provision, we intend 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. If we
include additional criteria in the future as the basis for approving or
disapproving reallocation of these requests, we will do so consistent
with the Administrative Procedure Act. 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 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.
The total catch limit for GB cod includes the U.S. quota for
eastern GB cod, so this measure does 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 it's 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. Although we are approving
this measure, we recommend that the Council occasionally review this
measure in the future to ensure that it is still appropriate,
particularly if there is a drastic change in the stock assessment for
GB cod or its eastern management unit.

8. Sector Measures for the 2016 Fishing Year

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

Sector Operations Plans and Contracts

A total of 19 sectors are approved to operate in the 2016 fishing
year, including:
Seventeen sectors that had operations plans 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 was approved for formation as part
of Framework 55; and
Northeast Fishery Sector 12, which has not operated since
2013, but submitted an operations plan that is approved for the 2016
fishing year.
Copies of the operations plans and contracts, and the EA, for all
approved sectors are available at: https://www.regulations.gov and from
NMFS (see ADDRESSES).

Sector Allocations

Based on anticipated 2016 sector enrollment as of March 15, 2016,
we have projected sector allocations for the 2016 fishing year in this
final 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 the 2016 fishing year. We
will publish final sector annual catch entitlements (ACEs) and common
pool sub-ACL totals, 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 in this final rule are based on the 2016
fishing year 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 14. The information presented in Table
14 is the total percentage of the commercial sub-ACL each sector would
receive for

[[Page 26423]]

the 2016 fishing year, based on preliminary 2016 fishing year rosters.
Tables 15 and 16 show the allocations each sector would receive for the
2016 fishing year, based on their preliminary 2016 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 in Western GB. This rule approves 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. In the past, we have typically finalized
the prior year's catch during the summer months. We expect to finalize
2015 catch information consistent with this past practice. We will
allow sectors to transfer ACE from the 2015 fishing year for two weeks
of the fishing year following our 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 any remaining overages in the 2015 fishing year. We will
notify the Council and sector managers of this deadline in writing and
will announce this decision on our Web site at: https://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/.
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P

[[Page 26424]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR02MY16.002

[[Page 26425]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR02MY16.003

[[Page 26426]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR02MY16.004

BILLING CODE 3510-22-C

[[Page 26427]]

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 implemented in
this action, we evaluated whether the total potential catch in the 2016
fishing year would exceed the ABC if sectors carried over the maximum
10-percent of unused allocation from 2015 to 2016 (Table 17). Table 17
corrects errors presented in that table in the proposed rule, and
provides analysis of maximum carryover for pollock, which was omitted
from the table in the proposed rule. 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). However, 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 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 adopted in this rule, the de minimis
carryover amount for the 2016 fishing year will 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 accountability measure (AM), occurred.

Table 17--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.......................... 762 730 175 905 143
GOM cod......................... 500 473 20 493 -7
GB Haddock...................... 56,068 53,309 2,157 55,466 -602
GOM Haddock..................... 3,630 3,430 95 3,525 -105
SNE Yellowtail Flounder......... 267 255 46 301 34
CC/GOM Yellowtail Flounder...... 427 409 44 453 26
Plaice.......................... 1,297 1,235 138 1,373 76
Witch Flounder.................. 460 441 60 501 41
GB Winter Flounder.............. 668 650 187 837 169
GOM Winter Flounder............. 810 776 37 813 3
SNE/MA Winter Flounder.......... 780 749 115 864 84
Redfish......................... 10,338 9,837 1,097 10,934 596
White Hake...................... 3,754 3,572 431 4,003 249
Pollock......................... 21,312 20,374 1,363 21,737 425
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Northeast Multispecies 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 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 Northeast Multispecies 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 FMP,
all 19 sectors 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 are approving an additional sector exemption intended to
complement the Framework 55 measure that removes the ASM coverage
requirement for sector trips using 10-inch (25.4-cm) mesh, or larger,
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''). The sector exemption allows vessels on these
ASM-excluded sector trips to also target dogfish using 6.5-inch (16.5-
cm) mesh gillnet gear 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), or the Southern New England Dogfish Gillnet Exemption
Area (May 1 to October 31). Allowing sectors to participate in these
exempted fisheries for dogfish while simultaneously being excluded 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)
is intended to maximize the viability and profitability of their
businesses. The GB Fixed Gear Sector requested this exemption, and we
will grant this exemption to any sectors that modify their operations
plans to include this exemption. In this rule, we have also implemented
regulatory text to detail the process for amending sector operations
plans during the fishing year

[[Page 26428]]

in section ``10. Regulatory Corrections under Regional Administrator
Authority.''
We intend to monitor the use of this exemption using the existing
vessel trip report (VTR) requirement. Vessels are currently required to
send separate VTRs for each statistical area in which fishing occurred
on a trip, and for each gear type used on a trip. Thus, consistent with
the current regulations, vessels must submit a VTR to document catch on
the extra-large mesh portion of the trip, and a separate VTR for the
portion of the trip in which deploy the vessel deploys 6.5-inch (16.5-
in) mesh gillnet gear within the footprint and season of the existing
dogfish exempted areas. We will closely monitor this exemption to
evaluate whether additional reporting measures are necessary, and will
propose any changes to reporting requirements related to this measure
consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act. While sector trips
using this exemption will still be exempt from ASM coverage, any legal-
sized allocated groundfish stocks caught during these trips must be
landed and the associated landed weight (dealer or VTR) will be
deducted from the sector's ACE.

9. 2016 Fishing Year Annual Measures Under Regional Administrator
Authority

The Northeast Multispecies FMP gives us authority to implement
certain types of management measures for the common pool fishery, the
U.S./Canada Management Area, and Special Management Programs on an
annual basis, or as needed. This action implements a number of these
management measures for the 2016 fishing year. These measures are not
part of Framework 55, and were not specifically considered by the
Council. We are implementing them in conjunction with Framework 55
measures in this final rule for expediency purposes, and because they
relate to the catch limits considered in Framework 55.

Common Pool Trip Limits

The initial fishing year 2016 DAS possession limits and maximum
trip limits for common pool vessels are included in Tables 18 and 19.
These possession limits were developed after considering changes to the
common pool sub-ACLs and sector rosters from 2015 to 2016, catch rates
of each stock during 2015, and other available information. During the
fishing year, we will adjust possession and trip limits, as necessary,
to facilitate harvest or prevent overages, of common pool catch limits.
We have corrected an error in the per DAS limit for CC/GOM
yellowtail flounder in Table 18. Table 19 in the proposed rule listed
the CC/GOM yellowtail flounder limit as 75 lb (34 kg) per DAS. The
limit should have been listed as 750 lb (340 kg) per DAS. After re-
evaluating the common pool allocation, and in response to public
comment, we are also setting the initial GOM haddock trip limit at 200
lb (91 kg) per DAS, up to 600 lb (272 kg) per trip. We have determined
that this higher initial trip limit is warranted given the 175-percent
increase in the 2016 GOM haddock common pool sub-ACL, and will provide
increased opportunity for common pool vessels to target GOM haddock.

Table 18--Initial Common Pool Possession and Trip Limits for the 2016
Fishing Year
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stock 2016 trip limit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GB Cod (outside Eastern U.S./Canada 500 lb (227 kg) per DAS, up to
Area). 2,500 lb per (1,134 kg) per
trip.
GB Cod (inside Eastern U.S./Canada 100 lb (45 kg) per DAS, up to
Area). 500 lb (227 kg) per trip.
GOM Cod................................ 25 lb (11 kg) per DAS up to 100
lb (45 kg) per trip.
GB Haddock............................. 100,000 lb (45,359 kg) per
trip.
GOM Haddock............................ 200 lb (91 kg) per DAS up to
600 lb (272 kg) per trip.
GB Yellowtail Flounder................. 100 lb (45 kg) per trip.
SNE/MA Yellowtail Flounder............. 250 lb (113 kg) per DAS, up to
500 lb (227 kg) per trip.
CC/GOM Yellowtail Flounder............. 750 lb (340 kg) per DAS up to
1,500 lb (680 kg) per trip.
American plaice........................ 1,000 lb (454 kg) per trip.
Witch Flounder......................... 250 lb (113 kg) per trip.
GB Winter Flounder..................... 250 lb (113 kg) per trip.
GOM Winter Flounder.................... 2,000 lb (907 kg) per trip.
SNE/MA Winter Flounder................. 2,000 lb (907 kg) per DAS, up
to 4,000 lb (1,814 kg) per
trip.
Redfish................................ Unlimited.
White hake............................. 1,500 lb (680 kg) per trip.
Pollock................................ Unlimited.
Atlantic Halibut....................... 1 fish per trip.
Windowpane Flounder.................... Possession Prohibited.
Ocean Pout.............................
Atlantic Wolffish......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 19--Initial Cod Trips Limits for Handgear A, Handgear B, and Small
Vessel Category Permits for the 2016 Fishing Year
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Permit 2016 trip limit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Handgear A GOM Cod..................... 25 lb (11 kg) per trip.
Handgear A GB Cod...................... 300 lb (136 kg) per trip.
Handgear B GOM Cod..................... 25 lb (11 kg) per trip.
Handgear B GB Cod...................... 25 lb (11 kg) per trip.
Small Vessel Category.................. 300 lb (136 kg) of cod,
haddock, and yellowtail
flounder combined.
Maximum of 25 lb (11 kg) of GOM
cod and 100 lb (45 kg) of GOM
haddock within the 300-lb
combined trip limit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 26429]]

Closed Area II Yellowtail Flounder/Haddock Special Access Program

This action allocates zero trips for common pool vessels to target
yellowtail flounder within the Closed Area II Yellowtail Flounder/
Haddock Special Access Program (SAP) for fishing year 2016. Common pool
vessels can 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 are not 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 Northeast Multispecies 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 2016 fishing year 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 made using Magnuson-Stevens Act
section 305(d) authority to clarify regulatory intent, correct
references, inadvertent deletions, and other minor errors.
In Sec. 648.87(b)(4)(i)(G), text is revised 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), the definition of the Fippennies Ledge
Area is added after being inadvertently deleted in a previous action.
In Sec. 648.87(c)(4), regulatory text is added to detail the
process for amending sector operations plans during the fishing year.

Comments and Responses on Measures Proposed in the Framework 55
Proposed Rule

We received 35 comments during the comment period on the Framework
55 proposed rule. Public comments were submitted by the Council, two
state officials and one state office, five non-governmental
organizations, seven sectors, six commercial fishing organizations,
seven commercial fishermen, four recreational fishermen, and two
individuals. We requested specific comment on whether the Council's
proposed measures in Framework 55 are consistent with the Northeast
Multispecies FMP, as adjusted by Amendment 16 and Framework 48, the
Magnuson-Stevens Act and its National Standards, and other applicable
law. Responses to the comments received are below, and, when possible,
responses to similar comments on the proposed measures have been
consolidated.

Status Determination Criteria

Comment 1: The Council commented that the proposed rule did not
accurately summarize the assessment peer review's conclusion that the
overfishing status for GB cod and Atlantic halibut is unknown.
Response: The proposed rule noted that, based on the results of the
2015 assessment update for GB cod, the stock remains overfished and
that overfishing is occurring. For halibut, the proposed rule noted the
stock remains overfished and that overfishing is not occurring. These
final NMFS stock status determinations differ slightly from the
conclusions of the assessment peer review panel. Clarification of these
determinations for GB cod and halibut is provided in section ``2.
Status Determination Criteria,'' and is not repeated here.

2016 Fishing Year Shared U.S./Canada Quotas

Comment 2: Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) supported the proposed
2016 fishing year shared U.S./Canada quotas for eastern GB cod, eastern
GB haddock, and GB yellowtail flounder.
Response: We agree, and this final rule implements these quotas for
the 2016 fishing year. The 2016 shared U.S./Canada quotas are based on
the results of the 2015 TRAC assessment, which represents the best
scientific information available. These quotas are also consistent with
the recommendations of the TMGC and the SSC.

Catch Limits for the 2016-2018 Fishing Years

Comment 3: EDF supported all of the proposed catch limits for the
2016-2018 fishing years.
Response: We agree, and are implementing these catch limits for the
2016-2018 fishing years. These catch limits are based on the 2015 stock
assessments for these stocks, which represent the best scientific
information available, and are consistent with the SSC's
recommendations and conservation objectives. Assessment updates are
scheduled for 2017 for most groundfish stocks, which will provide the
opportunity to update the 2018 catch limits implemented in this final
rule, if warranted.
Comment 4: Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) opposed the proposed
2016-2018 catch limits. CLF commented that catch limits have failed to
effectively control fishing mortality for most groundfish stocks, and
that the proposed 2016-2018 catch limits will not prevent overfishing.
Response: We disagree. As noted above, the catch limits in
Framework 55 are consistent with the best scientific information
available, conservation objectives of the Northeast Multispecies FMP,
and applicable law. In each year since Amendment 16 was implemented in
2010, ACLs have not been exceeded for a majority of groundfish stocks,
with the exception of the windowpane flounder stocks in most of these
years, and GOM haddock in 2013. When ACLs have been exceeded, we have
implemented accountability measures (AMs) to prevent overfishing. We
continue to use the best scientific information available from our
stock assessments, trawl surveys, and catch history to set catch limits
for groundfish stocks. In response to stock assessments, quotas for
many poor-performing groundfish stocks have been substantially reduced.
For example, the catch limit for GOM cod has been reduced by 95 percent
since Amendment 16 was implemented. Although there are uncertainties in
the stock assessments, the SSC uses some strategies (e.g., holding the
ABC constant for a 3-year period if the stock is in poor condition) to
account for this uncertainty. Further, although 2018 catch limits are
adopted in this action, assessment updates are scheduled for most
groundfish stocks for fall 2017. These assessment updates will provide
the opportunity to update the 2018 catch limits adopted in this action
and ensure that catch limits continue to be set consistent with
conservation and

[[Page 26430]]

management objectives of the Northeast Multispecies FMP.
Comment 5: The Associated Fisheries of Maine (AFM) and
Massachusetts state representative Antonio Cabral expressed concern for
the GB cod catch limit and the economic impacts this quota reduction
will have on groundfish vessels. State Representative Cabral suggested
that the current 2015 catch limit should remain in place. AFM also
commented that the SSC should have been provided with projections for
stock growth under the status quo model in addition to the approach
recommended by the assessment peer review panel.
Response: We are adopting the Council's recommended GB cod ABC of
1,249 mt for the 2016-2018 fishing years. This ABC is a 95-percent
reduction compared to 2015, and available analysis indicates that GB
cod, as well as other key groundfish stocks, will likely constrain the
fishery in 2016. However, catch limits must first meet conservation
objectives and satisfy applicable Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements to
end overfishing and rebuild fish stocks, even if they result in
negative economic impacts. The Council selected the ABC recommended by
the SSC, which is the highest possible ABC allowed that will end
overfishing and allow some stock rebuilding.
The 2015 assessment review panel agreed that, in the event the 2015
assessment update for any stock was not accepted, an alternative
assessment approach to specify catch advice would be based on the most
recent 3-year average quota or catches. The assessment model for GB cod
was rejected as a basis for catch advice. However, the assessment peer
review panel was concerned that the status quo catch may not be
appropriate for GB cod given current stock status and resource survey
trends. As a result, the peer review panel recommended using an
approach that reduced recent average catch by the same proportion as
the most recent survey trend. The Council's Groundfish Plan Development
Team (PDT) provided the SSC with advice based on this approach and the
SSC used this approach, which represents the best scientific
information available, in developing its recommendation of 1,249 mt for
the 2016 to 2018 fishing years.
Comment 6: AFM commented that the U.S. assessment for GB cod and
the TRAC assessment for eastern GB cod should use the same assumptions
because it is a single stock.
Response: In advance of the 2015 groundfish assessments, we
anticipated conflicting results between the U.S. assessment for the
entire GB cod stock and the joint U.S.-Canada assessment for the shared
portion of this stock. The discrepancy is due to the use of different
models and natural mortality assumptions for each assessment, and would
have resulted in a U.S.-Canada estimate for the shared portion of the
stock that was larger than the U.S. estimate for the entire GB cod
stock. During the July 2015 TRAC assessment, the model for the shared
portion of the GB cod stock was accepted. However, the U.S. assessment
for the total GB cod stock was rejected due to a strong retrospective
pattern during the September 2015 groundfish assessments and instead,
the 2016 catch recommendation was based on a recent average catch
approach, described in the response to Comment 5.
Since the 2015 assessments, we have continued to work with Canadian
managers and scientists to resolve the differences in the assumptions
used in both assessments. The TRAC has been directed to provide 2017
catch advice that better balances the different assumptions used in the
GB cod and eastern GB cod assessment models. We are also planning to
assess the structure of the cod stocks (GB and GOM) in 2017. The
results of this analysis will help determine how many stocks there are,
based on the biology of the stock, and inform discussions on the
assumptions used in the GB cod and eastern GB cod assessment models.
All of this analysis will ultimately support future benchmark
assessments for the resulting cod stocks.
Comment 7: NEFS XIII and one commercial fisherman commented that
the Council should set GB cod management measures for party/charter
boats that reflect the large reductions in allocations that have been
imposed on the commercial fleet. The commercial fisherman suggested a
two- to five-fish bag limit and a spawning closure for April, May and
June.
Response: Management measures for the GB cod recreational fishery
were not considered by the Council in Framework 55. Amendment 16 only
adopted recreational allocations and AMs for GOM cod and haddock, and
did not establish recreational allocations or AMs for any other
groundfish stocks. Amendment 16 specified that a recreational
allocation would only be made if recreational catch, after accounting
for recreational state waters catch, is less than 5 percent of total
removals. At the time Amendment 16 was developed and implemented,
recreational catches of GB cod did not meet this standard, and no
allocation was made. For the purposes of catch accounting, Amendment 16
specified that recreational catch of GB cod would be included in the
other sub-component, which is the portion of the U.S. ABC expected to
be harvested by unidentified non-groundfish fishery components. The
other sub-component is not considered an allocation, and the fisheries
included in this component are not subject to specific AMs.
The majority of other subcomponent catch from 2010-2014 was
recreational landings; however, the Council has not yet considered
whether a recreational allocation for GB cod may be necessary. Creation
of a recreational allocation for this stock would have to be developed
through the Council in a future management action.
Comment 8: AFM, the Northeast Seafood Coalition (NSC), and the
Sustainable Groundfish Association (SGA) expressed concern for the
witch flounder ABC of 460 mt. AFM commented in opposition to the witch
flounder ABC. All three organizations noted that a higher ABC, equal to
the SSC's recommendation, could have been adopted. Both AFM and NSC
also noted that the difference in stock growth between the three witch
flounder ABC alternatives (399 mt; 460 mt; and 500 mt) is not
statistically significant.
Response: We are adopting the Council's recommended witch flounder
ABC of 460 mt for the 2016-2018 fishing years. A description of the SSC
and Council discussions regarding the witch flounder ABC, and the
development of various catch alternatives, is included in the preamble
to the proposed rule and Appendix I of the Framework 55 EA, and is not
repeated here.
The SSC's ABC recommendation is a limit that the Council may not
exceed when developing its final ABC recommendation. However, this does
not, and should not, preclude the Council from selecting an ABC that is
lower than the SSC's catch advice. Although the Council could have
selected a higher ABC equal to the SSC's recommendation of 500 mt, the
Council recommended a slightly lower ABC (460 mt) to balance the need
to provide flexibility for groundfish vessels while reducing the risk
of overfishing. The Council recommended this ABC after consideration of
stock growth, the probability of overfishing, and the economic impacts
of the various ABC alternatives. An ABC of 460 mt complies with
Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements, including achieving optimum yield
and taking into account the needs of fishing communities, without
compromising conservation objectives to prevent overfishing and rebuild
the stock.

[[Page 26431]]

As noted in the proposed rule, a benchmark assessment for witch
flounder is scheduled for fall of 2016. Assessment results would likely
be available in time to re-specify witch flounder catch limits for the
2017 fishing year, if necessary. Thus, although a 3-year constant ABC
is adopted in this action, the limits may only be in place for 1 year
and will be replaced if updated information shows it is necessary.
NSC correctly noted that the preamble to the proposed rule did not
correctly reference the December 2015 Council motion for the SSC to
reconsider the witch flounder ABC. The preamble inadvertently included
text from the Council's larger discussion leading to the final motion
that discussed consideration of incidental non-target catch of witch
flounder. However, the proposed rule included the correct ABC of 460
mt, and the error does not affect the rationale for the catch limit
adopted in this final rule.
Comment 9: NSC and the Fisheries Survival Fund (FSF) commented that
the 2015 assessment update for SNE/MA yellowtail flounder should have
been rejected, but supported the SSC's alternative ABC approach and the
final ABC recommendation. FSF also questioned why the GB cod assessment
was rejected but the SNE/MA yellowtail assessment was not. NSC supports
additional scientific examination of the datasets, model formulation,
and source of the retrospective error in this assessment.
Response: We are adopting a 267-mt ABC for SNE/MA yellowtail
flounder for the 2016-2018 fishing years, as recommended by the Council
and SSC. A description of the SSC discussion regarding the SNE/MA
yellowtail flounder ABC is included in the preamble to the proposed
rule, and is not repeated here.
When developing its ABC recommendations for SNE/MA yellowtail
flounder, the SSC discussed the disparate treatment of the GB cod and
SNE/MA yellowtail flounder assessment. The SSC noted that, although the
decisions for each assessment seem inconsistent, there are important
differences between the assessments that justified these respective
decisions. For example, the magnitude of the retrospective bias for
SNE/MA yellowtail flounder (106 percent) was substantially less than
for GB cod (240 percent). In addition, the SNE/MA yellowtail flounder
assessment performed better than the GB cod assessment by other
diagnostic measures. We agree that these are reasonable distinctions
that support the SSC's decisions. The SSC's discussion is summarized in
more detail in the SSC's November 17, 2017, memorandum to the Council
on 2016-2018 groundfish ABCs, included in Appendix I to the Framework
55 EA.
Although the SNE/MA yellowtail flounder assessment update was not
rejected, as supported by the commenters, the SSC acknowledged the poor
condition of the stock, substantial uncertainty in the assessment, and
procedural issues with the assessment terms of reference in
recommending a 3-year ABC of 267 mt. This ABC is based on a combination
of the assessment catch projections and an estimate of 2015 catch,
which appropriately balances the new understanding of this stock's
status and uncertainty in the assessment, while allowing as much
flexibility as practicable for groundfish and scallop vessels.
Because SNE/MA yellowtail flounder is now overfished, a rebuilding
program must be developed for the stock. We will work with the Council
to develop an appropriate rebuilding program, particularly in light of
some of the difficulties that the assessment results presented in
developing 2016-2018 catch advice.
Comment 10: Two recreational fishermen opposed to the 60-percent
increase in the GOM winter flounder ABC. One commented that the stock
is not healthy enough to justify a 60-percent quota increase. Both
commented that the recreational fishery will be harmed if the quota
increase causes more commercial fishing effort. One suggested a
commercial moratorium to allow the stock to rebuild.
Response: GOM winter flounder catch limits are based on the 2015
assessment for the stock. Overfishing is not occurring, but biomass
reference points are unavailable for this stock. The assessment model
relies on resource survey data, so current biomass and fishing
mortality estimates, as well as catch advice, tend to vary with
interannual variations in the survey. After declines in the survey
indices for the last 5 years (2009-2013), there was an increase in
survey catch in 2014, which resulted in the increase in catch advice.
The assessment review panel expressed concern that the recent
biomass estimates substantially decreased despite relatively low catch,
and noted that reasons for this apparent decline are unknown. In spite
of the uncertainties in the assessment, it was approved as a basis for
catch advice. Because catch advice fluctuates with area-swept
assessments, the assessment review panel recommended stabilizing catch
advice by averaging the area-swept fall and spring survey. This results
in an ABC of 745 mt. The PDT provided the SSC with this option, but the
SSC ultimately chose an ABC consistent with 75% FMSY.
NMFS disagrees that a commercial moratorium is necessary to limit
catch of GOM winter flounder. While this is a relatively large ABC
increase compared to 2015, recent catches have been well below the
overfishing threshold. In addition, available catch information
suggests that a majority of GOM winter flounder catch comes from the
same statistical areas as the majority of GOM cod catch. We expect that
the low catch limit for GOM cod will continue to limit catch of GOM
winter flounder.
Comment 11: One commercial fisherman suggested that NMFS increase
allowed landings of Atlantic halibut to three fish per trip for limited
access permits because it could convert discards to landings, maximize
value of quota, and support the collection of biological samples for
this stock.
Response: Framework 55 did not consider adjustments to the Atlantic
halibut trip limit. Adjustments of the trip limit for halibut are
outside of the scope of this action. Any changes to the trip limit
would have to be developed through the Council process in a future
management action.
Comment 12: A number of commenters expressed concern about specific
assessments and about the assessment process in general. Several
commenters proposed alternative data sources or assessment models.
Response: The Framework 55 proposed rule did not propose or solicit
public comment on assessment methods or processes. NMFS can only
approve, partially approve, or disapprove the status determination
criteria and catch limits proposed in this action based on an
evaluation of their compliance with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the
Northeast Multispecies FMP, and other applicable law.
The 2015 assessment updates replicated the methods recommended in
the most recent benchmark decisions, as modified by any subsequent
operational assessments or updates, with the intention of simply adding
years of data. Only minor flexibility in the assessment assumptions was
allowed to address emerging issues. Thus, the commenters' suggestions
for alternative data sources or assessment models would not have been
appropriate for the 2015 assessment updates.
The NEFSC has made significant efforts over the past few years to

[[Page 26432]]

increase transparency and promote an understanding of the assessment
process. These efforts include outreach meetings, data workshops, and
providing informational materials in advance of the peer review
meetings. We encourage the commenters to continue to engage with the
NEFSC to ensure that their concerns and suggestions are raised as early
in the process as possible.
Comment 13: The Council identified a transcription error in the
groundfish sub-ACL for GB cod for 2017 and 2018 in its February 19,
2016, submission of the Framework 55 EA. This error is also reflected
in Tables 6 and 7 in the proposed rule.
Response: We have corrected this error in Tables 6 and 7 under
section ``4. Catch Limits for the 2016-2018 Fishing Years.'' The
groundfish sub-ACL was incorrectly listed as 608 mt for both years. It
should have been listed as 997 mt.

Default Catch Limits for the 2019 Fishing Year

Comment 14: The Council noted that the transcription error in the
GB cod sub-ACL (see Comment 13) was carried into the default
specifications for the 2019 fishing year. The Council also noted that
the proposed rule inadvertently omitted default specifications for 2018
for GB yellowtail flounder.
Response: We have corrected the omission of the GB yellowtail
flounder default specifications under section ``5. Default Catch Limits
for the 2018 and 2019 Fishing Years.'' Default catch limits for the
2018 fishing year for GB yellowtail flounder were inadvertently omitted
in the proposed rule because the Council only recommended
specifications for the 2016 and 2017 fishing year for this stock. This
error has been corrected here. The transcription error in the GB cod
groundfish sub-ACL did not affect the 2019 default specifications
presented in the proposed rule for this stock.

Groundfish At-Sea Monitoring Program Adjustments

Comment 15: AFM, the SHS, New Hampshire Governor Margaret Wood
Hassan, the Gloucester Fisheries Commission (GFC), the SGA, the
Northeast Seafood Coalition, NEFS II, NEFS VII, NEFS VIII, NEFS XII,
NEFS XIII, and the Massachusetts Office of the Attorney General
commented in support of the changes to the ASM program.
Response: We agree, and are implementing the full set of proposed
changes to the ASM program. This action does not specify a fixed ASM
coverage target for all future years, and is not approving a lower
target ASM coverage level in perpetuity. Rather, using information
gained from past ASM coverage levels, this action refines the process
we use for predicting the level of ASM coverage necessary in a given
year to achieve the required 30-percent CV. In comparison to previous
years, the refinements made in this action could lead to lower or
higher ASM coverage target rates in future years.
Based on these changes, this rule also announces our determination
that the target ASM coverage level is 14 percent (ASM + NEFOP observer
coverage) for the 2016 fishing year. This level of coverage provides a
reliable estimate of overall catch by sectors to monitor annual catch
levels in the most cost-effective means practicable. This
interpretation is justified in light of the requirement for
conservation and management measures to be consistent with all National
Standards, specifically, National Standards 2, 5, 7, and 8, which
speak, respectively, to the need to use the best scientific information
available; efficiency in the use of fishery resources; the need to
minimize costs and avoid unnecessary duplication, where practicable;
and the need to take into account impacts on fishing communities and
minimize adverse economic impacts, to the extent practicable. We have
conducted analyses, and considered both precision and accuracy issues
in determining the appropriate level of coverage that provides a
reliable estimate of overall catch while reducing the cost burden to
sectors and NMFS. A more detailed summary of the supporting analyses,
and an explanation and justification supporting our determination that
an at-sea coverage level of 14 percent (10 percent ASM + 4 percent
NEFOP) is sufficient is contained in the EA.
Comment 16: The Georges Bank Cod Fixed Gear Sector, the SGA, and
The Nature Conservancy (TNC) commented in support of the alternative to
exempt extra-large mesh gillnet trips in Broad Stock Areas 2 and 4 from
ASM coverage. The NSC, the GFC, NEFS II, NEFS VII, NEFS VIII, NEFS XII,
NEFS XIII also support this measure, provided that this change does not
increase coverage levels on other sector trips.
Response: We agree, and are adopting this alternative as proposed.
These trips have negligible groundfish catch and are receiving the same
level of coverage as other sector trips, with no resultant benefit to
the overall precision and accuracy of groundfish discard estimates. By
exempting these trips from ASM coverage, those resources can be
directed to cover trips with meaningful catches of groundfish and,
thereby, improve the estimates of groundfish discards.
These extra-large mesh gillnet sector trips will be excluded from
the trips considered in setting and monitoring ASM coverage levels.
However, we are not yet able to determine how removing the ASM coverage
requirement from certain trips will impact the overall variability of
the remaining population of sector trips, or how it will affect the
coverage necessary to meet the 30-percent CV requirement in future
years. The economic impact section of the EA (Section 7.4) discusses
this uncertainty, and notes that, if ASM coverage were to be shifted
onto other components of the fleet, there would be no overall cost
savings to sectors. Nonetheless, we are approving this measure because
it prioritizes limited resources and monitoring coverage for trips that
actually catch groundfish.
Comment 17: Many commenters questioned the appropriateness of the
ASM program's 30-percent CV precision standard. EDF, Oceana, and TNC
urge NMFS to disapprove the ASM measures in Framework 55, and implement
higher coverage levels they contend are necessary to precisely and
accurately monitor catch and discards. They encourage us to continue to
work with the Council to develop measures to monitor the fishery based
on the best available science and to assure accountability to prevent
overfishing. Cape Cod Commercial Fishermen's Alliance and Penobscot
East Resource Center did not comment in detail on the groundfish
monitoring program adjustments proposed in Framework 55, but expressed
their view that it is necessary to work towards an effective and
affordable groundfish monitoring program that meets the goals and
objectives of the Northeast Multispecies FMP.
Response: We are approving the measures in Framework 55. Framework
55 only includes administrative modifications to the ASM program using
information gained from ASM program performance in the past 5 years,
and was narrowly focused on adjusting the method used to set the target
coverage level for the industry-funded ASM program. The Council has
identified groundfish monitoring as a priority for 2016, and the PDT is
already working on analysis to inform more extensive changes to the
groundfish monitoring program (e.g., possibly adjusting the 30-percent
CV precision standard) in a future action. We note that to administer
the monitoring program each year, we set target ASM

[[Page 26433]]

coverage levels to achieve monitoring program requirements. Consistent
with this practice, we would have implemented a 17-percent target ASM
coverage level had Framework 55 been disapproved, using several of the
administrative approaches analyzed in this action, namely the removal
of our internal standard of monitoring 80 percent of discards at a 30-
percent CV and using multiple years of data to determine target ASM
coverage levels. We support the Council's efforts to evaluate
groundfish monitoring programs through our membership on the Groundfish
PDT, the Groundfish Committee, and the Council.
Comment 18: TNC opposed changes to the method used to set the
target coverage level for the industry-funded ASM program, citing the
executive summary in the draft EA, which stated that we will likely
miss the 30-percent CV standard.
Response: We clarify that we are approving a method to set the
target ASM coverage level, but we are not changing the requirements to
achieve the 30-percent CV precision standard and meet the goals and
objectives of the monitoring program. As stated in the preamble to the
proposed rule, we expect that the Framework 55 changes in the method
used to set the ASM target coverage level will result in target
coverage levels that will meet the 30-percent CV precision standard and
will reliably estimate catch. We also expect that the 2016 target
coverage level of 14 percent announced in this action will achieve
results consistent with prior years.
The commenter cites an inaccurate portrayal of the intent of the
measures contained in the text of the draft version of the EA. The text
states that we will likely miss the 30-percent CV standard, but these
measures were always intended to meet the 30-percent CV standard and
the monitoring goals and objectives of the FMP. We released an advance
draft of the EA to support the publication of the proposed rule prior
to completing our full review process. We are not required to finalize
the EA at the proposed rule stage, but have routinely published draft
EAs in the past to allow the public time to consider and comment on the
full range of potential impacts of actions under consideration in our
region. We have clarified our intent for these measures in our
development the final EA. Our proposed rule and this final rule provide
the analysis for our conclusion that we expect the method used to set
the target ASM coverage level, and the 14-percent 2016 target coverage
level, to meet the 30-percent CV precision standard specified in the
Northeast Multispecies FMP. We have not changed our requirement to
ensure that the target coverage level will achieve the required CV
standard. If the target coverage level resulting from this method was
too low to ensure we would achieve the 30-percent CV standard, we would
set a different target coverage level to achieve that standard.
Comment 19: Oceana, EDF, and TNC questioned the effectiveness of
the 30-percent CV standard as a mechanism for setting monitoring
levels, and commented that this precision standard may not accurately
determine sector catch and ACE utilization. These commenters noted the
worsening retrospective patterns in the assessments, and that
overfishing occurred every year that the ASM program met the 30-percent
CV standard, even as reported landings and discards stayed below ACE
levels. EDF highlighted that lower coverage levels will undermine stock
assessments and lead to overfishing, which violates National Standard
1. EDF and Oceana noted that the changes included in Framework 55
violate our obligation under the Magnuson-Stevens Act to ``assess and
specify the present . . . condition of the fishery'' and ``assess the
amount and type of bycatch'' occurring in the fishery. EDF also
asserted that additional reporting mechanisms meant to support the ASM
program, such as vessel and dealer reports, and enforcement mechanisms,
are not working.
Response: Framework 55 does not alter Amendment 16's primary goal
for ASM monitoring to verify area fished, catch, and discards by
species, by gear type. Rather, it underscores it. Framework 55 further
clarifies that Amendment 16's goals and objectives as identified in
Framework 48 must meet this goal by the most cost-efficient means
practicable. This is consistent with the Magnuson-Steven Act
requirement to take into account cost considerations without
compromising conservation. To effectuate this goal, the specific ASM
measures included in Framework 55 are narrowly focused on adjusting the
method used to set the target coverage level for the industry-funded
ASM program in order to meet the 30-percent CV requirement, among the
other existing goals and objectives of the program. During the
development of Framework 55, we advised the Council that any larger
changes to the ASM program would likely require an amendment rather
than a framework adjustment.
Framework 48's goals and objectives for the ASM program include
performing periodic reviews of the monitoring program's effectiveness.
Framework 55 does not change this goal, and we agree with the
commenters that review should include evaluating the groundfish
monitoring program beyond this action, including whether the 30-percent
CV standard is the most appropriate way to set ASM coverage levels.
NMFS, and now industry, are both devoting considerable financial
resources to achieving this precision standard, and it is important to
fully consider whether this expenditure is appropriate to meet the
groundfish monitoring goals and objectives. Further evaluation is also
warranted in light of the 2015 assessment results, potential changes in
the fishery since 2010, and now that the sector program has been
operational for over 5 years. As noted in previous responses to
comments, this evaluation must occur through the Council, and is
already underway.
We agree with the commenters that an evaluation of the ASM program
must include a review of its performance for providing data for stock
assessments and reducing management and/or biological uncertainty,
along with all of the other goals and objectives identified by
Framework 48. The CV standard, however, only sets the level of
precision that will be achieved through catch sampling. A precision
standard for at-sea monitoring by itself cannot account for the
entirety of scientific and management uncertainty. For example, we
recognize that overfishing is still occurring for many groundfish
stocks despite the fact that we have met the CV standard, and ACL
overages have not occurred. A 2013 NMFS publication (Methot, R. 2013)
discusses this possibility, and explains ``that scientific and
management uncertainty mean that simply setting targets below limits
does not necessarily prevent the stock from experiencing overfishing''
(p. 63). The overfishing status of a stock can be based on an estimate
of fishing mortality compared to the threshold, or catch being greater
than OFL. However, because the fishing mortality threshold and the OFL
are based on estimates, they cannot perfectly reflect what is happening
to the fish stock. Further, overfishing can be caused by a number of
factors, including a lack of effective management controls and
scientific uncertainty in fishing mortality estimates or environmental
factors. As is the case with many groundfish stocks, new scientific
information and updated assessments have changed the perception of
stock status from when catch limits were specified.
As the commenters point out, achieving a certain level of precision

[[Page 26434]]

around the discard estimate does not guarantee that overfishing will
not occur. Rather, the suite of management measures used for any
fishery is designed to minimize the probability that overfishing
occurs. Assuming that the ACLs are set correctly, the groundfish sector
program includes an array of accountability measures beyond monitoring,
such as restricted gear areas and common pool trip limits. These
measures are regularly evaluated and adjusted in response to updated
scientific information to ensure they are meeting their intended goal.
The buffer between the OFL and ABC can also be adjusted to better
account for scientific uncertainty, and the SSC frequently uses this
approach to set groundfish catch limits. We will continue to use the
information in the assessments to adjust catch limits and management
measures to prevent overfishing.
EDF and Oceana noted that the changes included in Framework 55
violate our obligation under the Magnuson-Stevens Act to ``assess and
specify the present . . . condition of the fishery'' and ``assess the
amount and type of bycatch'' occurring in the fishery. However this
requirement is satisfied by the Greater Atlantic Region SBRM, not the
ASM program. The sector ASM program is a separate program with distinct
goals. Providing additional data for stock assessments is one of the
goals of groundfish monitoring programs and is considered when
evaluating the ASM program and setting the target coverage level. This
statement is not meant to diminish the information benefits the ASM
program provides for stock assessments, but is meant to clarify that
the changes to the ASM program in Framework 55 are not in violation of
our SBRM requirements under the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
Last, we do not use the CV standard alone to reliably estimate
catch. There are many reporting requirements that vessels adhere to,
and there are strong incentives for vessels to report accurately.
Enforcing reporting requirements is currently a high priority for the
Northeast Division of the NOAA Office of Law Enforcement, and the
threat of a civil or criminal enforcement action creates a strong
incentive for compliance. There is also a strong incentive for sectors
to promote internal compliance, because a sector and the fishing
businesses in a sector can be held jointly and severally liable for
overages and misreporting of catch, including both landings and
discards. The percent of overall catch composed of discards has a
larger impact on monitoring ACLs than the 30-percent CV standard.
Landings remain the largest portion of catch for allocated stocks and
are reported by dealers, vessels, and sectors.
Despite uncertainty that exists in assessments and the degree of
imprecision in monitoring inherent in the 30-percent CV standard, we
will continue to use the information in the assessments to adjust catch
limits and management measures to prevent overfishing. National
Standard Guidelines recognize that scientific and management
uncertainty exists and requires consideration of, and accounting for,
such uncertainty when setting catch limits.
To that end, significant additional uncertainty buffers are
established in the setting of ACLs that help make up for any lack of
absolute precision and accuracy in estimating overall catch by sector
vessels. Although the commenters focus on uncertainties in assessments
that merit consideration when evaluating the information provided by
the ASM program in future actions, the commenters provide no concrete
evidence of a link between Framework 55's coverage target adjustments
to our ability to adequately monitor sector catch and provide
information sufficient for assessments. We conclude that sector
monitoring requirements overall, including the adjustments to the
method used to set the ASM coverage level, are sufficient to monitor
sector ACE and prevent overfishing.
Comment 20: Oceana, EDF, TNC, and PERC expressed fear that the ASM
coverage level for 2016 will be too low, will incentivize illegal
discards, and will create harmful bias. Oceana and EDF cited numerous
Groundfish PDT analyses that identified the likelihood of observer bias
(i.e., behavioral differences between fishing trips with or without an
observer). EDF argued that lease prices and recent cod discard rates
are evidence that discarding is high in the groundfish fishery, and is
likely resulting in catch in excess of the annual catch limits.
Response: The ASM portion of sector monitoring program relies on
the assumption that calculated discard rates on observed trips can be
applied to unobserved trips. However, if vessel operators discard fish
at higher rates when there are no observers on board, then catch (and
overall mortality of fish) will be higher than estimated. For the 2013-
2015 fishing years, we have published a summary report explaining and
justifying the ASM coverage level needed to monitor catch levels for
each year (https://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/aps/monitoring/nemultispecies.html). The summary report includes the most
recent considerations of accuracy related to the ASM program, both
completed during the 2012 fishing year. Oceana and EDF both cite the
major analyses on accuracy done in support of ASM coverage levels,
namely a NMFS analysis evaluating the possibility of an observer effect
in monitoring discards in the groundfish fishery, and a NMFS analysis
on the probability of exceeding catch limits based on a hypothetical
increase in the rate of discarding on unobserved trips. Overall, the
available analyses suggest that potential biases in ASM data do not
negate the utility of the discard estimates provided by the program.
EDF cites our analysis of at-sea monitoring requirements for the
Northeast multispecies sector fishery, but draws the unsupported
conclusion that discarding increases on unobserved trips. An analysis
contained in that report examined if there were indications of an
observer effect on groundfish trips that could result in either
systematic or localized biases, which would suggest that observer data
used to generate discard estimates may not be representative. This
study evaluated whether differences in performance occur when a vessel
carried an observer and when it did not. The study found evidence for
some differences in fishing behavior between observed and unobserved
groundfish trips; however, the analysis could not conclude whether the
apparent differences would necessarily result in discard rates on
unobserved trips that are different (higher or lower) than on observed
trips. If the discard rate is unchanged, then the apparent differences
would not affect total discard estimates.
Oceana cited another NFMS analysis, included in the same ASM
summary report, which found that even if there is some bias that
increases unreported discards, the discard rate for the groundfish
sector trips studied would need to be five to ten times higher on
unobserved trips to appreciably increase the risk for total catch to
exceed the ABC or OFL. None of the analyses conducted to date suggest
behavioral differences on observed versus unobserved trips of this
magnitude. Neither commenter provides evidence of the magnitude of
potential discarding. The analysis concluded that, given that landings
are below the total sector ACLs, setting a monitoring coverage level
that meets the 30-percent CV requirement at the stock level provides a
reasonable level of certainty that observer bias would have to be much
larger than plausible before the risk of exceeding the OFL would exceed

[[Page 26435]]

5 percent. Based on the discussion in these analyses, we have not
recommended an adjustment to the target ASM coverage level, or to other
monitoring requirements, to address bias in this and past fishing years
because there is no scientific information available at this time to
estimate a reliable adjustment factor.
None of the commenters provided information showing that a
reduction in the target coverage level will coincide with or cause
increased bias involving increased discards on unobserved trips, or the
magnitude of any such increased discards. EDF commented that there is
an economic incentive for a vessel to fish differently when an observer
is on board. There may be economic incentives to discard stocks with
low catch limits to avoid reaching those limits. It is unclear,
however, whether and how this incentive changes as target monitoring
levels increase or decrease, or when a vessel is required to pay for an
at-sea monitor's services and warrants further review when evaluating
the ASM program. For example, at the June 2015 Council meeting during
the development of Framework 55, EDF commented that observer bias was
due to NMFS subsidizing ASM costs for industry since 2010. Because
sectors have not had to pay for ASM, EDF noted the incentive for bias
exists to catch less on observed trips. This argument posits that the
bias incentive occurs when fishermen do not pay for ASM services,
presumably because they can better afford a trip that avoids discarding
and results in less catch. Based on this argument, one may equally
infer that, when industry pays for ASM, their economic incentive to
fish differently on monitored trips may change. In the absence of any
studies or analysis to support these conclusions, or that show the
magnitude of any such incentives and changed behavior, we have no
reasonable basis for setting different coverage target rates or using a
different method than provided for in this action. We have determined
that changes to the method used to set the target ASM coverage level,
and the resulting 14-percent coverage level set for fishing year 2016,
are expected to reach a 30-percent CV, and will provide accurate and
precise enough discard estimates to monitor sector ACEs and ACLs.
Finally, EDF and TNC argue that the low GOM cod catch and ACE lease
price in the 2015 fishing year is evidence that vessels are illegally
discarding GOM cod on unobserved trips. This allegation is based on
many assumptions about the abundance, distribution, and catchability of
GOM cod, and the ability of vessels to avoid GOM cod. EDF and TNC
ignore the simplest logical deduction, that if the stock assessment has
accurately characterized the abundance of GOM cod as truly low and the
population as highly concentrated, and that vessels are successfully
avoiding GOM cod, then we would expect to see a decline in catch and
resultant decrease in ACE leasing price.
Amendment 16 specified that ASM coverage levels should be less than
100 percent, which requires estimating the discard portion of catch,
and thus total catch. While it is required that the overall ASM
coverage level must meet at least a 30-percent CV precision standard,
that level of coverage also must minimize effects of potential
monitoring bias to the extent practicable while maintaining as much
flexibility as possible to enhance fleet viability. In order to assure
perfect accuracy (i.e., zero bias), 100-percent observer coverage would
be required. However, complete coverage is not only prohibited by
Amendment 16, but would be expensive, not in the public interest, and
inconsistent with National Standards 5, 7, and 8.
Ultimately, the target ASM coverage level should meet the 30-
percent CV standard and provide confidence that the overall catch
estimate is accurate enough to ensure that sector fishing activities
are consistent with National Standard 1 requirements to prevent
overfishing while achieving on a continuing basis optimum yield from
each fishery. We have determined that applying the method we approve in
this action to set the 2016 target coverage level of 14 percent will
meet this goal. Our determination incorporates all of our sector
monitoring and reporting requirements, including obligations on sectors
to self-monitor and self-report, which is linked to Agency monitoring.
For the most part, the commenters have generally asserted that this
system and level of monitoring is not adequate without providing any
specific justification or information to support their assertion. As
noted in other responses, this action does not specify a fixed ASM
coverage target for all future years, and only refines the process we
use for predicting the level of ASM coverage necessary in a given year
to achieve the 30-percent CV requirement. In comparison to previous
years, the refinements made in this action could lead to lower, or
higher, ASM coverage target rates in future years.
We agree that it would be beneficial to complete additional
analysis of the potential sources of bias. However, it is difficult to
quantify bias, or make definitive conclusions on these types of
analyses, because data must be used to infer activity that may not be
observed or documented. Available analyses suggest that bias is not
likely to undermine our ability to monitor ACLs. We support the
continued improvement of available analyses, especially in light of the
recent declines in groundfish catch limits, and expect that as
additional data become available, these types of analyses will improve.
Comment 21: EDF commented that the only accountability measure in
the groundfish fishery is the pound-for-pound payback provision.
Response: Framework 55 did not address groundfish accountability
measures, and this comment is outside the scope of this action.
Nonetheless, we disagree that the only accountability measure in the
groundfish fishery is the pound-for-pound payback provision. That
provision is only one of a complex set of proactive and reactive
accountability measures designed to prevent overfishing. These measures
were implemented in Amendment 16, and modified through a number of
subsequent framework adjustments. The accountability measures include
inseason closures and possession limit adjustments, area closures, and
selective gear requirements in addition to the pound-for-pound payback
provision. These measures are required to comply with the Magnuson-
Stevens Act and reflect the spectrum of AMs recognized in the National
Standard 1 guidelines.
Comment 22: CLF suggests abandoning ASM and relying instead on only
VTRs.
Response: We disagree. We have determined the adjustments to the
method used to calculate the target ASM coverage level will result in
coverage levels that will provide information comparable to past years.
In addition, we expect the 14-percent target ASM coverage level
approved in this action will achieve the 30-percent CV requirement. As
noted elsewhere in our responses, the ASM program is only one component
of a larger sector monitoring system designed to ensure that sector
catch stays below ACLs. As a result, the overall system, including
NEFOP coverage, ASM, VTRs, dealer reports, and other factors, provides
benefits over relying only on VTRs for catch monitoring.
Comment 23: EDF comments that low levels of monitoring will have a
direct negative impact on enforcement.
Response: We disagree that ASM levels will negatively affect
enforcement. ASM is not part of our enforcement program. At-sea
monitors are aboard vessels strictly for data

[[Page 26436]]

collection. To the extent that the presence of at-sea monitors on
fishing trips encourages compliance, it is a benefit, but is not the
goal or objective of placing monitors aboard vessels.
Comment 24: EDF claims that ASM reductions will have the greatest
impact on non-allocated stocks.
Response: We agree that reductions in ASM coverage levels may
disproportionately affect our catch estimates for non-allocated stocks
because catch for these stocks is mostly comprised of discards.
However, we expect that the approved adjustments to the method used to
calculate the target ASM coverage level and the resulting 14-percent
target coverage level for 2016 announced in this action will achieve
the required 30-percent CV on discard estimates for all groundfish
stocks. Looking back at the coverage levels required to meet a 30-
percent CV for the five non-allocated stocks, coverage levels under
roughly 8 percent would have resulted in a 30-percent CV in each year
from 2010 to 2014. In each year from 2010 to 2014, catch of Atlantic
halibut, ocean pout, and wolffish was below the ACL. The Council
addressed ACL overages for the windowpane flounder stocks with reactive
accountability measures by requiring the use of selective trawl gear.
Nonetheless, because these stocks have the potential to be most
impacted by the changes in Framework 55, they will need to be a focal
point of consideration of the Council's efforts to revise groundfish
monitoring programs.
Comment 25: EDF recommends increasing management uncertainty
buffers to account for the additional uncertainty that will result from
lower ASM coverage levels. They allege that reducing ASM without
adjusting uncertainty buffers violates the Magnuson-Stevens Act and is
arbitrary and capricious. They assert that the Agency can no longer
rely on the assumption that discarding is minimal, and that observer
bias can be estimated to an effect of nearly zero as justification for
not adjusting management uncertainty buffers.
Response: Each time catch limits are set, the PDT reviews the
management uncertainty buffers used for each fishery component and
recommends necessary adjustments. For Framework 55, the PDT reviewed
the current management uncertainty buffers, as well as previous
analysis completed in support of Framework 50.
Both the PDT and the Council have periodically discussed the
possibility of increasing the buffers due to evidence that fishing
behavior may differ on observed and unobserved trips, possibly
resulting in an underestimate of discards. However, to date, there is
no scientific basis for determining either the direction or magnitude
of bias sufficient for the PDT to estimate the amount of suspected bias
on unobserved trips. As a result the PDT has been unable to determine
whether any adjustments to the existing buffers would be warranted to
address potential bias. The PDT concluded that no new information is
available at this time that would warrant any changes to the buffers
previously adopted in Framework 50, and recommended no changes to the
management uncertainty.
The commenters provide no quantitative evidence of a specific
amount of unobserved discarding, and do not suggest a method to
quantify bias in order to adjust the management uncertainty buffer. As
stated above, we agree that it would be beneficial to complete
additional analysis of the potential sources, magnitude, and direction
of bias. However, it is difficult to quantify bias, or make definitive
conclusions on these types of analyses, since data must be used to
infer activity that may not be observed or documented. Thus, at this
time, we are not able to reasonably determine an appropriate adjustment
to the management uncertainty buffer than is already used. Using the
best scientific information available is neither arbitrary, nor
capricious, but is consistent with the National Standards.
Comment 26: Commenters make various claims about the economic
analysis of the ASM program. Oceana claims that, though the adjustments
in Framework 55 are built on the Council's desire to control ASM costs,
the economic analysis shows that the estimated declines in groundfish
revenues on groundfish trips when comparing both the ``No Action''
alternative (41 percent target ASM coverage) to the adjusted program
(14 percent target ASM coverage) are virtually identical when compared
to predicted groundfish revenues for the 2015 fishing year. They
conclude that substantial changes to the ASM program to minimize costs
are not even achieving that goal. EDF points out that the cost savings
of adjusting the ASM program as proposed is overestimated because
sectors are able to negotiate lower rates for ASM. Finally, EDF notes
that the IRFA and economic analysis fail to analyze the cost of lower
monitoring in the potential form of overfishing or on the leasing
market.
Response: Oceana correctly notes that the model results indicate
that gross revenues are predicted to be essentially unchanged when
comparing 14 percent ASM coverage to 41 percent ASM coverage. This does
not, however, reflect the change in costs or profitability of those
revenues. Section 7.4 of the EA contains the economic analysis done in
support of this action; details of the economic analysis are not
repeated here. The model is intended to capture fishery-wide behavior
changes related to both catch limits and other management changes such
as ASM coverage levels, and can overestimate landings in a number of
circumstances. The EA highlights that the predicted groundfish revenue
is nearly identical when there is 14 percent ASM coverage ($52.4
million) and 41 percent ASM coverage ($52.3 million), and attributes
this finding to the model assumptions. The economic model simulates
fishing activity until all quotas have been reached in all broad stock
areas, and assumes that ACE flows freely from lessor to lessee (which
underestimates trips costs). Within the model, trips that become
unprofitable due to ASM costs are not selected. Because of this, one
might expect revenues to decline more substantially with higher ASM
coverage levels. However, as more trips are unprofitable under the
options with industry-funded ASM, the model is forced to select a
greater number of profitable trips. With higher ASM coverage levels
(and higher ASM costs), more sector trips become unprofitable. As the
ACE from these trips that are no longer profitable flows to another
sector member, then revenue from these trips is still realized in the
model. The result is that revenues appear nearly equal between options
with 14 percent and 41 percent ASM coverage. In reality, because ACE
does not flow freely between sectors, and not all vessels can opt for
all types of trips, higher ASM coverage levels may in fact reduce gross
revenues.
The analysis in the EA assumes ASM costs are $710 per seaday, based
on the cost that NMFS was able to negotiate with service providers. As
EDF points out, sectors were successfully able to negotiate lower
seaday costs for ASM. However, the fact that sectors were able to
negotiate lower costs does not diminish the significant economic impact
of the industry-funded ASM program on individual fishery participants
and sectors. Our economic analyses predict economic impacts for average
vessels in different size classes, or the fishery as a whole, but could
mask very real economic impacts at the vessel or community scale.
We disagree with the comment that the EA fails to consider the
costs of lower monitoring in the form of overfishing. Section 7.4 of
the EA

[[Page 26437]]

discusses that it is not possible to determine the overall economic
benefits of ASM at this time. The EA notes that, while increased
coverage can improve discard estimates, the marginal value of each
percent increase in ASM coverage is unknown. We agree that additional
analysis is warranted to attempt to determine the marginal benefits of
the ASM program in terms of the stock biology. Until additional
information is available, we will continue to implement the existing
groundfish monitoring program, and will continue to set ASM coverage
levels that meet the program goals and precision standards. Similarly,
for the leasing market, the EA concludes that additional precision may
or may not lead to changes in available ACE to a sector (i.e., assumed
discards were too high or too low). Thus, the marginal value of added
precision from each percent increase in ASM coverage is unknown. The
NEFSC conducts annual retrospective analyses of the leasing market in
its groundfish fishery performance reports. The most recent version of
the report, which analyzes the 2013 groundfish fishing year, is
available here: https://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/read/socialsci/pdf/groundfish_report_fy2013.pdf.
Comment 27: EDF notes that Framework 55 fails to analyze the
possibility of reducing costs to fishermen by using electronic
monitoring, consistent with RFA requirements. EDF and TNC both urge
NMFS to expedite the implementation of electronic monitoring and
reporting programs, and that electronic monitoring would reduce
uncertainty in catch data and improve stock assessments at a lower
seaday cost than ASM.
Response: Last year, in collaboration with the Gulf of Maine
Research Institute (GMRI), Archipelago Marine Research, Ltd.,
Saltwater, Inc., and EcoTrust Canada, we developed an assessment of the
potential costs of an electronic monitoring program for a hypothetical
Northeast multispecies fishery sector, and compared it to the costs of
the existing ASM program, which it could replace or augment. We are
also in the process of updating that assessment. Based on how an
electronic monitoring program is designed and implemented, video review
and storage costs can be substantial. Thus, we do not agree with the
commenter's characterization of the potential cost savings with
electronic monitoring at this time. The commenters promote the
potential for lower costs with electronic monitoring than with at-sea
monitors, but provide no cost estimates to substantiate the claim that
it is less expensive than ASM. Electronic monitoring costs will be
determined largely by the purpose and scope of particular electronic
monitoring coverage and the available technology to meet those needs.
The Northeast Multispecies FMP already allows sectors to use
electronic monitoring in place of at-sea monitors if the technology is
deemed sufficient for a specific trip, based on gear type and area
fished, if approved by NMFS. We had been working with TNC, GMRI,
EcoTrust Canada, and several sectors for the last year, to implement a
program that would have used electronic monitoring to monitor the
fishery. We have approved an exempted fishing permit to allow a number
of sector vessels to participate in an experiment using electronic
monitoring in lieu of ASM to further develop a program based on
electronic monitoring for sectors. NMFS will continue to support
development of electronic monitoring as a potential tool where it is
fitting and appropriate.
Comment 28: EDF and TNC suggests that NMFS should have considered
the weighted discard proportional approach, as published by Dr. Jenny
Sun, as an alternative to lowering the overall target ASM coverage
level in Framework 55. EDF also notes that this method may reduce cost
to small entities, and thus address requirements of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA).
Response: The PDT has discussed this approach at meetings in
September 2012 and from May-August 2015; however, the Council did not
elect to consider this approach in past actions, or as an alternative
in Framework 55, because it did not meet all of the goals and
objectives in Amendment 16 and Framework 48. This approach assigns ASM
coverage proportional to the weight of discards anticipated on a given
trip, and does not include consideration of the 30-percent CV
requirement specified in the regulations. At both times, the PDT
concluded that more trips would require coverage than those included in
the proposed analysis, which would erode some of the cost savings in
the proposed approach. The PDT also discussed that allocating ASM
coverage to focus on larger, offshore vessels that account for more of
the discards would potentially lead to under-coverage of sectors with
smaller, inshore vessels that are responsible for catch of species of
concern, such as GOM cod and SNE/MA yellowtail flounder, as well as
unallocated stocks with zero possession. The PDT, other NMFS reviewers,
and several commenters have noted that the objective of the ASM program
is not simply to determine the lowest cost approach to observe the most
catch across the groundfish sectors in total, or to only reduce the
costs of monitoring to small vessels. Rather, the objective is to
achieve sampling that ensures precise and unbiased real-time estimates
of catch by stock, sector, and gear. This weighted approach would also
have to address cost discrepancies in imposing ASM coverage primarily
on larger, offshore vessels over smaller vessels, inshore vessels.
Dr. Sun recently published a peer-reviewed article (Sun and Fine,
2016) that included additional adjustments to the approach, in which
coverage is further weighted to account for stocks with high
utilization. This article was published on December 29, 2015, after the
Council developed and took final action on Framework 55. The Groundfish
PDT received a presentation on the revised analysis at its March 30,
2016, meeting, and intends to review this approach, along with other
monitoring approaches, as part of the development of the forthcoming
groundfish monitoring amendment. The Council can choose to further
develop this approach if it meets the Council's goals and objectives
for groundfish monitoring programs. We reiterate that adopting this
approach to groundfish monitoring would require a Council amendment,
because it would change the objectives and standards for the groundfish
monitoring program established in Amendment 16 and Framework 48.
As stated elsewhere in this rule, this action does not specify a
fixed ASM coverage target for all future years, and is not approving a
lower target ASM coverage level in perpetuity. Rather, this action
refines the process we use for predicting the level of ASM coverage
necessary in a given year to achieve the 30-percent CV required. In
comparison to previous years, the refinements made in this action could
lead to lower, or higher, ASM coverage target rates in future years.
Thus, while the Council and our analysis considers the impacts of a
reduced ASM coverage level for 2016, we do not necessarily expect that
the lower coverage level will persist for future fishing years.
Comment 29: EDF and Oceana claim that the changes proposed in
Framework 55 ignore National Standard 1 in favor of National Standard
7. EDF notes that costs may only be considered when two alternatives
achieve similar conservation goals. EDF and TNC note the EA states that
reducing ASM coverage will have negative biological impacts compared to
the No Action alternative.

[[Page 26438]]

Response: The Framework 55 adjustments to the method used to set
that target ASM coverage level achieve the required Northeast
Multispecies FMP precision standards without compromising conservation
goals. The 30-percent CV standard, and the requirement under Amendment
16 to sufficiently verify area fished, catch, and discards by species,
by gear type, remain unaltered. Framework 48 clarified the objectives
of Amendment 16's ASM program to ensure that ASM coverage levels must
be consistent with the goals and objectives of groundfish monitoring
programs, the National Standards, and the requirements of the Magnuson-
Stevens Act, including but not limited to costs to sector vessels and
NMFS. This is consistent with Amendment 16's goals of achieving
economic efficiency and minimizing adverse impacts to fishing
communities that are included in Framework 48's goals of reducing
monitoring costs and balancing actual costs against the opportunity
costs of insufficient monitoring. Framework 55 simply further clarifies
that monitoring must be implemented in the most cost-efficient means
practicable.
In addition, the goals of Amendment 16 and Frameworks 48 and 55,
are consistent with our requirement to take into account the National
Standard, and in particular National Standards 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, and 9 in
making our determination of the appropriate level of ASM coverage for
sectors on an annual basis. These National Standards specifically speak
to preventing overfishing; using the best scientific information
available; efficient use of fishery resources; minimizing costs, and
avoiding duplications where practicable; taking into account impacts on
fishing communities; minimizing adverse economic impacts to the extent
practicable; and minimizing bycatch and bycatch mortality to the extent
practicable.
We agree that the EA characterizes the impacts of lower ASM
coverage levels as negative compared to higher ASM coverage levels. The
EA notes that positive impacts of higher ASM coverage levels could
include better information for stock assessments and reduced
uncertainty around discard estimates. However, any quantification of
the magnitude of these types of benefits is speculative, and can only
be discussed as marginal because it is not yet possible to quantify the
biological outcomes relative to the information gained with each
additional percentage of monitoring coverage. A similar concept is
highlighted in the economic analysis in section 7.4 of the Framework 55
EA, in terms of the overall benefit of added precision in discard
estimates. The EA notes that the marginal value of added precision from
each percent increase in ASM coverage is unknown. Hence, the EA
describes any impact potential as low.
We have generally characterized the benefits of higher monitoring
coverage levels as positive compared to lower monitoring coverage
levels in other actions in this region (e.g., the joint New England/
Mid-Atlantic Council Industry-funded Omnibus Amendment), and have
largely tied this positive benefit to the potential for improvements in
stock assessments and on the types of management measures that may be
necessary to address bycatch. However, as we have discussed in these
related analyses, there are several reasons why these types of
potential downstream effects (e.g., improvements to stock assessments)
are considered too remote and speculative to be evaluated
quantitatively.
First, this action adjusts the method used to set target ASM
coverage levels. The adjustments to the method used to set target ASM
coverage levels do not, by themselves, automatically allow for higher
ASM coverage in future fishing years. While increases in target ASM
coverage levels may be expected to improve data quality, realization of
an increase in the target coverage level compared to past fishing years
depends on the coverage levels generated by the changes approved in
this action. As noted elsewhere in this section, in comparison to
previous years, the changes in this action could lead to lower or
higher ASM coverage target rates in future years. Thus, while the
Council's and our analysis considers the impacts of a reduced ASM
coverage level for 2016, we do not necessarily expect that the lower
coverage level will persist for future fishing years.
Second, in addition to the uncertainty of what target coverage
rates will be set in future years, the potential effects of increased
data deriving from a method setting target coverage rates are too
remote and speculative to be quantitatively evaluated in the EA because
there is no way to predict the effect that an improvement in data
quality would have for managing the groundfish fishery. Improvements in
data quality would give assessment scientists and fishery managers more
confidence in the data. However, there is no way to predict the type of
new information that would arise from future catch estimations (e.g.,
higher or lower discard estimates). Because changes in direction of
catch estimation cannot be predicted at this time, there is no way to
predict whether changes in management would be required to address any
potential issues that may arise.
Thus, while acknowledging that it is not possible to quantify the
biological benefit for higher coverage, the EA makes conclusions
concerning environmental impacts from lower or higher coverage based on
the idea that more information from monitoring tends to reduce
uncertainty in setting catch limits and assessments. However, by this
principle alone, and without consideration of other factors, one would
be required to conclude that coverage rates should never be reduced,
and should always be increased if possible. To underscore the
imprudence of following this logic, in similar fashion one could
conclude that fishing should always be reduced because less fishing
mortality generally benefits fish stocks. The National Standards,
Amendment 16, and Frameworks 48 and 55 require consideration of other
factors, however. Specifically, we must consider the efficient use of
resources for monitoring catch limits and preventing overfishing. In
this instance, we have considered the target coverage rate required to
monitor catch rates in the most efficient manner practicable. While one
may conclude that a generally higher coverage rate may provide more
catch information that would potentially reduce uncertainty, any
potential benefit to fish stocks in the future from more information is
more attenuated than the sufficiency of the information for the
immediate task of monitoring of catch limits and the cost benefits that
come from the efficient use of monitoring resources to achieve that
purpose. We are required by law to consider these other factors when
determining a rate of coverage that meets conservation requirements.
Comment 30: EDF claims that the Agency failed to explain its
decision to depart from the 80-percent of discard pounds observed at a
30-percent CV standard, and that it is arbitrary and capricious for the
Agency to remove this standard without explaining why.
Response: We disagree that we failed to explain our decision to
depart from this discretionary, administrative standard. As discussed
in the proposed rule, and in the Summary of Analyses Conducted To
Determine At-Sea Monitoring Requirements for Multispecies Sectors for
Fishing Year 2015 (available here: https://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/aps/monitoring/nemultispecies.html), we had previously concluded that it is desirable
to maintain a 30-percent CV or better for at least 80 percent of the

[[Page 26439]]

discarded pounds in the fishery. We applied this standard in the
initial years that the ASM program operated for a number of reasons.
First, the program was new, and we lacked experience and data. In the
initial years that the program was implemented, when we did not have
coverage information from previous years, this standard was chosen to
guide setting target ASM coverage levels to achieve results consistent
with the initial monitoring year, when the realized observer coverage
was highest. When Federal funding was available to cover industry costs
for the ASM program, we could justify applying a discretionary standard
that resulted in higher coverage levels than required by the program
because it did not impose an additional economic burden on industry.
During the development of Framework 55, using coverage information
that was unavailable when the administrative standard was first
adopted, the PDT reevaluated this administrative standard, and
determined that it was not necessary to accomplish the goals of the ASM
program. As noted in the proposed rule, this standard is not necessary
to satisfy the CV requirement of the ASM program to accurately monitor
sector catches, or meet the other monitoring program goals, and it was
not required by the Northeast Multispecies FMP. Further, imposing a
standard that results in coverage higher than necessary to meet the
program goals would not be consistent with National Standards 5, 7, and
8, which relate to efficiency in the use of fishery resources;
minimizing costs and avoiding duplications where practicable;
efficiency in the use of fishery resources; and taking into account
impacts on fishing communities and minimizing adverse economic impacts
to the extent practicable. Removing this administrative standard makes
the method used to set the target ASM coverage level more efficient,
while still addressing groundfish monitoring program objectives.
Comment 31: Oceana claims that enlarging the data set used to
include the volatile, anomalous period from 2012 to 2014 is
inappropriate for setting coverage levels. Oceana asserted that we
failed to provide evidence supporting the claim that this longer period
is a better foundation for forecasting monitoring than most recent
complete year. They go on to say that using an averaged approach
ignores the fact that the dynamics of the fishery have led to a
different stock driving the ASM coverage level in each year to date.
They assert that using multiple years of data violates National
Standard 2 because it would amount to using an unrepresentative sample
of the data. Finally, they claim that the multiyear approach is not
able to respond to emergent trends in the fishery in a timely fashion.
They assert that NMFS must retain the ability to respond to changes in
fishing behavior quickly to ensure accurate and precise fishery
monitoring.
Response: We disagree. Currently, the coverage level for year 3 is
set prior to the end of year 2, using data from year 1 because that is
the most recent complete set of data available. Because of this need to
plan ahead using older data, relying on a single year of data does not
necessarily give us a more accurate representation of current or future
conditions than using three years of data. Looking at 5 years of data
from fishing years 2010-2014, it is clear that the stock with the
greatest variability in discards, and greatest need for ASM coverage,
not only varies from year to year, but the species requiring the most
ASM coverage in year 3 has never been accurately predicted by year 1
data.
Section 7.1 of the Framework 55 EA compares the performance of
basing the target coverage level on 1 year of data to 2- and 3-year
averages to evaluate their ability to predict the coverage level
necessary to achieve a 30-percent CV in 2014. To predict the target
coverage level using 1 year of data, the 2012 target coverage level was
used to predict the coverage necessary to achieve a 30-percent CV for
2014. For the 2-year average, data for 2011-2012 was used. For the 3-
year average, data from 2010-2013 was used. Overall, the 3-year average
performed relatively well compared to using a single year, or 2-year
average. The EA acknowledges that, because the ASM program only started
in 2010, there are a limited number of years of data available to make
this comparison, and that more years of data and analysis are necessary
to make the final conclusion regarding the most appropriate approach.
Therefore, using multiple years of data may reveal true trends while
minimizing non-significant fluctuations, which provides for additional
stability for industry consistent with National Standards 5 and 8.
In addition, averages are routinely used in fisheries management to
smooth interannual variability. In the Greater Atlantic Region, the
recreational fisheries for GOM cod, GOM haddock, summer flounder, scup,
and black sea bass base the determination of whether catch has exceeded
the recreational sub-ACL by comparing the 3-year moving average of
recreational catch to the 3-year moving average of the recreational
sub-ACL. For overfished skate species, the 3-year average of the
appropriate weight per tow from the trawl survey index is used as a
proxy for stock biomass, and is a trigger to indicate whether the
additional management measures are necessary to promote stock
rebuilding. We have determined that using three years of data will
minimize unnecessary fluctuations in the target ASM coverage level
while meeting our need to reliably estimate discards.
Comment 32: Oceana commented that exempting extra-large mesh
gillnet trips from ASM coverage in Broad Stock Areas 2 and 4 could
increase uncertainty around bycatch estimates for protected resources
in locations that are especially prone to protected species
interactions.
Response: First, the Greater Atlantic Region has observer programs
explicitly funded to support Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) and
Endangered Species Act (ESA) information requirements. The MMPA and ESA
observers are allocated across fisheries based on the estimated
likelihood of protected resources interactions. Allocation of observers
related to these acts is separate from the allocations of observers
under our region's SBRM program and the ASM program.
We agree that ASM has provided a wealth of information about
protected species interactions in commercial fishing gear, particularly
in the extra-large mesh gillnet fisheries. The full discussion of the
protected species impacts of this alternative is provided in the EA in
Section 7.3.3.1.4, and is not repeated in full here. In terms of data
collection, the EA notes that removing the ASM coverage requirement for
these trips may reduce the amount of information available on protected
species interactions in extra-large mesh gillnet gear. From 2010-2014,
the number of hauls observed through the ASM program in the extra-large
mesh fishery exceeded the number of hauls observed by traditional NEFOP
observers, constituting 60 percent of all observed extra-large mesh
hauls. Moreover, ASM documented 63 percent of all protected species
interactions in the extra-large mesh fisheries. Data collected on
protected species interactions through ASM has also reduced uncertainty
in bycatch estimates for almost all gear types used in the groundfish
fishery. The EA characterizes this potential reduction in information
benefits on protected resources interactions in extra-large mesh gear
as an indirect, low negative impact on protected resources.
In spite of the information collection benefits the ASM program has
provided

[[Page 26440]]

for protected resources, gathering this information is not included in
the ASM program goals and objectives. Thus, any benefits of the ASM
program in terms of protected resources information are ancillary to
the program goal. We acknowledge that removing the ASM coverage on
extra-large mesh gillnet trips may increase uncertainty in protected
resources interactions for this gear type. However, now that industry
is paying for the costs of monitoring, it is not reasonable to expect
for them to pay for the costs of information collection above and
beyond the amount required to support the program goals. In addition,
discards of all groundfish stocks are still required to meet the 30-
percent CV standard, even if certain trips are excluded from coverage.
Comment 33: In regards to the alternative that filters the
application of the 30-percent CV standard, Oceana asserts that
exempting a population from ASM coverage requirements is not permitted
in the Northeast Multispecies FMP. They note the proposed rule itself
states that none of the proposed adjustments remove the obligation
under Amendment 16 and Framework 48 to ensure sufficient ASM coverage
to achieve a 30-percent CV.
Response: We agree that none of the measures in Framework 55 remove
our obligation to achieve a 30-percent CV on all stocks. The measures
in this action adjust the process we use for predicting the level of
ASM coverage necessary in a given year to achieve the 30-percent CV.
The filtering alternative does not exempt stocks from meeting the 30-
percent CV standard. Instead, it enacts the Council's policy preference
to not use stocks that are healthy and less than fully utilized to
predict for the target ASM coverage level for the upcoming year. We are
still required to set coverage at a level that is sufficient to achieve
the 30-percent CV standard for all stocks and would set a target rate
sufficient to achieve this standard and meet the program goals and
objectives.
Comment 34: Oceana and TNC question NMFS's ability to effectively
apply filtering criteria given uncertainty in stock status and catch
data. TNC noted that it is inappropriate to set coverage levels based
on a current assessment's understanding of stock status when it is
likely the stock status will change with next assessment.
Response: Consistent with National Standard 2, we base our
management decisions, including determinations of stock status and
annual catch limits, on the most recent assessment information, which
is considered the best scientific information available. Because the
information from the stock assessments and catch data is used as the
basis for most other management decisions for groundfish stocks,
including annual quota setting and implementation of proactive and
reactive accountability measures for each stock, it is entirely
appropriate to also base evaluation of the filtering criteria on this
information. We cannot base management decisions on the potential that
a future stock assessment may indicate that stock status may change.
Further, neither commenter provided data to support the assertion that
the information we use to make management decisions are so uncertain or
of such poor quality as to render it unusable. For these reasons, we
have determined it is consistent with National Standard 2 to evaluate
the filtering criteria using the most recent available catch data and
most recent stock assessment information.
The filtering alternative is designed to be conservative. It does
not exempt stocks from coverage necessary to meet the 30-percent CV
requirement. Rather, it removes healthy stocks with low utilization and
low discards as predictors for the target ASM coverage level. In
addition, target ASM coverage levels are evaluated and updated on an
annual basis in order to incorporate the most recent available data.
This means that, if new stock status or catch information indicates
that a stock no longer meets all of the criteria, then the stock must
be used as a predictor for target ASM coverage levels for the upcoming
fishing year. For example, if, in setting the coverage level for 2017,
2015 redfish catch data indicated that over 75 percent of the
groundfish sub-ACL was caught, or more than 10 percent of 2015 catch
were comprised of discards, the stock would not be removed a predictor
for the 2017 ASM target coverage level. Further, we are required to set
target coverage at a level that is sufficient to achieve the 30-percent
CV standard and other groundfish monitoring program objectives.
Comment 35: TNC asserts that declining target coverage levels since
2010 are especially concerning, given that from 2010 to 2014, realized
coverage levels have been less than the target set at the beginning of
the year.
Response: We disagree with the TNC's concern. Though realized
coverage has been less than the target coverage in past fishing years,
we have still consistently achieved the 30-percent CV requirement for
the vast majority of groundfish stocks in each fishing year. 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. Due to fluctuations in fishing activity over
the year, it is difficult to deploy observers throughout the year and
ensure that target coverage levels are attained. The realized level of
coverage was below the target each year, though only slightly in the
2014 fishing year. Despite this, since the start of the ASM program in
2010, the realized annual ASM coverage levels have been more than
adequate to achieve the 30-percent CV requirement for a vast majority
of the 20 groundfish stocks. Only two stocks had a realized CV above 30
over the past 5 years; and on only two other occasions has a stock
approached a CV of 30 during this time. In the 2013 fishing year, SNE/
MA yellowtail flounder had a realized CV of 31.45; and in the 2014
fishing year, redfish had a CV of 41.69. Given the biological diversity
of the northeast multispecies stocks, the range of quotas, and the
varying vessels and gears engaged in the fishery, this record is an
indicator of success. In 2014, the high CV for redfish is attributed to
a single anomalous trip, which reinforces the value of filtering stocks
in future years. If we set the target ASM coverage level for the 2016
fishing year at 41 percent based on that one redfish trip in 2014, we
would be unnecessarily tripling our and the industry's costs in a vain
attempt to capture a rare event that is unlikely to recur and likely
not representative of the groundfish fishery, and would not appreciably
increase our ability to effectively monitor the sector fishery.
Comment 36: Oceana and EDF commented that the changes in this
action should have been included in an FMP amendment instead of a
framework because they are substantial and entirely inconsistent with
the goals and objectives of the Northeast Multispecies FMP.
Response: We disagree that sector monitoring requirements cannot be
revised through a framework action. Sector monitoring requirements,
including coverage levels and the performance standard, are listed
under sector administration provisions in Amendment 16, which is listed
as a frameworkable measure in section 4.8.2 of the Amendment 16
environmental impact statement (EIS). The regulations at Sec.
648.90(a)(2)(iii) list ASM requirements among the measures that may be
modified through the biennial review process, as well as AMs, changes
to other administrative measures, and any other measures currently
included in the Northeast Multispecies FMP.

[[Page 26441]]

These changes are elaborations on Amendment 16's goals and objectives
for determining appropriate monitoring levels. They do not
fundamentally alter the goal of verifying area fished, catch, and
discards, by gear type or the requirement to achieve the goals of
economic efficiency or minimizing to the extent practicable adverse
impacts on fishing communities. Similar changes in Framework 48 were
found to be appropriately accomplished through a framework adjustment
in Oceana, Inc. v. Pritzker, 26 F. 3d 33 (D.D.C. 2014).
We also disagree that these changes are inconsistent with the goals
and objectives of the Northeast Multispecies FMP. As noted in the
proposed rule and this final rule, Framework 55 does not change the 30-
percent CV requirement or the monitoring program goals and objectives,
and only adjusts the method used to set target coverage levels to meet
this requirement. The Council deemed the regulations necessary to
accomplish these adjustments as consistent with their intent in
Framework 55. Thus, we have determined that these changes are lawful
under the combination of allowable framework provisions of the
Northeast Multispecies FMP and section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens
Act which authorizes NMFS to implement regulations necessary to ensure
that Council measures are carried out in a manner consistent with the
Act.
Comment 37: Oceana and EDF make a number of claims regarding the
NEPA analysis for this action. They claim that the reduction in
monitoring resulting from the ASM program changes in Framework 55 will
have a significant impact on the environment, and thus should have been
analyzed in an EIS instead of an EA. Regarding the EA's compliance with
NEPA, the commenters raise the following concerns: The EA fails to
consider a reasonable range of alternatives, including other monitoring
options such as electronic monitoring; the EA fails to consider
cumulative environmental impacts; the EA fails to adequately assess how
changes in the realized CVs may impact assessment error, projections,
and scientific and/or management uncertainty.
Response: We disagree with the commenters' assertion that Framework
55 violated NEPA because an EIS was not prepared. Consistent with NEPA,
Council for Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations, and NOAA
administrative policy, NMFS and the Council collaborated to prepare an
EA to evaluate the significance of the environmental impacts expected
as a result of the measures in Framework 55. According to the CEQ
regulations, and all available guidance on the subject, an EIS need
only be prepared when an EA or other related analysis identifies
significant effects on the environment or if the facts available to the
action agency cannot support the conclusion required to make a finding
of no significant impact (FONSI). The Framework 55 EA fully evaluated
the expected direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts likely to result
from the implementation of the action. The results of this assessment
are provided in section 8.2 of the EA, which supports the FONSI, signed
on April 13, 2016. The commenters claim that reducing monitoring levels
materially reduces our ability to monitor groundfish catch limits, but
provided no evidence, nor any claims, that the conclusion in the FONSI
are not supported by the facts presented in the EA for this finding.
We also disagree that the EA fails to consider the cumulative
environmental impacts of Framework 55. Section 7.6 of the EA explicitly
provides a discussion of the expected cumulative impacts associated
with this action. We have determined that this treatment of the
cumulative impacts is consistent with CEQ regulations and current NOAA
policy.
The overall sector monitoring program is not changed by the
measures in Framework 55. Specifically, the requirement to set the
target ASM coverage levels to achieve a 30-percent CV on discard
estimates for groundfish stocks is not changed. We have determined that
the modifications to the method used to determine the target ASM
coverage level are reasonable and should result in target coverage
levels that will meet the 30-percent CV requirement. While we have
determined that a 2016 target ASM coverage level of 14 percent can be
expected to meet the 30-percent CV target, we note again that this
coverage level is not set in perpetuity. This means that, in future
fishing years, higher or lower coverage levels could result from the
method approved in this action, and we are still required to set target
coverage levels at a rate that are expected to achieve the 30-percent
CV standard. In addition, this action does not approve any other
notable changes to the total sector monitoring program (e.g., other
monitoring and reporting requirements). Given that the limited scope of
the changes to the sector monitoring program approved in Framework 55,
we have determined that the FONSI is well supported.
Comment 38: Several commenters make claims regarding the timing of
this action. Oceana and EDF assert that a 15-day comment period was too
short to allow the public a meaningful opportunity to comment. Oceana
suggested extending the comment period. EDF claims that Magnuson-
Stevens Act requires NMFS to immediately (within 5 days of transmittal
by the Council) initiate an evaluation of proposed regulations, and
make determination within 15 days. They claim that the proposed rule
should have been published in the Federal Register on March 14, 20 days
after submission by the Council on February 19th, instead of on March
21. They also make the contradictory claim that, because NMFS published
the proposed rule less than 1 month following Council submission, that
there was too little time for NMFS to have conducted its own
environmental analysis of the proposed changes to the Northeast
Multispecies FMP.
Finally, EDF claims that the Agency may have pre-judged the outcome
of the EA in order to ensure that Framework 55 measures would be
published in time for May 1. They note that 1 month before Framework 55
was formally submitted, NMFS argued in a preliminary injunction hearing
in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire that harm
to the plaintiff was not significant because of the likelihood that
NMFS would approve Framework 55 measures and reduce monitoring levels.
Response: We disagree that the 15-day comment period was not enough
time to allow commenters to provide meaningful comments. The Council
initiated Framework 55 at its June 2015, meeting and developed
alternatives over several meetings including their September and
December meetings, as well as the September 3, 2015, and the November
18, 2015, Groundfish Oversight Committee meetings. The alternatives
were also discussed at numerous Groundfish PDT meetings from July-
November 2015. Representatives from EDF and Oceana were present at the
December Council meeting, when the Council took final action on the ASM
alternatives in Framework 55. The analysis presented at the December
meeting included biological and economic analyses of the alternatives.
The alternatives described in the Framework 55 EA and presented in the
proposed rule are unchanged from those adopted by the Council in
December. Council presentations and documents throughout the
development of Framework 55 included a clear outline of the expected
timing of the Council and rulemaking process. The public was well aware
that the intent was to implement these measures in time for the start
of the 2016 groundfish fishing year on May 1, 2016. Therefore,

[[Page 26442]]

we conclude that the public, including Oceana and EDF, had more than
adequate opportunity to consider and prepare comments on the ASM
program adjustments in anticipation of the proposed rulemaking, in
spite of the 15-day comment period.
We agree that there is a Magnuson-Stevens Act requirement to
initiate an evaluation of proposed regulations for implementing or
modifying FMPs or amendments, to determine whether they are consistent
with the FMP and applicable law within 15 days, and to publish such
regulations for a public comment period of 15 to 60 days. We published
the proposed rule within the bounds of the comment period provided for
in that provision and the final rule is expected to be published well
in advance of the outside time limit specified in the same provision.
We believe the publication timeline has provided a meaningful
opportunity for full and fair public comment and participation.
Each year since 2013, we have published the target coverage level
that we expect is sufficient to achieve the Northeast Multispecies
FMP's monitoring goals. This target rate was determined using internal
administrative standards we developed to ensure coverage was at a rate
based on past experience where we could reasonably expect to achieve
these goals. Prior to the Council's adoption of the measures in
Framework 55 or approval of this final rule, we developed two of the
adjustments to our administration of the ASM program that were also
proposed as part of Framework 55. We would have been required to apply
these administrative adjustments in the absence of Framework 55
measures as part of default changes had Framework 55 not been published
in time for the beginning of the fishing year. Specifically, we planned
to stop using our internal standard of monitoring 80 percent of
discarded pounds at a 30-percent CV. We also planned to use multiple
years of information to set the target ASM coverage level. Because
these were changes to our internal mechanisms for administering the ASM
program, they were outside of the Council process and did not require
public comment. As we were considering these changes and expecting to
implement them in time for the new fishing year, we worked with the
Council to evaluate these changes in the context of a framework
adjustment for the purpose of transparency, and to allow the public the
maximum opportunity to participate in the development and evaluation of
these changes. The measures in Framework 55 were always subject to our
approval or disapproval under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Our intent to
make a sub-set of administrative adjustments did not pre-determine what
impacts may occur and the assessment of those potential impacts of all
of the Framework 55 measures. It also did not foreclose the Council's
consideration of other alternatives included in Framework 55, their
impacts, and an assessment of how they all interacted. Last, we
expressed our concern that these adjustments complied with the
Magnuson-Stevens Act, its National Standards, and the groundfish FMP's
goals and objectives. For example, in our proposed rule we specifically
requested comments on whether the Council's proposed revisions to the
groundfish ASM program met the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens
Act, its National Standards, and the groundfish FMP to engage the
public in our evaluation of the proposed measures.
Comment 39: One individual commented that industry should pay for
monitoring.
Response: As described in the proposed rule, Amendment 16 requires
industry to pay for ASM. For the 2010 and 2011 fishing year, there was
no requirement for industry-funded ASM. NMFS assumed industry's
monitoring costs for industry after the industry-funded ASM requirement
became effective in the 2012 fishing year, and until March 2016.
Sectors have been paying for ASM costs since March 2016, and 2016 will
be the first full fishing year where industry will be responsible for
its costs for ASM.
Comment 40: Two commercial fishermen commented in opposition to
having small boat commercial fishermen pay for ASM, especially those
fishing for dogfish and skate.
Response: We share the commenter's concern about the financial
burden of industry-funded ASM. Nonetheless, ASM coverage is critical to
monitoring sector ACE and meeting the goals and objectives described in
Amendment 16 and Framework 48. The ASM requirement applies to all
vessels participating in sectors, regardless of vessel size.
We agree that our limited monitoring resources should be focused on
sector trips with groundfish catch. This action approves a measure to
exempt extra-large mesh gillnet trips in SNE and Inshore GB Broad Stock
Areas from ASM coverage requirement, as well as a sector exemption to
allow these same vessel to target dogfish in existing dogfish exemption
areas. These trips have low groundfish catch, and primarily target non-
groundfish species such as dogfish and skate. As noted above, these
trips will still be subject to NMFS-funded NEFOP coverage requirements,
and all groundfish catch on these trips will still be deducted from a
sector's ACE. We will evaluate these trips on an annual basis to ensure
that groundfish catch is still minimal enough to continue exempting
these trips for ASM coverage requirements.
Comment 41: One recreational fisherman commented in opposition to
requiring industry-funded monitors on recreational vessels when
commercial vessels are the problem.
Response: The industry-funded ASM program only applies to limited
access commercial groundfish vessels enrolled in the sector program.
There are currently no ASM coverage requirements in the Northeast
Multispecies FMP for recreational groundfish trips.

Other Framework 55 Measures

Comment 42: AFM, SHS, and EDF supported the formation of
Sustainable Harvest Sector II.
Response: We are approving the formation of Sustainable Harvest
Sector II in this action.
Comment 43: SHS and EDF supported the proposed modification to the
sector approval process. SHS commented that streamlining the approval
process will allow industry to more quickly adapt to regulatory
changes.
Response: We agree, and are approving this alternative as proposed.
This measure maintains the Council's authority to approve of new
sectors and the opportunity for public participation in the sector
approval process, while reducing the total time necessary for sector
approval.
Comment 44: The Council commented that, though clear in the
proposed regulatory text, the text in the preamble to the proposed rule
does not make clear that sector applications need to be simultaneously
submitted to the Council and NMFS.
Response: We agree with the Council that the process is correctly
described in the regulatory text, and have adjusted to description of
this provision in section ``7. Other Framework 55 Measures'' to clarify
the Council's intent.
Comment 45: AFM and EDF commented in support of the modification to
the definition of haddock separator trawl gear.
Response: We agree. This measure will improve enforceability of
this selective trawl gear. We intend to delay the effectiveness of this
measure by 6

[[Page 26443]]

months to allow industry to replace separator panels.
Comment 46: EDF commented in support of removing the permanent
prohibition on recreational possession of GOM cod.
Response: We agree. This measure returns the authority to the
Regional Administrator to set the recreational bag limit for GOM cod.
This will provide greater flexibility for setting annual management
measures that will help the recreational fishery achieve, but not
exceed, its quota for GOM cod. We have approved recreational possession
limits for GOM cod for 2016 in a separate, concurrent rulemaking.
Comment 47: AFM, SHS, NSC, the SGA, and EDF commented in support of
allowing sectors to ``convert'' their eastern GB cod allocation into
western GB cod allocation. SHS noted the current mechanism that allows
sectors to convert eastern GB haddock allocation into western GB
haddock allocation, and that it is an effective tool.
Response: We agree with the commenters, and are implementing this
measure as proposed. We anticipate that this measure will maximize
flexibility for fishing vessels operating on GB. Eastern GB cod is a
management unit of the total GB stock that is used to manage the shared
U.S./Canada portion of this stock. As a result, the analysis supporting
this measure concluded that there would be negligible biological impact
to the stock. In our approval, we recommend that the Council
occasionally review the measure in the future to ensure that it is
still necessary and appropriate, particularly if there is a change in
the stock assessment or the perception of stock status in the future.

Sector Measures for the 2016 Fishing Year

Comment 48: The GB Fixed Gear Sector supported the proposed sector
exemption to target dogfish, noting that the exemption supports the
current behavior of the fleet, and will maximize viability and
profitability.
Response: We are granting this exemption as proposed. This
exemption will allow greater opportunities for sector vessels to target
non-groundfish species, which may help mitigate some of the negative
economic impacts of recent catch limit reductions. As noted earlier in
this final rule, allowing sectors to participate in these exempted
fisheries for dogfish while simultaneously being excluded from ASM
coverage on extra-large mesh sector trips is intended to maximize the
viability and profitability of their businesses. We will continue to
closely monitor catch from any trips fishing under this exemption to
ensure that they continue to have low groundfish catch.
Comment 49: NSC commented in support of the Northeast Fishery
Sector XII sector operations plan.
Response: We agree, and are approving the NEFS XII 2016 operations
plan in this action.
Comment 50: In light of the significant quota reductions for
several key groundfish stocks, AFM supports the maximum 10-percent
carryover allowed by law. They noted that significant precaution is
built into the ABC and ACL recommendations, and that there is no
biological justification for less than the 10-percent carryover.
Response: Framework 55 did not consider adjustments to the sector
carryover provision, and these types of adjustments are beyond the
scope and authority relating to this action. Framework 53, which was
approved and implemented at the start of the 2015 fishing year,
modified the sector carryover provision that was approved and
implemented in Amendment 16. This change was in response to a 2013
court ruling in Conservation Law Foundation v. Pritzker, et al. (Case
No. 1:13-CV-0821-JEB). Details of this court ruling, and the
corresponding changes to the sector carryover provision, are provided
in the final rules for Framework 50 (78 FR 2617; May 3, 2013) and
Framework 53 (80 FR 25110; May 1, 2015).
Sectors may still carry over up to 10 percent of their unused
allocation as long as this amount, plus the total ACL for the upcoming
fishing year, does not exceed the ABC. If the full 10-percent carryover
possible would exceed the ABC, the Northeast Multispecies FMP requires
that we reduce the available carryover for each sector. This provision
limits the amount of carry-over to ensure that the ABC is not exceeded
for a stock. For 2016, total potential catch would exceed the 2016 ABC
for all groundfish stocks, except for GOM and GB haddock, if sectors
carried over the maximum 10-percent of unused allocation allowed. 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). The final adjustment will depend on each sector's final
2015 catch. As noted in the preamble, we will make adjustments as soon
after May 1 as possible.

2016 Fishing Year Annual Measures Under Regional Administrator
Authority

Comment 51: The Council requested clarification regarding the
proposed GOM cod trip limit for the common pool and questioned why the
trip limit is proposed to decline by 50 percent when the ACL is
proposed to increase in 2016.
Response: We attempt to set trip limits that will allow fishing
access for an entire trimester while preventing any overages from
occurring. In 2015, the initial GOM cod trip limit was 50 lb (22.5 kg)
per DAS, up to 200 lb (91 kg) per trip, for Category A DAS vessels. The
initial trip limit for Handgear A and B permits was 50 lb (22.5 kg) and
25 lb (11.3 kg) per trip, respectively. Even at these low limits, by
late May, about half of the Trimester 1 quota had been harvested.
Therefore, in early June, we prohibited retention for all common pool
vessels to reduce the likelihood of an overage and an area closure.
However, by mid-June, the Trimester 1 quota was exceeded due to catch
that occurred prior to the trip limit reduction. We were required to
close portions of the GOM Cod Trimester TAC Area through the end of
August as a result of the overage. The 2016 common pool sub-ACL for GOM
cod is only expected to increase by approximately 2.5 mt from 2015,
which translates to a marginal increase to the TAC for each trimester.
Thus, for 2016, we are setting the initial trip limit more
conservatively compared to the initial 2015 trip limit to prevent area
closures and allow continued access to healthier stocks, such as GOM
haddock and pollock. We will monitor common pool catch in-season, and
if necessary or warranted, will make adjustments to the common pool
trip limits implemented in this rule.
Comment 52: One commercial fisherman commented that the witch
flounder trip limit will lead to increase in discards for the stock,
and that the low catch limit is not consistent with landings seen on
the waters. The commenter did not provide suggestions for an
alternative trip limit.
Response: We disagree that the witch flounder trip limit is too
low. The overall 2016 witch flounder catch limit is a 41-percent
reduction compared to 2015. As a result, the 2015 trip limit of 1,000
lb (454 kg) per trip is likely too high to prevent overages of the
common pool quota. The 250-lb (113-kg) trip limit implemented in this
rule is intended to provide continued access to other healthy
groundfish stocks by preventing premature closure of the trimester TAC
for witch flounder. We

[[Page 26444]]

will monitor common pool catch in-season, and if necessary or
warranted, will make adjustments to the common pool trip limits
implemented in this rule.
Comment 53: One commercial fisherman commented that the CC/GOM
yellowtail flounder trip limits are too low, but did not suggest an
alternative trip limit. The commenter also noted that the daily trip
limit listed incorrectly in proposed rule as 75 lb/day (34 kg/day),
when it should have been 750 lb/day (340 kg/day).
Response: The commenter correctly identified our error in the CC/
GOM yellowtail flounder trip limit in the proposed rule. The trip limit
is corrected in this final rule.
Comment 54: Two commercial fishermen opposed the 100-lb (45-kg)
trip limit for GOM haddock, particularly in light of the recreational
bag limit of 15 fish per day. One commenter suggested that the common
pool trip limit should be 200 lb (91 kg) per trip.
Response: The recreational fishery receives an allocation for GOM
haddock, and annual recreational management measures are set to ensure
the fishery achieves, but does not exceed, its allocation. A
description of the 2016 recreational management measures, their
rationale, and supporting analyses, is provided in the final rule
implementing those measures, and is not repeated here.
After re-evaluating the common pool allocation, and in response to
public comment, we are also setting the initial GOM haddock trip limit
at 200 lb (91 kg) per DAS, up to 600 lb (272 kg) per trip. This
increase is warranted given the increase to the 2016 GOM haddock common
pool sub-ACL compared to 2015, as described further in section ``9.
2016 Fishing Year Annual Measures Under Regional Administrator
Authority.'' We will monitor common pool catch in-season, and if
necessary or warranted, will make adjustments to the common pool trip
limits implemented in this rule.
Comment 55: Two commercial fishermen opposed the common pool
trimester TAC system. One noted that the distribution of the quota
among trimesters should be adjusted.
Response: Framework 55 did not consider adjustments to the
trimester TAC system and these types of adjustments are beyond the
scope and authority relating to this action. The trimester allocation
of the common pool sub-ACL was developed as part of Amendment 16, and
was based on landings through fishing year 2009. These distributions
have been unchanged since the implementation of Amendment 16. Any
changes to the existing common pool measures would have to be developed
through the Council process in a future management action. However, the
Council could reconsider common pool management measures, including the
trimester TAC distribution, at any time provided these measures still
meet necessary conservation requirements.

Changes From the Proposed Rule

This final rule contains a number of minor adjustments from the
proposed rule. We clarify a discrepancy in the status determination
criteria for GB cod and Atlantic halibut. This rule corrects errors in
the CC/GOM yellowtail flounder common pool trip limit and the 2016
sector carry-over table, adds inadvertently omitted default
specifications for GB yellowtail flounder, and correct the GB cod
groundfish catch limits for 2017 and 2018. We are also implementing a
higher initial 2016 GOM haddock common pool trip limit than announced
in the proposed rule.

Classification

Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the
NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that the management
measures implemented in this final rule are necessary for the
conservation and management of the Northeast groundfish fishery and
consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law.
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for
purposes of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866.
This final rule does not contain policies with Federalism or
``takings'' implications as those terms are defined in E.O. 13132 and
E.O. 12630, respectively.
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries finds good cause, under 5
U.S.C. 553(d)(3), to waive the 30-day delayed effectiveness of this
action. This action sets 2016 catch limits for all groundfish stocks,
and adopts several other measures to improve the management of the
groundfish fishery. This final rule must be in effect at the beginning
of the 2016 fishing year to fully capture the conservation and economic
benefits of Framework 55 and sector administrative measures.
This rulemaking incorporates information from updated stock
assessments for all 20 groundfish stocks. The development of Framework
55 was timed to incorporate the results of the 2015 groundfish stock
assessments, which were finalized in October 2015. As a result, this
rulemaking could not be completed further before this date. Therefore,
in order to have this action effective at the beginning of the 2016
fishing year, which begins on May 1, 2016, it is necessary to waive the
30-day delayed effectiveness of this rule.
If this action is delayed, the coverage level for the industry-
funded ASM program would be 17 percent beginning on May 1, 2016, based
on default measures for 2016 published in a separate rulemaking. When
combined with the default groundfish specifications (set at 35 percent
of the 2015 allocations), a delay in the implementation of these
measures would result in direct economic loss for the groundfish fleet
due to the high costs of ASM and the low default groundfish
specifications, which may restrict fishing effort or temporarily alter
business plans. In addition, this action approves two new sectors for
operation on May 1, 2016. These sectors would be unable to operate and
their vessels would be unable to fish until this action is finalized,
which would result in direct economic loss for these vessels.
The groundfish fishery already faced substantial catch limit
reductions for many key groundfish stocks over the past 5 years, and
this rule implements additional catch limit reductions. However, the
negative economic impacts of implementing the default catch limits on
May 1 would exceed any negative economic impacts anticipated from this
action. Any further disruption to the fishery that would result from a
delay in this final rule could worsen the severe economic impacts to
the groundfish fishery. While this action includes several catch limit
decreases for several stocks in poor condition, it also includes catch
limits increases for a number of healthy groundfish stocks. These
increases in catch limits for healthy groundfish stocks may help
mitigate the economic impacts of the reductions in catch limits for
other key groundfish stocks.
The allocation changes for GOM haddock and GOM cod in this action
would allow for increases in the recreational possession limits for
both stocks through a separate, concurrent rulemaking. A delay in this
action would delay setting recreational measures for the 2016 fishing
year and the economic benefits that these measures would provide.
Additionally, recreational fishermen book fishing trips months in
advance for the upcoming fishing year. Thus, delays in finalizing
recreational measures result in additional negative impacts on the
recreational fishing industry due to uncertainty and the inability to
book trips.

[[Page 26445]]

Overall, a delay in implementation of this action would greatly
diminish any benefits of these specifications and other approved
measures. For these reasons, a 30-day delay in the effectiveness of
this rule is impracticable and contrary to the public interest.

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

Section 604 of the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 604, requires Federal agencies to
prepare a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) for each final
rule. The FRFA describes the economic impact of this action on small
entities. The FRFA includes a summary of significant issues raised by
public comments, the analyses contained in Framework 55 and its
accompanying Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review/Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), the IRFA summary in the
proposed rule, as well as the summary provided below. A statement of
the necessity for and for the objectives of this action are contained
in Framework 55 and in the preamble to this final rule, and is not
repeated here.

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

Our responses to all of the comments received on the proposed rule,
including those that raised significant issues with the proposed
action, or commented on the economic analyses summarized in the IRFA,
can be found in the Comments and Responses section of this rule. As
outlined in that section, significant issues were raised by the public
with respect to the GB cod catch limits for 2016-2018 and the combined
suite of groundfish ASM program adjustment. Comment 5 discussed that
the GB cod catch limit, as well as catch limits for other key
groundfish stocks, are expected to constrain the commercial groundfish
fishery. Comment 26 discusses compares economic impacts of the No
Action ASM alternative to the combined suite of ASM program
adjustments, and the economic analysis in the IRFA. Comments 27 and 28
discuss alternatives to the proposed changes to the ASM program that
were not considered in this action, namely electronic monitoring and an
alternative approach for allocating ASM coverage. Detailed responses
are provided to each of these specific comments and are not repeated
here. There were no other comments directly related to the IRFA; the
Chief Counsel for the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration (SBA) did not file any comments. No changes to the
proposed rule measures were necessary as a result of these public
comments.

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

The SBA 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; or
[cir] 100 employees in the case of fish dealers.
This final 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 this 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 20 describes the total number of commercial business entities
potentially regulated by this action. As of June 1, 2015, there were
1,359 commercial business entities potentially regulated by this
action. These entities participate in, or are permitted for, the
groundfish, small-mesh multispecies, squid, herring midwater trawl, and
scallop fisheries. For the groundfish fishery, this action directly
regulates potentially affected entities through catch limits and other
management measures designed to achieve the goals and objectives of the
Northeast Multispecies FMP. For the non-groundfish fisheries, this
action includes allocations for groundfish stocks caught as bycatch in
these fisheries. For each of these fisheries, there are 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 20--Commercial Fish Harvesting Entities Regulated by This Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Classified
Type Total as small
number businesses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primarily finfish................................ 385 385
Primarily shellfish.............................. 480 462

[[Page 26446]]

Primarily for hire............................... 297 297
No Revenue....................................... 197 197
----------------------
Total.......................................... 1,359 1,341
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Limited Access Groundfish Fishery
This action will directly impact entities engaged in the limited
access groundfish fishery. The limited access groundfish fishery
consists of those enrolled in the sector program and those in the
common pool. Both sectors and the common pool are subject to catch
limits and 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 (LAGC) scallop
permits. LA scallop businesses are subject to a mixture of DAS
restrictions and dedicated area trip restrictions. LAGC scallop
businesses are able to acquire and trade LAGC scallop quota, and there
is an annual cap on quota/landings. The scallop fishery receives an
allocation for GB and SNE/MA yellowtail flounder and southern
windowpane flounder. If these allocations are exceeded, accountability
measures are implemented in a subsequent fishing year. These
accountability measures close certain areas of high groundfish bycatch
to the 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 169 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
haddock stock has been caught, midwater trawl vessels may not fish for
herring or haddock 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 (0.45 kg) 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

[[Page 26447]]

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, Record-Keeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements

This action contains a change to an information collection
requirement, which has been approved by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) under OMB Control Number 0648-0605: Northeast Multispecies
Amendment 16 Data Collection. This action adjusts the ACE transfer
request requirement implemented through Amendment 16. This rule adds a
new entry field to the 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-allocate eastern GB haddock
ACE to the Western U.S./Canada Area, via an online or paper form to the
Regional Administrator. The change only adds a single field to this
form, and does not affect the number of entities required to comply
with this requirement. Therefore, the change is not 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 Paperwork Reduction Act, unless that collection of
information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.

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

The economic impact of each measure is discussed in more detail in
sections 7.4 and 8.11 of the Framework 55 EA and are not repeated here.
Although small entities are defined based on gross sales of ownership
groups, not physical characteristics of the vessel, it is reasonable to
assume that larger vessels are more likely to be owned by large
entities. The economic impacts of this action are anticipated to result
in aggregate gross revenue losses of approximately $8 million for the
2016 fishing year, compared to predicted revenues for the 2015 fishing
year. However, the impacts of the approved catch limits would not be
uniformly distributed across vessels size classes and ports. Some
vessel size classes and ports are predicted to have 50- to 80-percent
declines in revenues from groundfish.
Because predicted losses are expected to primarily affect small
businesses, this action has the potential to place small entities at a
competitive disadvantage relative to large entities. This is mainly
because large entities may have more flexibility to adjust to, and
accommodate, the measures. However, as discussed in more detail below,
the additional declines in gross revenues expected as a result of this
action will pose serious difficulties for all groundfish vessels and
their crew.

Status Determination Criteria

This action updates the numerical estimates of the status
determination criteria for all groundfish stocks in order to
incorporate the results of the 2015 stock assessments. For many stocks,
these updates result in lower values of MSY. For some of these, the
lower values of MSY result in lower ACLs in the short-term, which is
expected to have negative economic impacts (i.e., lower net revenues).
However, the updates to the status determination criteria are expected
to have positive stock benefits by helping to prevent overfishing.
Thus, in the long-term, the changes to status determination criteria
are expected to result in higher and more sustainable landings when
compared to the No Action option. All of the revisions are based on the
2015 stock assessments, and are therefore based on the best scientific
information available.
Status determination criteria are formulaic based on the results of
a stock assessment. As a result, the only other alternative considered
for this action was the No Action option, which would not update the
status determination criteria for any groundfish stocks based on the
2015 stock assessments. This option would not incorporate the best
scientific information available, and would not be consistent with
Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements, and, as a result, was not selected.
This option would not have any immediate economic impacts. However if
this option resulted in overfishing in the long-term, then it would
have severe negative economic impacts for the fisheries affected by
this action.

Groundfish Annual Catch Limits

This action sets 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 adopted 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. 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 approved 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 approved 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

[[Page 26448]]

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 approved 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
groundfish revenues relative to 2015, and Point Judith expected to see
a 58-percent decline. Boston and Gloucester, meanwhile, are predicted
to have groundfish 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 that
considered a witch flounder ABC of 399 mt, gross revenues were
predicted to be the same as the approved catch limit (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 was also expected to
provide the same changes in gross revenue by vessels size class. In the
alternative that considered a witch flounder ABC of 500 mt, gross
revenues were predicted to be slightly lower than the approved catch
limit, 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 were expected to
see gross revenue increases of 4 percent. Vessels in the 50-75 ft (15-
23 m) size class were expected to see revenue increases of 15 percent.
The largest vessels (75 ft (23 m) and greater) were 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 be required to
operate under default specifications of catch limits at 35 percent of
the levels used last fishing year and would have 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 adopted 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 adopted 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 catch limits approved in this action are based on the latest
stock assessment information, which is considered the best scientific
information available, and the applicable requirements in the Northeast
Multispecies FMP and the Magnuson-Stevens Act. With the exception of
witch flounder, the only other possible alternatives to the catch
limits 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 Northeast Multispecies FMP, or the
Magnuson-Stevens Act, particularly the requirement to prevent
overfishing. The Magnuson-Stevens Act and case law prevent
implementation of measures that conflict with conservation
requirements, even if it means negative impacts are not mitigated. The
catch limits 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 in this
action, which would not mitigate the economic impacts of the approved
catch limits.

Groundfish At-Sea Monitoring Program

This action approves a set of four alternatives that, in
combination, result in a 2016 target ASM coverage level of 14 percent.
The four selected alternatives will: (1) Remove ASM coverage for extra-
large mesh gillnet trips fishing in Broad Stock Areas 2 and/or 4; (2)
remove the administrative standard that 80 percent of discards be
estimated at a 30-percent CV; (3) use 3 years of discard information to
predict ASM coverage levels; and (4) base the target coverage level on
the predictions for stocks that would be at a higher risk for an error
in the discard estimate. The No Action alternative would have resulted
in a 2016 ASM coverage level of 41 percent.
The combination of ASM alternatives would result in a lower level
of ASM coverage (14 percent) relative to the No Action alternative (41
percent) thereby resulting in a reduction in cost to sectors. Selecting
the alternatives in combination has the maximum economic impact
mitigation compared to No Action. Assuming NEFOP coverage of 4 percent
for the 2016 fishing year, industry would be responsible for paying for
ASM coverage on an estimated 10 percent of trips under the combined ASM
alternatives, and an estimated 37 percent of trips under the No Action
alternative. Assuming 20,000 days absent, and a cost of $710 per ASM
seaday, the cost of ASM to sectors would be $1.4 million
(20,000*.10*$710). This would represent cost savings of $3.9 million
relative to the No Action alternative ($5.3 million). The $710 per ASM
seaday is based on NMFS cost estimates for the ASM program. If sectors
are able to negotiate lower per seaday rates for ASM coverage with
service providers, these figures may be overestimates.
Each of the four selected alternatives, if approved in isolation,
would have also resulted in a lower ASM coverage level relative to the
No Action alternative. Using the effort and ASM cost assumptions noted
above, removing ASM coverage for extra-large mesh gillnet trips fishing
in Broad Stock Areas 2 and/or 4 would result in a cost savings of
$64,610 relative to the No Action alternative. Remove the

[[Page 26449]]

administrative standard that 80 percent of discards be estimated at a
30-percent CV would result in 2016 ASM costs of $4.7 million, an
estimated $0.6 million decrease relative to the No Action alternative.
Using 3 years of discard information to predict ASM coverage levels
would result in 2016 ASM costs of $1.8 million, a savings of $3.5
million relative to No Action. Finally, basing the target coverage
level on the predictions for stocks that would be at a higher risk for
an error in the discard estimate would in ASM costs of $3.1 million, an
estimated $2.2 million decrease in ASM costs relative to the No Action
alternative.

Formation of Sustainable Harvest Sector II

This action approves the formation of a new sector, Sustainable
Harvest Sector II, for operation for the 2016 fishing year. The No
Action alternative was the only alternative to the approved action, and
would not approve the formation of Sustainable Harvest Sector II.
Allowing the formation of the new sector increases flexibility for
groundfish fishery participants within the sector management system,
and is thus anticipated to have positive economic impacts.

Modification of the Sector Approval Process

This action modifies the sector approval process such that a
Council framework adjustment or amendment is no longer needed to
approve a new sector. The No Action alternative was the only
alternative to the approved action, and would maintain the existing
process for sector approval. Modifying the sector approval process
decreases the administrative cost of approving a new sector, and allows
more time for new sectors to prepare operations plans and analysis to
support the formation of a new sector. The additional time to prepare
operations plans may have minor economic benefits to fishery
participants.

Modification of the Definition of the Haddock Separator Trawl

This action modifies 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 approved 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. In order
to minimize impact of this measure, we are delaying the effective date
of this requirement by 6 months to allow affected fishermen time to
replace their separator panels with contrasting netting.

Removal of GOM Cod Recreational Possession Limit

For the recreational fishery, the removal prohibition on GOM cod
possession, coupled with measures in the recreational rule, are
expected to result in short-term positive economic impacts. The
measures implemented for 2016 in that rule are expected to result in an
increase in the number of trips taken by anglers, and increased catch,
while staying within the recreational quotas for 2016. Under the No
Action alternative, vessels would be prohibited from harvesting GOM
cod, which would have negative economic impacts compared to the
selected alternative.

Distribution of Eastern/Western GB Cod Sector Allocation

The action allows sectors to convert their eastern GB cod
allocation to western GB cod allocation and provide sectors additional
flexibility to harvest more of their total GB cod allocation. Only the
No Action alternative and the selected alternative were considered.
Compared to the No Action alternative, this measure is expected to have
positive economic impacts on groundfish-dependent small entities that
participate in the sector program due to increased operational
flexibility. This measure is also expected to prevent the Western U.S./
Canada Area from being closed to a sector prematurely, before the
sector harvests all of its GB cod allocation, which will ultimately
prevent foregone yield in the fishery. Given the sizable decreases in
the GB cod catch limit for 2016, the ability of sectors to convert
their eastern GB cod allocation to western GB cod may be of critical
importance for allowing members to maintain fishing operations on
Georges Bank through 2016. In the absence of GB cod allocation, sectors
members are not permitted to fish in the Inshore and Offshore Georges
Bank broad stock areas.

Small Entity Compliance Guide

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

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648

Fisheries, Fishing, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

Dated: April 25, 2016.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, NMFS amends 50 CFR part 648
as follows:

PART 648--FISHERIES OF THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES

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

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

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

[[Page 26450]]

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
4. In Sec. 648.87:
0
a. Revise paragraphs (a)(1) and (2), (b)(1)(i)(B)(2), (b)(1)(v)(B)
introductory text, (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) and (B) and (c)(4); and
0
e. Revise paragraphs (d) and (e)(3)(iv).
The revisions 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 paragraphs (b)(2)
and (b)(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 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 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

[[Page 26451]]

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 level 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 level 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:

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

[[Page 26452]]

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

[FR Doc. 2016-10051 Filed 4-29-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P

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