80 FR 12380 - Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northeast Multispecies Fishery; 2015 and 2016 Sector Operations Plans and 2015 Contracts and Allocation of Northeast Multispecies Annual Catch Entitlements

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 45 (March 9, 2015)

Page Range		12380-12393
FR Document		2015-05386

We propose to approve 17 sector operations plans and contracts for fishing years 2015 and 2016, grant regulatory exemptions for fishing years 2015 and 2016, and provide Northeast multispecies annual catch entitlements to these sectors for fishing year 2015. We request comment on the proposed sector operations plans and contracts; the environmental assessment analyzing the impacts of the operations plans; and our proposal to grant (in whole or partially) 19 of the 22 regulatory exemptions requested by the sectors. Approval of sector operations plans is necessary to allocate annual catch entitlements to the sectors and for the sectors to operate. The Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan allows limited access permit holders to form sectors, and requires sectors to submit their operations plans and contracts to us, NMFS, for approval or disapproval. Approved sectors are exempt from certain effort control regulations and receive allocation of Northeast multispecies based on its members' fishing history. This document also announces the target at-sea monitoring coverage rate for sector trips for fishing year 2015.

Federal Register, Volume 80 Issue 45 (Monday, March 9, 2015)

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 45 (Monday, March 9, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 12380-12393]
From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2015-05386]

[[Page 12380]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 648

[Docket No. 140821699-5191-01]
RIN 0648-XD461

Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern
United States; Northeast Multispecies Fishery; 2015 and 2016 Sector
Operations Plans and 2015 Contracts and Allocation of Northeast
Multispecies Annual Catch Entitlements

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

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: We propose to approve 17 sector operations plans and contracts
for fishing years 2015 and 2016, grant regulatory exemptions for
fishing years 2015 and 2016, and provide Northeast multispecies annual
catch entitlements to these sectors for fishing year 2015. We request
comment on the proposed sector operations plans and contracts; the
environmental assessment analyzing the impacts of the operations plans;
and our proposal to grant (in whole or partially) 19 of the 22
regulatory exemptions requested by the sectors. Approval of sector
operations plans is necessary to allocate annual catch entitlements to
the sectors and for the sectors to operate. The Northeast Multispecies
Fishery Management Plan allows limited access permit holders to form
sectors, and requires sectors to submit their operations plans and
contracts to us, NMFS, for approval or disapproval. Approved sectors
are exempt from certain effort control regulations and receive
allocation of Northeast multispecies based on its members' fishing
history.
This document also announces the target at-sea monitoring coverage
rate for sector trips for fishing year 2015.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before March 24, 2015.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on this document, identified by
NOAA-NMFS-2014-0111, by either of the following methods:
Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public
comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to
www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2014-0111, click the
``Comment Now!'' icon, complete the required fields, and enter or
attach your comments.
Mail: Submit written comments to Liz Sullivan, 55 Great
Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930.
Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other
address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period,
may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the
public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on
www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying
information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business
information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily
by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous
comments (enter ``N/A'' in the required fields if you wish to remain
anonymous).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Liz Sullivan, Fishery Management
Specialist, phone (978) 282-8493, fax (978) 281-9135. To review Federal
Register documents referenced in this rule, you can visit: http://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/sustainable/species/multispecies.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Amendment 13 to the Northeast (NE) Multispecies Fishery Management
Plan (FMP) (69 FR 22906, April 27, 2004) established a process for
forming sectors within the NE multispecies (groundfish) fishery, and
Amendment 16 to the FMP (74 FR 18262, April 9, 2010), followed by
Framework Adjustment 45 to the FMP (76 FR 23042, April 25, 2011) and
Framework 48 to the FMP (78 FR 26118; May 3, 2013), expanded and
revised sector management.
The FMP defines a sector as ``[a] group of persons (three or more
persons, none of whom have an ownership interest in the other two
persons in the sector) holding limited access vessel permits who have
voluntarily entered into a contract and agree to certain fishing
restrictions for a specified period of time, and which has been granted
a TAC(s) [sic] in order to achieve objectives consistent with
applicable FMP goals and objectives.'' Sectors are self-selecting,
meaning each sector can choose its members.
The NE multispecies sector management system allocates a portion of
the NE multispecies stocks to each sector. These annual sector
allocations are known as annual catch entitlements (ACE). These
allocations are a portion of a stock's annual catch limit (ACL)
available to commercial NE multispecies vessels, based on the
collective fishing history of a sector's members. Currently, sectors
may receive allocations of most large-mesh NE multispecies stocks with
the exception of Atlantic halibut, windowpane flounder, Atlantic
wolffish, and ocean pout. A sector determines how to harvest its ACEs
and may decide to consolidate operations to fewer vessels.
Because sectors elect to receive an allocation under a quota-based
system, the FMP grants sector vessels several ``universal'' exemptions
from the FMP's effort controls. These universal exemptions apply to:
Trip limits on allocated stocks; the Georges Bank (GB) Seasonal Closure
Area; NE multispecies days-at-sea (DAS) restrictions; the requirement
to use a 6.5-inch (16.5-cm) mesh codend when fishing with selective
gear on GB; portions of the Gulf of Maine (GOM) Rolling Closure Areas
(or as modified by Framework 53); and the at-sea monitoring (ASM)
coverage rate for sector vessels fishing on a monkfish DAS in the
Southern New England (SNE) Broad Stock Area (BSA) with extra-large mesh
gillnets. The FMP prohibits sectors from requesting exemptions from
permitting restrictions, gear restrictions designed to minimize habitat
impacts, and reporting requirements.
We received operations plans and preliminary contracts for fishing
years 2015 and 2016 from 17 sectors. The operations plans are similar
to previously approved versions, but propose operations spanning 2
fishing years, and include additional exemption requests and proposals
for industry-funded ASM plans. This is the first year that 2-year
operations plans have been submitted by the sectors, as allowed in the
Amendment 16 final rule. Two-year sector operations plans will help
streamline the process for sector managers and reduce administrative
burdens for both sectors and NMFS. Six sectors that have operated in
past years did not submit operations plans or contracts. Four of these
sectors now operate as state-operated permit banks as described below.
We have made a preliminary determination that the proposed 17
sector operations plans and contracts, and 19 of the 22 regulatory
exemptions, in whole or partially, are consistent with the FMP's goals
and objectives, and meet sector requirements outlined in the
regulations at Sec. 648.87. We summarize many of the sector
requirements in this proposed rule and request comments on the proposed
operations plans, the accompanying environmental assessment (EA), and
our proposal to wholly or partially grant 19 of the 22 regulatory
exemptions

[[Page 12381]]

requested by the sectors, but deny the rest. Copies of the operations
plans and contracts, and the EA, are available at http://www.regulations.gov and from NMFS (see ADDRESSES). One of the 17
sectors, Northeast Fishery Sector (NEFS) 4, proposes to operate as a
private lease-only sector.
The six sectors that chose not to submit operations plans and
contracts for fishing years 2015 and 2016 are the Tri-State Sector, the
GB Hook Sector, and four state-operated permit bank sectors as follows:
The State of Maine Permit Bank Sector, the State of New Hampshire
Permit Bank Sector, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Permit Bank
Sector, and the State of Rhode Island Permit Bank Sector. The final
rule implementing Amendment 17 to the FMP allows a state-operated
permit bank to receive an allocation without needing to comply with the
administrative and procedural requirements for sectors (77 FR 16942,
March 23, 2012). These permit banks are required to submit a list of
participating permits to us by a date specified in the permit bank's
Memorandum of Agreement, typically April 1.

Sector Allocations

Sectors typically submit membership information to us on December 1
prior to the start of the fishing year, which begins each year on May
1. Due to a delay in distributing a letter describing each vessel's
potential contribution to a sector's quota for fishing year 2015, we
extended the deadline to join a sector until February 18, 2014. Based
on sector enrollment trends from the past 5 fishing years, we expect
sector participation in fishing year 2015 will be similar. Thus, we are
using fishing year 2014 rosters as a proxy for fishing year 2015 sector
membership and calculating the fishing year 2015 projected allocations
in this proposed rule. In addition to the membership delay, all permits
that change ownership after December 1, 2014, retain the ability to
join a sector through April 30, 2015. All permits enrolled in a sector,
and the vessels associated with those permits, have until April 30,
2015, to withdraw from a sector and fish in the common pool for fishing
year 2015. For fishing year 2016, we will set similar roster deadlines,
notify permit holders of the fishing year 2016 deadlines, and allow
permit holders to change sectors separate from the annual approval
process. We will publish final sector ACEs and common pool sub-ACL
totals, based upon final rosters, as soon as possible after the start
of fishing year 2015, and again after the start of fishing year 2016.
The allocations proposed in this rule are based on the fishing year
2015 specifications recommended by the New England Fishery Management
Council in Framework 53. These allocations are not final, and are
subject to the approval of Framework 53. We expect a rule proposing the
Framework 53 management measures to publish in March 2015.
We calculate the sector's allocation for each stock by summing its
members' potential sector contributions (PSC) for a stock, as shown in
Table 1. The information presented in Table 1 is the total percentage
of each commercial sub-ACL each sector would receive for fishing year
2015, based on their fishing year 2014 rosters. Tables 2 and 3 show the
allocations each sector would be allocated for fishing year 2015, based
on their fishing year 2014 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 total allowable catch (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. A sector may only
harvest its Eastern GB cod ACEs in the Eastern U.S./Canada Area.
However, 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.
At the start of fishing year 2015, we will withhold 20 percent of
each sector's fishing year 2015 allocation until we finalize fishing
year 2014 catch information. Further, we will allow sectors to transfer
fishing year 2014 ACE for 2 weeks of the fishing year following the
completion of year-end catch accounting to reduce or eliminate any
fishing year 2014 overages. If necessary, we will reduce any sector's
fishing year 2015 allocation to account for a remaining overage in
fishing year 2014. We will follow the same process for fishing year
2016. We will notify the Council and sector managers of this deadline
in writing and will announce this decision on our Web site at: http://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/.
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P

[[Page 12382]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09MR15.000

[[Page 12383]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09MR15.001

[[Page 12384]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09MR15.002

BILLING CODE 3510-22-C

Sector Operations Plans and Contracts

As stated previously, we received 17 sector operations plans and
contracts by the September 2, 2014, deadline for fishing years 2015 and
2016. In order to approve a sector's operations plan for fishing years
2015 and 2016, that sector must have been compliant with reporting
requirements from all previous years, including the year-end reporting
requirements found at

[[Page 12385]]

Sec. 648.87(b)(1)(vi)(C). Approved operations plans, provided on our
Web site as a single document for each sector, not only contain the
rules under which each sector would fish, but also provide the legal
contract that binds each member to the sector for the length of the
sector's operations plan. Each sector's operations plan, and sector
members, must comply with the regulations governing sectors, found at
Sec. 648.87. In addition, each sector must conduct fishing activities
as detailed in its approved operations plan.
Any permit holder with a limited access NE multispecies permit that
was valid as of May 1, 2008, is eligible to participate in a sector,
including an inactive permit currently held in confirmation of permit
history. If a permit holder officially enrolls a permit in a sector and
the fishing year begins, then that permit must remain in the sector for
the entire fishing year, and cannot fish in the NE multispecies fishery
outside of the sector (i.e., in the common pool) during the fishing
year. Participating vessels are required to comply with all pertinent
Federal fishing regulations, except as specifically exempted in the
letter of authorization (LOA) issued by the Regional Administrator,
which details any approved exemptions from regulations. If, during a
fishing year, or between fishing years 2015 and 2016, a sector requests
an exemption that we have already approved, or proposes a change to
administrative provisions, we may amend the sector operations plans.
Should any amendments require modifications to LOAs, we would include
these changes in updated LOAs and provide these to the appropriate
sector members.
As in previous years, we retain the right to revoke exemptions in-
season for the following reasons: If we determine that the exemption
jeopardizes management measures, objectives, or rebuilding efforts; if
the exemption results in unforeseen negative impacts on other managed
fish stocks, habitat, or protected resources; if the exemption causes
enforcement concerns; if catch from trips utilizing the exemption
cannot properly be monitored; or if a sector is not meeting certain
requirements. If it becomes necessary to revoke the exemption, we will
do so through a process consistent with the Administrative Procedure
Act.
Each sector is required to ensure that it does not exceed its ACE
during the fishing year. Sector vessels are required to retain all
legal-sized allocated NE multispecies stocks, unless a sector is
granted an exemption allowing its member vessels to discard legal-sized
unmarketable fish at sea. Catch (defined as landings and discards) of
all allocated NE multispecies stocks by a sector's vessels count
against the sector's allocation. Catch from a sector trip (e.g., not
fishing under provisions of a NE multispecies exempted fishery or with
exempted gear) targeting dogfish, monkfish, skate, and lobster (with
non-trap gear) would be deducted from the sector's ACE because these
trips use gear capable of catching groundfish. Catch from a trip in an
exempted fishery does not count against a sector's allocation because
the catch is assigned to a separate ACL sub-component.
For fishing years 2010 and 2011, there was no requirement for an
industry-funded ASM program, and we were able to fund an ASM program
with a target ASM coverage rate of 30 percent of all trips. In
addition, we provided 8-percent observer coverage through the Northeast
Fishery Observer Program (NEFOP), which helps to support the
Standardized Bycatch Reporting Methodology (SBRM) and stock
assessments. This resulted in an overall target coverage rate of 38
percent, between ASM and NEFOP, for fishing years 2010 and 2011.
Beginning in fishing year 2012, we have conducted an annual analysis to
determine the total coverage that would be necessary to achieve the
same level of precision as attained by the 38-percent total coverage
target used for fishing years 2010 and 2011. Since fishing year 2012,
industry has been required to pay for their costs of ASM coverage,
while we continued to fund NEFOP. However, we were able to fund the
industry's portion of ASM costs and NEFOP coverage in fishing years
2012 through 2014. Table 4 shows the annual target coverage rates.

Table 4--Historic Target Coverage Rate for Monitoring
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total coverage ASM coverage rate NEFOP coverage
Fishing year rate (percent) (percent) rate (percent) Funding source
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2010................................ 38 30 8 NMFS
2011................................ 38 30 8 NMFS
2012................................ 25 17 8 NMFS
2013................................ 22 14 8 NMFS
2014................................ 26 18 8 NMFS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Due to funding changes that would be required by the proposed SBRM
amendment, we expect that sector vessels will be responsible for paying
at-sea costs associated with the ASM program before the end of the 2015
fishing year. Thus, sectors will be responsible for designing,
implementing, and funding an ASM program in fishing years 2015 and 2016
that will provide a level of ASM coverage specified by NMFS. Amendment
16 regulations require NMFS to specify a level of ASM coverage that is
sufficient to meet the same coefficient of variation (CV) specified in
the SBRM, and to accurately monitor sector operations. Framework 48
clarified the level of ASM coverage necessary to meet these goals.
Regarding meeting the SBRM CV level, Framework 48 determined that it
should be made at the overall stock level, which is consistent with the
level NMFS determined was necessary in fishing year 2013. Framework 48
also amended the goals of the sector monitoring program to include
achieving an accuracy level sufficient to minimize effects of potential
monitoring bias.
Taking the provisions of Framework 48 into account, and
interpreting the ASM monitoring provision in the context of Magnuson-
Stevens Act requirements and National Standards, we have determined
that the appropriate level of ASM coverage should be set at the level
that meets the CV requirement specified in the SBRM and minimizes the
cost burden to sectors and NMFS to the extent practicable, while still
providing a reliable estimate of overall catch by sectors needed for
monitoring ACEs and ACLs. Based on this standard, NMFS has determined
that the appropriate target coverage rate for fishing year 2015 is 24
percent. We expect ASM coverage to be 20 percent and NEFOP coverage to
be 4 percent, covering a total of 24

[[Page 12386]]

percent of all sector trips, with the exception of trips using a few
specific exemptions, as described later in this rule. We will use
discards derived from these observed and monitored trips to calculate
discards for unobserved sector trips. We have published a more detailed
summary of the supporting information, explanation and justification
for this decision at: http://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/ro/fso/reports/Sectors/ASM/FY2015_Multispecies_Sector_ASM_Requirements_Summary.pdf.
The draft operations plans submitted in September 2014 included
industry-funded ASM plans for fishing year 2015. Therefore, we are
proposing to approve the sector's ASM programs as described in their
operations plans. We gave sectors the option to design their own
programs in compliance with regulations, or opt for the program that we
have previously utilized in previous fishing years. ASM programs
proposed by the sectors are described in detail later in this proposed
rule. The proposed operations plans each contain an ASM program
sufficient to ensure ASM coverage for fishing years 2015 and 2016,
including once sectors assume responsibility for funding their ASM
program, at the required levels stated in this rule. Given the
potential for changes in the ASM program funding for sectors, NMFS will
verify that all approved sectors continue to comply with all ASM
requirements, including contracting with approved providers in a timely
fashion.
We are currently looking at how industry funding of the ASM program
will affect our data collection systems, especially the PTNS system,
and have begun working on an implementation plan to help ensure a
seamless transition when the industry assumes responsibility for at-sea
costs in 2015. To ensure that the ASM programs continue to provide
sufficient coverage, the Regional Administrator is authorized to adjust
operational standards such as vessel selection protocols as needed,
consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act. We will continue to
keep the sector managers informed about any changes or updates to the
situation.
Our ability to fund our portion of costs for ASM coverage above
SBRM coverage levels for the entire 2015 and 2016 fishing years is not
precisely known at this time due to budget uncertainties. Currently,
funding for our portion of ASM costs will expire before the end of the
2015 fishing year. If we have insufficient funding available for our
portion of coverage costs beyond that time, we may need to consider
other measures, including emergency action, to allow sectors to
continue fishing while still ensuring that we can adequately monitor
sector catch for management purposes. We expect this funding issue to
be resolved before this rule is effective, but are seeking comments on
possible measures to help adequately monitor catch limits.
Sectors are required to monitor their allocations and catch, and
submit weekly catch reports to us. If a sector reaches an ACE threshold
(specified in the operations plan), the sector must provide sector
allocation usage reports on a daily basis. Once a sector's allocation
for a particular stock is caught, that sector is required to cease all
fishing operations in that stock area until it acquires more ACE. ACE
may be transferred between sectors, but transfers to or from common
pool vessels is prohibited. Within 60 days of when we complete year-end
catch accounting, each sector is required to submit an annual report
detailing the sector's catch (landings and discards), enforcement
actions, and pertinent information necessary to evaluate the
biological, economic, and social impacts of each sector.
Each sector contract provides procedures to enforce the sector
operations plan, explains sector monitoring and reporting requirements,
presents a schedule of penalties for sector plan violations, and
provides sector managers with the authority to issue stop fishing
orders to sector members who violate provisions of the operations plan
and contract. A sector and sector members can be held jointly and
severally liable for ACE overages, discarding legal-sized fish, and/or
misreporting catch (landings or discards). Each sector operations plan
submitted for fishing years 2015 and 2016 states that the sector would
withhold an initial reserve from the sector's ACE sub-allocation to
each individual member to prevent the sector from exceeding its ACE.
Each sector contract details the method for initial ACE sub-allocation
to sector members. For fishing years 2015 and 2016, each sector has
proposed that each sector member could harvest an amount of fish equal
to the amount each individual member's permit contributed to the
sector.

Requested Fishing Years 2015 and 2016 Exemptions

Sectors requested 22 exemptions from the NE multispecies
regulations through their fishing years 2015 and 2016 operations plans.
We evaluate each exemption to determine whether it allows for effective
administration of and compliance with the operations plan and sector
allocation, and that it is consistent with the goals and objectives of
the FMP. We propose to grant the following for fishing years 2015 and
2016: 16 exemptions that were previously granted; 1 exemption that was
previously granted, but has been modified; 1 exemption that we propose
to partially grant; and 1 new exemption. We propose to deny three
exemption requests for fishing years 2015 and 2016.
For fishing year 2014, sectors had requested an exemption that
would allow access to year-round closed areas. This request may be
considered in a separate action pending results from an ongoing
Exempted Fishing Permit (EFP) (see Exemptions That May Be Considered in
a Separate Action).
A discussion of all 22 exemption requests appears below; we request
public comment on the proposed sector operations plans and our proposal
to grant 19 requested exemptions, in whole or partially, and deny 3
requested exemptions, as well as the EA prepared for this action.

Exemptions We Propose To Grant (16)

In fishing year 2014, we exempted sectors from the following
requirements, all of which have been requested for fishing years 2015
and 2016, and which we propose to grant again: (1) 120-day block out of
the fishery required for Day gillnet vessels; (2) 20-day spawning block
out of the fishery required for all vessels; (3) prohibition on a
vessel hauling another vessel's gillnet gear; (4) limits on the number
of gillnets that may be hauled on GB when fishing under a NE
multispecies/monkfish DAS; (5) limits on the number of hooks that may
be fished; (6) DAS Leasing Program length and horsepower restrictions;
(7) prohibition on discarding; (8) daily catch reporting by sector
managers for sector vessels participating in the Closed Area (CA) I
Hook Gear Haddock Special Access Program (SAP); (9) prohibition on
fishing inside and outside of the CA I Hook Gear Haddock SAP while on
the same trip; (10) prohibition on a vessel hauling another vessel's
hook gear; (11) the requirement to declare intent to fish in the
Eastern U.S./Canada SAP and the CA II Yellowtail Flounder/Haddock SAP
prior to leaving the dock; (12) gear requirements in the Eastern U.S./
Canada Management Area; (13) seasonal restrictions for the Eastern
U.S./Canada Haddock SAP; (14) seasonal restrictions for the CA II
Yellowtail Flounder/Haddock SAP; (15) sampling exemption; and (16)
prohibition on groundfish trips in the Nantucket Lightship Closed Area.

[[Page 12387]]

A detailed description of the previously approved exemptions and
rationale for their approval can be found in the applicable final rules
identified in Table 5 below.

Table 5--Exemptions From Previous Fishing Years Proposed for Approval in Fishing Years 2015 and 2016
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exemptions Rulemaking Date Citation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-8, 12........................ Fishing Year 2011 Sector Operations April 25, 2011...... 76 FR 23076
Final Rule.
9-11........................... Fishing Year 2012 Sector Operations May 2, 2012......... 77 FR 26129
Final Rule.
13-15.......................... Fishing Year 2013 Sector Operations May 2, 2013......... 78 FR 25591
Interim Final Rule.
16............................. Fishing Year 2014 Sector Operations April 28, 2014...... 79 FR 23278
Final Rule.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NE Multispecies Federal Register documents can be found at http://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/sustainable/species/multispecies/ sustainable/species/multispecies/.

Exemption We Propose To Approve, but Have Modified From 2014(1)

(17) Prohibition on Combining Small Mesh Exempted Fishery and Sector
Trips
For fishing year 2014, sectors requested and we granted an
exemption that would allow vessels to possess and use small-mesh and
large-mesh trawl gear on a single trip, within portions of the SNE
regulated mesh areas (RMA). Sectors proposed that vessels using this
exemption to fish with smaller mesh would fish in two discrete areas
that have been shown to have minimal amounts of regulated species and
ocean pout. See the 2014 Sector Final Rule (79 FR 23278; April 28,
2014) for a complete description of the previously granted exemption.
For fishing years 2015 and 2016, sectors requested a similar
exemption, but with a revised northern border of the eastern Small-Mesh
Exemption Area 2, shifted 15 minutes north. This expansion will allow
for greater opportunities for sector vessels to target small-mesh
species. The coordinates and maps for these two areas are shown in
Figure 1.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09MR15.003

Sector Small-Mesh Fishery Exemption Area 1 is bounded by the
following coordinates connected in the order listed by straight lines,
except where otherwise noted:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point N. Latitude W. Longitude Note
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A........................... 40[deg]39.2' 73[deg]07.0'
B........................... 40[deg]34.0' 73[deg]07.0'
C........................... 41[deg]03.5' 71[deg]34.0'
D........................... 41[deg]23.0' 71[deg]11.5'
E........................... 41[deg]27.6' 71[deg]11.5' (\1\)
F........................... 41[deg]18.3' 71[deg]51.5'
G........................... 41[deg]04.3' 71[deg]51.5' (\2\)
A........................... 40[deg]39.2' 73[deg]07.0'
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ From POINT E to POINT F along the southernmost coastline of Rhode
Island and crossing all bays and inlets following the COLREGS
Demarcation Lines defined in 33 CFR part 80.
\2\ From POINT G back to POINT A along the southernmost coastline of
Long Island, NY, and crossing all bays and inlets following the
COLREGS Demarcation Lines defined in 33 CFR part 80.

For fishing years 2015 and 2016, Sector Small-Mesh Fishery
Exemption Area 2 is bound by the following coordinates connected in the
order listed by straight lines. Sector vessels cannot fish the small-
mesh portion of their trip using this exemption in the Nantucket
Lighship Closed Area where the two areas overlap.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point N. Latitude W. Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.............................. 41[deg]15.0' N 71[deg]20.0' W
I.............................. 41[deg]15.0' N 70[deg]00.0' W

[[Page 12388]]

J.............................. 40[deg]27.0' N 70[deg]00.0' W
K.............................. 40[deg]27.0' N 71[deg]20.0' W
H.............................. 41[deg]15.0' N 71[deg]20.0' W
------------------------------------------------------------------------

As was approved in fishing year 2014, one of three trawl gear
modifications would be required when using small mesh: Drop-chain sweep
with a minimum of 12 inches (30.48 cm) in length; a large-mesh belly
panel with a minimum of 32-inch (81.28-cm) mesh size; or an excluder
grate secured forward of the codend with an outlet hole forward of the
grate with bar spacing of no more than 1.97 inches (5.00 cm) wide.
These gear modifications, when fished properly, have been shown to
reduce the catch of legal and sub-legal groundfish stocks. Requiring
these modifications is intended to also reduce the incentive for a
sector vessel to target groundfish with small mesh.
A vessel using this exemption is required to meet the same NEFOP
and ASM coverage as standard groundfish trips (i.e., a total of 24
percent in fishing year 2015). The vessel would be required to declare
their intent to use small mesh to target non-regulated species by
submitting a trip start hail through its vessel monitoring system (VMS)
unit prior to departure, which would be used for monitoring and
enforcement purposes. Trips declaring this exemption must stow their
small-mesh gear and use their large-mesh gear first, and once finished
with the large mesh, would have to submit a Multispecies Catch Report
via VMS with all catch on board at that time. Once the Catch Report was
sent, the vessel could then deploy small mesh with the required
modifications in the specific areas (see map above), outside of the
Nantucket Lightship Closed Area, at which point, the large mesh could
not be redeployed. Any legal-sized allocated groundfish stocks caught
during these small-mesh hauls must be landed and the associated landed
weight (dealer or vessel trip report (VTR)) would be deducted from the
sector's ACE.
As in fishing year 2014, we are concerned about vessels potentially
catching groundfish, including bycatch of juvenile fish, in the
requested exemption area with small-mesh nets. The expansion of the
Small-Mesh Exemption Area 2 by 15 minutes north could increase this
potential, because more groundfish are found in the expansion area. The
three gear modifications proposed for this exemption could mitigate
catch of regulated species when properly installed, but none have been
shown to completely eliminate the catch of regulated species.
If approved, we will closely monitor the catch from these exempted
trips. If it is determined that this exemption is having a negative
impact on groundfish stocks, we would consider revoking this exemption
during the fishing year.

Exemption We Propose To Partially Grant, and Partially Deny (1)

(18) Limits on the Number of Gillnets on Day Gillnet Vessels
The FMP limits the number of gillnets a Day gillnet vessel may fish
in the groundfish RMAs to prevent an uncontrolled increase in the
number of nets being fished, thus undermining applicable DAS effort
controls. The limits are specific to the type of gillnet within each
RMA: 100 gillnets (of which no more than 50 can be roundfish gillnets)
in the GOM RMA (Sec. 648.80(a)(3)(iv)); 50 gillnets in the GB RMA
(Sec. 648.80(a)(4)(iv)); and 75 gillnets in the Mid-Atlantic (MA) RMA
(Sec. 648.80(b)(2)(iv)). We previously approved this exemption in
fishing years 2010, 2011, and 2012 to allow sector vessels to fish up
to 150 nets (any combination of flatfish or roundfish nets) in any RMA
to provide greater operational flexibility to sector vessels in
deploying gillnet gear. Sectors argued that the gillnet limits were
designed to control fishing effort and are no longer necessary because
a sector's ACE limits overall fishing mortality.
Previous effort analysis of all sector vessels using gillnet gear
indicated an increase in gear used in the RMA which could lead to an
increase in interactions with protected species. While a sector's ACE
is designed to limit a stock's fishing mortality, fishing effort may
affect other species. This increased effort could ultimately lead to a
rise in interactions with protected species; however, we do not expect
this to be the case, because a take reduction plan has been implemented
to reduce bycatch in the fisheries affecting these species.
For fishing year 2013, based on the comments received and the
concern for spawning GOM cod, we restricted the use of this exemption
to better protect spawning cod. Therefore, a vessel fishing in the GOM
RMA was able to use this exemption seasonally, but was restricted to
the 100-net gillnet limit in blocks 124 and 125 in May, and in blocks
132 and 133 in June. A vessel fishing in the GB RMA, SNE RMA, MA RMA,
and the GOM outside of these times and areas did not have this
additional restriction. We granted this exemption with the same GOM
seasonal restrictions for fishing year 2014.
The November 2014 interim action implemented to protect GOM cod (79
FR 67362; November 13, 2014) revoked this exemption for all of the GOM
for the remainder of fishing year 2014, given concerns relating to
mortality of GOM cod caused by continuous fishing by gillnets left in
the water and the potential to disrupt spawning when cod are caught.
For these same concerns, we are proposing to partially grant the
exemption for fishing years 2015 and 2016 when fishing in all RMAs
except the GOM, and to deny the exemption for the GOM. Therefore,
vessels fishing in the GOM under the Day boat gillnet category would be
restricted to no more than 100 nets, only 50 of which may be roundfish
nets.

New Exemption Proposed (1)

(19) Regulated Mesh Size 6.5-Inch (16.5-cm) or Greater, for Directed
Redfish Trips
Minimum mesh size restrictions (Sec. 648.80(a)(3)(i), (a)(4)(i),
(b)(2)(i), and (c)(2)(i)) were implemented under previous groundfish
actions to reduce overall mortality on groundfish stocks, change the
selection pattern of the fishery to target larger fish, improve
survival of sublegal fish, and allow sublegal fish more opportunity to
spawn before entering the fishery. Beginning in fishing year 2012, we
have approved exemptions that allow sector vessels to target redfish,
the smallest species of regulated groundfish, with a sub-legal size
mesh codend, ranging from 4.5 inches (11.4 cm) to 6 inches (15.2 cm)
(see Table 6). In order to use these previous exemptions, sectors have
been required to meet an 80-percent threshold of redfish catch,
relative to groundfish catch, and a 5-percent discard threshold of
total groundfish, including redfish. These thresholds were intended to
ensure that a vessel using the exemption effectively targets redfish
and does not target other species with a smaller mesh, and attempts to
avoid catching sub-legal groundfish. The thresholds were based on
Component 2 of the REDNET report (Kanwit et al. 2013), which used a
4.5-inch mesh codend, and observer data for trips conducted in fishing
year 2012. REDNET is a group that includes the Maine Department of
Marine Resources, the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries, and
the University of Massachusetts School for Marine Science and
Technology joined with other members of the scientific community and
the industry to develop a research plan to develop a sustainable,
directed, redfish trawl fishery in the GOM. Each year, we have changed
the

[[Page 12389]]

exemption at the sectors' request in an attempt to balance the goal of
increasing use of the exemption while preventing misuse and ensuring it
is consistent with the FMP's goals and objectives.

Table 6--Redfish Exemptions by Fishing Year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exemptions Rulemaking Date Citation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6.0 inch (15.2 cm) with 100% NMFS- FY 2012 Sector Operations May 2, 2012............. 77 FR 26129
funded coverage. Final Rule.
4.5 inch (11.4 cm) with 100% NMFS- FY 2012 Redfish Exemption March 5, 2013........... 78 FR 14226
funded coverage. Final Rule.
4.5 inch (11.4 cm) with 100% FY 2013 Sector Operations May 2, 2013............. 78 FR 25591
Industry-funded coverage. Interim Final Rule.
6.0 inch (15.2 cm) with standard FY 2014 Sector Operations April 28, 2014.......... 79 FR 23278
observer coverage. Final Rule.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NE Multispecies Federal Register documents can be found at http://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/sustainable/species/multispecies sustainable/species/multispecies.

For fishing years 2012 and 2013, the exemption required 100-percent
monitoring with either an ASM or observer on every trip, primarily
because of concerns over a greater retention of sub-legal groundfish,
as well as non-allocated species and bycatch. In fishing year 2012, we
found that allowing trips that are randomly selected for federally
funded NEFOP or ASM coverage provided an incentive to take an exemption
trip when selected for coverage, thereby reducing the number of
observers/monitors available to cover standard sector trips (i.e.,
trips not utilizing this exemption). If fewer observers/monitors deploy
on standard sector trips, then the exemption undermines both the
ability to meet required coverage levels and the reliability of discard
rates calculated for unobserved standard sector trips. Therefore, in
fishing year 2013, we required sectors to pay for 100 percent of the
at-sea cost for a monitor on all redfish exemption trips, which
resulted in sectors not taking a redfish trip that fishing year.
For fishing year 2014, we granted an exemption that allowed vessels
to use a 6-inch (15.2-cm) or larger mesh codend to target redfish when
fishing in the Redfish Exemption Area. The vessels participating in the
redfish fishery in fishing year 2014 were subject to the same NEFOP and
ASM target coverage as standard groundfish trips (26 percent). Vessels
could fish with the regulated mesh nets (6.5-inch [16.5-cm] codends or
larger) and with the 6.0-inch (15.2-cm) mesh codends on the same trip;
however, for all trips (by sector, by month) declaring this exemption,
we monitored landings for the entire trip to determine if the vessel
had met the 80-percent redfish catch threshold and the 5-percent
discard threshold.
Following approval of the exemption in fishing year 2014, sectors
indicated that an 80-percent redfish catch threshold, based on REDNET
data collected using a 4.5-inch (11.4-cm) mesh codend, is not
appropriate for all mesh sizes (i.e., as mesh size increases, the
efficiency of catching redfish decreases). Additionally, given the
average landed value of redfish, they indicated that they do not
consider it economically viable to have an offload comprised of 80
percent redfish. Therefore, as of January 2015, few have been taken
under this exemption, because, according to sectors, they cannot
effectively or profitably target redfish to meet the 80-percent
threshold.
For fishing years 2015 and 2016, we propose granting the sectors'
request to use a 5.5-inch (14.0-cm) mesh codend when fishing in the
redfish exemption. A vessel would have the option to fish the first
portion of a trip with current legal codend mesh size (6.5 inches; 16.5
cm), and then switch to a codend no smaller than 5.5 inches (14.0 cm)
for the redfish portion of their trip. Allowing sectors to legally
target groundfish on the first portion of the trip would provide
flexibility and would address the sector's concern regarding
profitability. In addition, the sectors have requested a 50-percent
catch threshold, which would only apply to the second half of the trip.
The sectors argue that this threshold is more appropriate for a 5.5-
inch (14.0-cm) codend, as data from Component 3 of the REDNET report
(Pol and He 2013) indicates that as the codend mesh size increases from
4.5 inches (11.4 cm) to 5.5 inches (14.0 cm), selectivity decreases,
making it more difficult for vessels to catch only redfish. However,
the lower 50-percent threshold would allow greater catch of other
regulated groundfish species with small mesh, which could result in
higher discards or targeting of groundfish with small mesh. We are
proposing to address this by implementing reporting requirements to
facilitate monitoring and enforcement. If we detect vessels targeting
non-redfish socks, particularly stocks of concern, the RA retains the
right to rescind approval of the exemption. We request comment on this
issue. The 5-percent discard threshold for all groundfish, including
redfish, would still apply on the redfish portion of observed trips.
Due to concern for GOM cod, we have modified the redfish exemption
area (Figure 2) from 2014 (see Figure 2).

[[Page 12390]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09MR15.004

The Redfish Exemption Area would be bounded on the east by the
U.S.-Canada Maritime Boundary, and bounded on the north, west, and
south by the following coordinates, connected in the order listed by
straight lines:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point N. Lat. W. Long. Note
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A........................... 44[deg]27.25' 67[deg]02.75'
B........................... 44[deg]16.25' 67[deg]30.00'
C........................... 44[deg]04.50' 68[deg]00.00'
D........................... 43[deg]52.25' 68[deg]30.00'
E........................... 43[deg]40.25' 69[deg]00.00'
F........................... 43[deg]28.25' 69[deg]30.00'
G........................... 43[deg]00.00' 69[deg]30.00'
H........................... 43[deg]00.00' 70[deg]00.00'
I........................... 42[deg]00.00' 70[deg]00.00'
J........................... 42[deg]00.00' (67[deg]00.63') (\1\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The intersection of 42[deg]00' N. latitude and the U.S.-Canada
Maritime Boundary, approximate longitude in parentheses.

We have modified the redfish exemption area to exclude block 138
for the entire fishing year, and allow only seasonal access to block
131. Sector vessels would not be allowed to use the redfish exemption
in block 131 in February and March. We based this decision on the
closures implemented by the November 2014 interim action taken for the
protection of cod; areas 138 and 131 were the only areas closed by the
interim action that overlapped with the fishing year 2014 redfish
exemption area. These areas are known to have higher levels of GOM cod
catch and/or spawning activity, and we propose to close them to avoid
interaction with and bycatch of GOM cod. Additionally, area 138 has
historically had very little redfish catch; therefore, the exclusion of
this area should not limit sectors from targeting redfish. The area is
bounded on the east, north, west, and south by the following
coordinates, connected by straight lines in the order listed:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point N. Lat. W. Long.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
G.............................. 43[deg]00.00' 69[deg]30.00'
H.............................. 43[deg]00.00' 70[deg]00.00'
K.............................. 42[deg]30.00' 70[deg]00.00'
L.............................. 42[deg]30.00' 69[deg]30.00'
G.............................. 43[deg]00.00' 69[deg]30.00'
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Vessels must declare their trip in the pre-trip notification system
(PTNS) under standard requirements, but there are no additional
monitoring requirements above the target coverage for the groundfish
fishery. Prior to leaving the dock, any vessel that intends to use the
redfish exemption on a trip must declare so through the VMS trip start
hail by checking the box next to ``Redfish Trip'' under sector
exemptions. This notification must be made if the vessel intends to use
a 5.5-inch (14.0-cm) codend or larger to target redfish on any portion
of the trip.
Any vessel declaring this exemption must submit catch reports via
VMS each day for the entire trip. For the first portion of the trip, a
vessel may fish using a 6.0-inch (15.2-cm) mesh codend with selective
gear in the GB BSA (current mesh flexibility allowed from Council
exemption est. in 2010) or 6.5-inch (16.5-cm) mesh codend in any BSA,
including the GOM. Any sub-legal codend must be stowed below deck for
this entire portion of the trip. Catch thresholds do not apply to this
portion of the trip.
When a vessel switches its codend to target redfish, it must first
transit to the Redfish Exemption Area. Once the vessel is in the
Redfish Exemption Area, it must declare via VMS that it is switching to
the 5.5-inch (14.0-cm) mesh codend (or larger) and will be conducting
the remainder of its fishing activity exclusively in the Redfish
Exemption Area. The vessel can then retrieve the 5.5-inch (14.0-cm)
mesh codend from below deck and begin using it. All fishing activity
for the remainder of the trip must occur in the Redfish Exemption area.
For this portion of the trip, at least 50 percent of the total
allocated groundfish kept must be redfish, and on observed trips, no
more than 5 percent of all groundfish, including redfish, may be
discarded. These thresholds will be used by NMFS to determine if this
sector exemption should be revoked. The vessel must also submit a final
catch report and a Trip End Hail via VMS at the end of the trip to
facilitate dockside enforcement.
There are enforcment concerns associated with the additional
flexibility this exemption provides. Specifically, enforcing different
mesh size restrictions on different portions of a single fishing trip
could be challenging at sea, and there is the potential for vessels to
misreport the mesh size used

[[Page 12391]]

to catch groundfish to avoid having the exemption revoked for exceeding
the threshold.
Additionally, we are concerned about vessels catching groundfish,
including their bycatch of juvenile fish, which could potentially cause
them to exceed the discard threshold of 5 percent, in the Redfish
Exemption Area when fishing with codend mesh sized nets smaller than
the GOM regulated mesh size of 6.5 inches (16.5 cm). The 50-percent
catch threshold is meant to reflect the likely proportion of redfish
catch while using a 5.5-inch (14.0-cm) mesh codend, based on the
results of Component 3 of REDNET. We are concerned, however, that it
could allow sectors to target groundfish when fishing with a smaller
codend and could increase discards that would likely go unreported,
which could undermine the protections of the 5-percent bycatch
threshold. Therefore, we are specifically seeking comment on this
exemption, regarding the enforcement concerns, the reporting concerns,
and the appropriateness of the threshold.
If the redfish exemption is approved, we intend to monitor use of
the exemption carefully. For example, should it be determined that
vessels are not using the exemption when assigned an observer or ASM,
and only using it when unobserved, we would have concerns about
monitoring the exemption. Additionally, if a vessel does not submit
daily catch reports or the required declaration when switching to the
redfish portion of the trip, we may not be able to adequately monitor
the exemption. The RA retains authority to rescind approval of this
exemption, if it is needed. All vessels in a sector may be held jointly
and severally liable for misreporting by a single vessel in a sector.

Exemptions We Propose To Deny (3)

(20) GOM Sink Gillnet Mesh Exemption in May, and January Through April
We propose to deny the GOM sink gillnet mesh exemption request due
to concern for GOM cod. We did not analyze this exemption in the EA
because no new information was available to change the analyses
previously published in past EAs.
The GOM Sink Gillnet Mesh Exemption was approved for fishing years
2010 through 2012. This exemption allowed sector vessels to use 6-inch
(15.2-cm) mesh gillnets in the GOM to target GOM haddock seasonally.
However, due to concerns regarding the stock status of GOM haddock and
the potential increase in interactions with protected species, the
exemption was denied for fishing year 2013 (78 FR 25591, May 2, 2013)
and fishing year 2014.
On November 12, 2014, at the request of the New England Fishery
Management Council and in response a stock assessment conducted by the
Northeast Fisheries Science Center, we published an emergency action
that increased the GOM haddock ACL for fishing year 2014 (79 FR 67090).
This action nearly doubled each sector's ACE for GOM haddock. Because
sectors anticipated that GOM haddock would not be a concern for fishing
year 2014, they again requested this exemption for fishing years 2015
and 2016.
While the stock status of GOM haddock has improved, biomass has not
increased to the level it was in fishing year 2010, when this exemption
was first approved. In addition, we are concerned about the effects of
this exemption on GOM cod. The November 2014 interim action implemented
to protect GOM cod revoked an exemption that resulted in decreasing the
amount of gillnet gear in the GOM, given concerns relating to mortality
of GOM cod caused by continuous fishing by gillnets left in the water
and the potential to disrupt spawning when cod are caught. We are
similarly concerned that using nets smaller than the minimum size may
impact GOM cod mortality. For these same concerns, we are proposing to
deny the GOM Haddock Sink Gillnet Mesh exemption for fishing years 2015
and 2016.
(21) Powering Vessel Monitoring Systems (VMS) While at the Dock
Beginning in fishing year 2011, we approved an exemption from the
requirement to keep the VMS units powered while tied to the dock or on
a mooring. In fishing year 2012, the NOAA Office of Law Enforcement
(OLE) recognized a lack of compliance. The exemption was only
applicable for vessels that did not otherwise possess Federal fishing
permits for other FMPs that required a VMS unit, and vessels were
required to follow certain protocols, such as sending a powerdown code
before turning off the VMS unit. Misuse of the exemption decreases our
confidence in our ability to adequately monitor the fishery. During
fishing year 2013, we worked with sector managers to identify the
sector members who were out of compliance with the exemption. However,
in this time, compliance did not improve. Therefore, for fishing years
2015 and 2016, we propose to not approve this exemption due to lack of
compliance.
(22) Requirement To Use 6.5-Inch (16.5-cm) Mesh Size or Greater for
Directed Redfish Trips, as Previously Approved in Fishing Year 2014
The exemption request to use a 6.0-inch (15.2-cm) mesh codend nets,
with a threshold of no lower than 80 percent redfish of the total
groundfish catch on hauls using the redfish exemption, for fishing
years 2015 and 2016, is identical to the exemption for fishing year
2014. A second redfish exemption request, described above (exemption
#19), is proposed for approval. Therefore, we are proposing to deny
this exemption request.

Exemption That May Be Considered in a Separate Action (1)

Prohibition on Groundfish Trips in Closed Areas I and II
In fishing year 2013, we disapproved an exemption that would have
allowed sector vessels restricted access to portions of CAs I and II,
provided each trip carried an industry-funded ASM. When we proposed
allowing sector access to these areas, we announced that we did not
have funding to pay for monitoring the additional trips for exemptions
requiring a 100-percent coverage level. Industry members indicated that
it was too expensive to participate in the exemption, given the
requirement to pay for a monitor on every trip. This, in combination
with extensive comment opposing access to these areas to protect
depleted stocks and our concern about the impacts on depleted stocks
such as GB cod and GB yellowtail flounder, resulted in disapproval. For
a detailed description of the exemption request and justifications for
disapproval, see the final rule (78 FR 41772, December 16, 2013).
For fishing year 2014, we remained unable to fund monitoring costs
for exemptions requiring a 100-percent coverage level. In addition, we
had some concerns about funding and administering the shore-side
portion of any monitoring program for an exemption that requires
additional ASM, such as the exemption to access CAs I and II. However,
we authorized two EFPs to gather catch data from CAs I and II, one in
coordination with the Northeast Fisheries Science Center, the other
with members of the industry. Results from these EFPs could better
inform us, the industry, and the public, regarding the economic
efficacy of accessing these CAs, while providing information specific
to bycatch of depleted stocks. Trips taken under these EFPs are
attempting to address the following questions: (1) Could enough

[[Page 12392]]

fish be caught to adequately offset the industry's additional expense
of having an ASM on board, and (2) could catch of groundfish stocks of
concern be addressed?
The two authorized EFPs have allowed access to participating
vessels into the same portions of CAs I and II that were originally
proposed for access to sectors. Vessels using the EFPs are required to
use specialized trawl gear to reduce impacts on flounder species, are
restricted seasonally to avoid spawning fish, and must adhere to an
agreement between the lobster and groundfish fishery in CA II to avoid
gear conflicts. One of the two approved EFPs is still ongoing. Upon
review of the EFP results, we will consider potential access to these
areas through a separate action.

2014 Interim Cod Action

On November 13, 2014, at the request of the New England Fishery
Management Council and in response a stock assessment conducted by the
Northeast Fisheries Science Center, we published an interim action
implemented to protect GOM cod. In this action, one fishing year 2014
exemption (limits on the number of gillnets on Day gillnet vessels,
exemption #18) was revoked when fishing in the GOM because of its
potential to affect GOM cod; the exemption as it applied in GB, SNE,
and MA remains in place. As described above, we are proposing to not
grant the exemption for the limits on gillnets for Day gillnet vessels
in the GOM, but grant it in the other RMAs. Additionally, we have
proposed to modify the previously approved redfish exemption area (as
described in exemption #19) due to concern for GOM cod. There are
several other exemptions proposed in the GOM that also could
potentially affect GOM cod. These exemptions include:
(1) 120-day block out of the fishery required for Day gillnet
vessels;
(2) 20-day spawning block out of the fishery required for all
vessels;
(3) Prohibition on a vessel hauling another vessel's gillnet gear;
(5) Limits on the number of hooks that may be fished; and
(10) Prohibition on a vessel hauling another vessel's hook gear.
While we request comment on all exemptions in fishing years 2015
and 2016, we specifically request the public to comment on exemptions
in the GOM that could affect the GOM cod stock and its ability to
rebuild.

Additional Sector Provisions

Inshore GOM Restrictions

Several sectors have proposed a provision to limit and more
accurately document a vessel's behavior when fishing in what they
consider the inshore portion of the GOM BSA, or the area to the west of
70[deg] 15' W. long. A vessel that is carrying an observer or ASM would
remain free to fish without restriction. As proposed under the Inshore
GOM Restriction provision, if a vessel is not carrying an observer or
ASM and fishes any part of its trip in the GOM west of 70[deg] 15' W.
long., the vessel would be prohibited from fishing outside of the GOM
BSA. Also, if a vessel is not carrying an observer or ASM and fishes
any part of its trip outside the GOM BSA, this provision would prohibit
a vessel from fishing west of 70[deg] 15' W. long. in the GOM BSA. The
sectors' proposal includes a requirement for a vessel to declare
whether or not it intends to fish in the inshore GOM area through the
trip start hail. We are providing sector managers with the ability to
monitor this provision through the Sector Information Management Module
(SIMM), a Web site where we currently provide roster, trip, discard,
and observer information to sector managers. If approved, final
declaration requirements would be included in each vessel's LOA. We
propose to allow a sector to use a federally funded NEFOP observer or
ASM on these trips because we do not believe it will create bias in
coverage or discard estimates, as fishing behavior is not expected to
change as a result of this provision.

Prohibition on a Vessel Hauling Another Vessel's Trap Gear To Target
Groundfish

Several sectors have proposed a provision to allow a vessel to haul
another vessel's fish trap gear, similar to the current exemptions that
allow a vessel to haul another vessel's gillnet gear, or hook gear.
These exemptions have generally been referred to as ``community'' gear
exemptions. Regulations at Sec. 648.84(a) require a vessel to mark all
bottom-tending fixed gear, which would include fish trap gear used to
target groundfish. To facilitate enforcement of that regulation, we
propose requiring that any community fish trap gear be tagged by each
vessel that plans on hauling the gear, similar to how this provision
was implemented in fishing year 2014. This would allow one vessel to
deploy the trap gear and another vessel to haul the trap gear, provided
both vessels tag the gear prior to deployment. This requirement would
be captured in the sector's operations plan to provide the opportunity
for the sector to monitor the use of this provision and ensure that the
OLE and the U.S. Coast Guard can enforce the provision.

At-Sea Monitoring Proposals

For fishing years 2015 and 2016, each sector is required to develop
and fund an ASM program that must be reviewed and approved by NMFS. In
the event that a proposed ASM program could not be approved, all
sectors were asked to include an option to use the current NMFS-
designed ASM program as a back-up. Sustainable Harvest Sectors 1 and 3,
GB Cod Fixed Gear Sector, Northeast Coastal Communities Sector, and
Maine Coast Community Sector have proposed to use the ASM program that
we developed and used for fishing years 2010-2014. We propose this
program for these sectors because we believe the existing program to be
consistent with goals and objectives of monitoring, and with regulatory
requirements. As requested, the remaining 12 sectors stated that they
would use the NMFS-designed ASM program in the event that we did not
approve their individual ASM program for fishing years 2015 and 2016.
NEFS 4 has not included provisions for an ASM program because the
sector operates as a private permit bank and explicitly prohibits
fishing.
We propose to approve the ASM programs proposed by the NEFS 1-13
(excluding NEFS 4). These programs state that they will: Contract with
a NMFS-approved ASM provider; meet the specified coverage level; and
utilize the PTNS for random selection of monitored trips and
notification to providers. In addition, these proposed ASM programs
detail protocols for waivers, incident reporting, and safety
requirements. We believe that the proposed programs are consistent with
goals and objectives of monitoring, and with regulatory requirements.
Although the current regulations require a sector to fund its costs
for its ASM program beginning in fishing year 2013, we funded
industry's ASM costs in fishing years 2013 and 2014. It is unclear if
the Agency will have money to fund industry's ASM costs, in whole or in
part, for fishing year 2015. Additional information on funding and
implementation of ASM for fishing year 2015 will be provided at a
future date.

Sector EA

To comply with NEPA, a Programmatic EA was prepared encompassing
all 17 operations plans, analyzing the impacts expected from the

[[Page 12393]]

continued operation of the sectors over the next six years. The sector
EA is tiered from the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) prepared for
Amendment 16. The EA examines the biological, economic, and social
impacts unique to each sector's proposed operations, including
requested exemptions, and provides a cumulative effect analysis that
addresses the combined impact of the direct and indirect effects of
approving all proposed sector operations plans. The summary findings of
the EA conclude that each sector would produce similar effects that
have non-significant impacts. Visit http://www.regulations.gov to view
the EA prepared for the 17 sectors that this rule proposes to approve.
We decided to do a programmatic assessment beginning in fishing
year 2015 because the past four years of sector operations have been
relatively homogeneous, and the EA covering the management regime has
changed little since inception of the program. We believe future sector
operations would likely operate similarly, and the impacts associated
with their activities would also likely be similar in nature to past
years. However, we understand that it is impossible to fully anticipate
the future, and that new requests for sector exemptions may arise that
could have impacts outside the scope of this programmatic document. In
this case, a supplementary EA may be necessary to analyze future sector
operations.

Classification

The Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requires advance
notice of rulemaking and opportunity for public comment. The Council
required additional time to develop measures to address GOM cod as part
of Framework 53, which delayed our ability to present this to the
public. We are therefore providing a 15-day comment period for this
rule. A longer comment period would be impracticable and contrary to
the public interest because we must publish a final rule prior to the
start of fishing year 2015 on May 1, 2015, to enable sectors to fish at
the start of the fishing year. A vessel enrolled in a sector may not
fish in fishing year 2015 unless its operations plan is approved. If
the final rule is not published prior to May 1, the permits enrolled in
sectors must either stop fishing until their operations plan is
approved or elect to fish in the common pool for the entirety of
fishing year 2015. Both of these options would have very negative
impacts for the permits enrolled in the sectors. Delaying the
implementation beyond May 1, 2015, would result in an unnecessary
economic loss to the sector members because vessels would be prevented
from fishing in a month when sector vessels landed approximately 10
percent of several allocations, including GB cod east and GB winter
flounder. Finally, without a seamless transition between fishing years
2014 and 2015, a delay would require sector vessels to remove gear that
complies with an exemption, and redeploy the gear once the final rule
is effective. Talking these additional trips would require additional
fuel and staffing when catch may not be landed.
Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), the NMFS
Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is
consistent with the NE Multispecies FMP, other provisions of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further
consideration after public comment.
This proposed action is exempt from the procedures of Executive
Order 12866 because this action contains no implementing regulations.
The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce
certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration (SBA) that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
As outlined in the preamble to this proposed rule, the purpose of
this action is the implementation of fishing years 2015 and 2016 sector
operations plans and associated regulatory exemptions. In an effort to
rebuild the NE multispecies complex, other actions have reduced the
allocations of several stocks managed by the NE Multispecies FMP, and
the economic impacts of those allocations have been analyzed in
accordance with their respective actions. This action, if finalized,
would provide flexible fisheries management options to reduce the
potential social and economic hardships resulting from those allocation
reductions.
The regulated entities most likely to be affected by the proposed
action are the 102 groundfish-dependent ownership entities that own
permits currently enrolled in sectors, all of which are considered
small under the SBA's definition of a small finfishing business.
Under the proposed rule, sector operations plans for fishing years
2015 and 2016 would be approved, allowing sector participants to use
the universal sector exemptions granted under Amendment 16. In addition
to the universal sector exemptions granted under the approval of
individual sector operations plans, sector participants have requested
relaxation of 22 other gear, area, administrative, and seasonal
restrictions. This rule proposes to grant 19 of the 22 requested
exemptions. Because all of the regulated entities are considered small
businesses per the SBA guidelines, there are no disproportionate
impacts for participating in sectors and using the universal exemptions
and additional exemptions requested by individual sectors.
All of the requested sector-specific exemptions in this proposed
rule are expected to have a positive economic impact on participants,
as they further increase the flexibility of fishermen to land their
allocation at their discretion. By choosing when and how to land their
allocations, sector participants have the potential to reduce marginal
costs, increase revenues, and ultimately increase profitability. Again,
it is expected that fishermen will only use sector-specific exemptions
that they believe will maximize utility, and that long-term stock
impacts from the collective exemptions will be minimal and will be
outweighed by benefits from operational flexibility.
This rule would not impose significant negative economic impacts on
any of the sector participants. No small entities would be placed at a
competitive disadvantage to large entities, and the regulations would
not reduce the profit for any small entities. Therefore, this rule
would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small
entities. As a result, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is
not required and none has been prepared.

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

Dated: March 3, 2015.
Eileen Sobeck,
Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-05386 Filed 3-6-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 45 / Monday, March 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 12381

requested by the sectors, but deny the retain the ability to join a sector through Eastern GB haddock; instead, we assign
rest. Copies of the operations plans and April 30, 2015. All permits enrolled in a permit a PSC for the GB cod stock and
contracts, and the EA, are available at a sector, and the vessels associated with GB haddock stock. Each sector’s GB cod
http://www.regulations.gov and from those permits, have until April 30, 2015, and GB haddock allocations are then
NMFS (see ADDRESSES). One of the 17 to withdraw from a sector and fish in divided into an Eastern ACE and a
sectors, Northeast Fishery Sector (NEFS) the common pool for fishing year 2015. Western ACE, based on each sector’s
4, proposes to operate as a private lease- For fishing year 2016, we will set percentage of the GB cod and GB
only sector. similar roster deadlines, notify permit haddock ACLs. For example, if a sector
The six sectors that chose not to holders of the fishing year 2016 is allocated 4 percent of the GB cod ACL
submit operations plans and contracts deadlines, and allow permit holders to and 6 percent of the GB haddock ACL,
for fishing years 2015 and 2016 are the change sectors separate from the annual the sector is allocated 4 percent of the
Tri-State Sector, the GB Hook Sector, approval process. We will publish final commercial Eastern U.S./Canada Area
and four state-operated permit bank sector ACEs and common pool sub-ACL GB cod total allowable catch (TAC) and
sectors as follows: The State of Maine totals, based upon final rosters, as soon 6 percent of the commercial Eastern
Permit Bank Sector, the State of New as possible after the start of fishing year U.S./Canada Area GB haddock TAC as
Hampshire Permit Bank Sector, the 2015, and again after the start of fishing its Eastern GB cod and haddock ACEs.
Commonwealth of Massachusetts Permit year 2016.
Bank Sector, and the State of Rhode These amounts are then subtracted from
The allocations proposed in this rule the sector’s overall GB cod and haddock
Island Permit Bank Sector. The final are based on the fishing year 2015
rule implementing Amendment 17 to allocations to determine its Western GB
specifications recommended by the New cod and haddock ACEs. A sector may
the FMP allows a state-operated permit England Fishery Management Council
bank to receive an allocation without only harvest its Eastern GB cod ACEs in
in Framework 53. These allocations are the Eastern U.S./Canada Area. However,
needing to comply with the not final, and are subject to the approval
administrative and procedural Framework 51 implemented a
of Framework 53. We expect a rule mechanism that allows sectors to
requirements for sectors (77 FR 16942, proposing the Framework 53
March 23, 2012). These permit banks are ‘‘convert’’ their Eastern GB haddock
management measures to publish in allocation into Western GB haddock
required to submit a list of participating March 2015.
permits to us by a date specified in the allocation (79 FR 22421; April 22, 2014)
We calculate the sector’s allocation and fish that converted ACE in Western
permit bank’s Memorandum of
for each stock by summing its members’ GB.
Agreement, typically April 1.
potential sector contributions (PSC) for
Sector Allocations a stock, as shown in Table 1. The At the start of fishing year 2015, we
information presented in Table 1 is the will withhold 20 percent of each
Sectors typically submit membership
total percentage of each commercial sector’s fishing year 2015 allocation
information to us on December 1 prior
sub-ACL each sector would receive for until we finalize fishing year 2014 catch
to the start of the fishing year, which
fishing year 2015, based on their fishing information. Further, we will allow
begins each year on May 1. Due to a
delay in distributing a letter describing year 2014 rosters. Tables 2 and 3 show sectors to transfer fishing year 2014 ACE
each vessel’s potential contribution to a the allocations each sector would be for 2 weeks of the fishing year following
sector’s quota for fishing year 2015, we allocated for fishing year 2015, based on the completion of year-end catch
extended the deadline to join a sector their fishing year 2014 rosters. At the accounting to reduce or eliminate any
until February 18, 2014. Based on sector start of the fishing year, after sector fishing year 2014 overages. If necessary,
enrollment trends from the past 5 enrollment is finalized, we provide the we will reduce any sector’s fishing year
fishing years, we expect sector final allocations, to the nearest pound, 2015 allocation to account for a
participation in fishing year 2015 will to the individual sectors, and we use remaining overage in fishing year 2014.
be similar. Thus, we are using fishing those final allocations to monitor sector We will follow the same process for
year 2014 rosters as a proxy for fishing catch. While the common pool does not fishing year 2016. We will notify the
year 2015 sector membership and receive a specific allocation, the Council and sector managers of this
calculating the fishing year 2015 common pool sub-ACLs have been deadline in writing and will announce
projected allocations in this proposed included in each of these tables for this decision on our Web site at:
rule. In addition to the membership comparison. http://
delay, all permits that change We do not assign an individual permit www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/.
ownership after December 1, 2014, separate PSCs for the Eastern GB cod or BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:26 Mar 06, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09MRP1.SGM 09MRP1

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 45 / Monday, March 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 12385

§ 648.87(b)(1)(vi)(C). Approved change to administrative provisions, we exempted gear) targeting dogfish,
operations plans, provided on our Web may amend the sector operations plans. monkfish, skate, and lobster (with non-
site as a single document for each Should any amendments require trap gear) would be deducted from the
sector, not only contain the rules under modifications to LOAs, we would sector’s ACE because these trips use
which each sector would fish, but also include these changes in updated LOAs gear capable of catching groundfish.
provide the legal contract that binds and provide these to the appropriate Catch from a trip in an exempted fishery
each member to the sector for the length sector members. does not count against a sector’s
of the sector’s operations plan. Each As in previous years, we retain the allocation because the catch is assigned
sector’s operations plan, and sector right to revoke exemptions in-season for to a separate ACL sub-component.
members, must comply with the the following reasons: If we determine For fishing years 2010 and 2011, there
regulations governing sectors, found at that the exemption jeopardizes was no requirement for an industry-
§ 648.87. In addition, each sector must management measures, objectives, or funded ASM program, and we were able
conduct fishing activities as detailed in rebuilding efforts; if the exemption to fund an ASM program with a target
its approved operations plan. results in unforeseen negative impacts ASM coverage rate of 30 percent of all
Any permit holder with a limited on other managed fish stocks, habitat, or trips. In addition, we provided 8-
access NE multispecies permit that was protected resources; if the exemption percent observer coverage through the
valid as of May 1, 2008, is eligible to causes enforcement concerns; if catch Northeast Fishery Observer Program
participate in a sector, including an from trips utilizing the exemption (NEFOP), which helps to support the
inactive permit currently held in cannot properly be monitored; or if a Standardized Bycatch Reporting
confirmation of permit history. If a sector is not meeting certain Methodology (SBRM) and stock
permit holder officially enrolls a permit requirements. If it becomes necessary to assessments. This resulted in an overall
in a sector and the fishing year begins, revoke the exemption, we will do so target coverage rate of 38 percent,
then that permit must remain in the through a process consistent with the between ASM and NEFOP, for fishing
sector for the entire fishing year, and Administrative Procedure Act. years 2010 and 2011. Beginning in
cannot fish in the NE multispecies Each sector is required to ensure that fishing year 2012, we have conducted
fishery outside of the sector (i.e., in the it does not exceed its ACE during the an annual analysis to determine the
common pool) during the fishing year. fishing year. Sector vessels are required total coverage that would be necessary
Participating vessels are required to to retain all legal-sized allocated NE to achieve the same level of precision as
comply with all pertinent Federal multispecies stocks, unless a sector is attained by the 38-percent total coverage
fishing regulations, except as granted an exemption allowing its target used for fishing years 2010 and
specifically exempted in the letter of member vessels to discard legal-sized 2011. Since fishing year 2012, industry
authorization (LOA) issued by the unmarketable fish at sea. Catch (defined has been required to pay for their costs
Regional Administrator, which details as landings and discards) of all allocated of ASM coverage, while we continued to
any approved exemptions from NE multispecies stocks by a sector’s fund NEFOP. However, we were able to
regulations. If, during a fishing year, or vessels count against the sector’s fund the industry’s portion of ASM
between fishing years 2015 and 2016, a allocation. Catch from a sector trip (e.g., costs and NEFOP coverage in fishing
sector requests an exemption that we not fishing under provisions of a NE years 2012 through 2014. Table 4 shows
have already approved, or proposes a multispecies exempted fishery or with the annual target coverage rates.

TABLE 4—HISTORIC TARGET COVERAGE RATE FOR MONITORING
Total coverage ASM coverage NEFOP coverage
Fishing year rate rate rate Funding source
(percent) (percent) (percent)

2010 ......................................................................................... 38 30 8 NMFS
2011 ......................................................................................... 38 30 8 NMFS
2012 ......................................................................................... 25 17 8 NMFS
2013 ......................................................................................... 22 14 8 NMFS
2014 ......................................................................................... 26 18 8 NMFS

Due to funding changes that would be accurately monitor sector operations. context of Magnuson-Stevens Act
required by the proposed SBRM Framework 48 clarified the level of requirements and National Standards,
amendment, we expect that sector ASM coverage necessary to meet these we have determined that the
vessels will be responsible for paying at- goals. Regarding meeting the SBRM CV appropriate level of ASM coverage
sea costs associated with the ASM level, Framework 48 determined that it should be set at the level that meets the
program before the end of the 2015 should be made at the overall stock CV requirement specified in the SBRM
fishing year. Thus, sectors will be level, which is consistent with the level and minimizes the cost burden to
responsible for designing, NMFS determined was necessary in sectors and NMFS to the extent
implementing, and funding an ASM fishing year 2013. Framework 48 also practicable, while still providing a
program in fishing years 2015 and 2016 amended the goals of the sector reliable estimate of overall catch by
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

that will provide a level of ASM monitoring program to include sectors needed for monitoring ACEs and
coverage specified by NMFS. achieving an accuracy level sufficient to ACLs. Based on this standard, NMFS
Amendment 16 regulations require minimize effects of potential monitoring has determined that the appropriate
NMFS to specify a level of ASM bias. target coverage rate for fishing year 2015
coverage that is sufficient to meet the Taking the provisions of Framework is 24 percent. We expect ASM coverage
same coefficient of variation (CV) 48 into account, and interpreting the to be 20 percent and NEFOP coverage to
specified in the SBRM, and to ASM monitoring provision in the be 4 percent, covering a total of 24

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:26 Mar 06, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09MRP1.SGM 09MRP1

12388 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 45 / Monday, March 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules

Point N. Latitude W. Longitude completely eliminate the catch of The November 2014 interim action
regulated species. implemented to protect GOM cod (79
J ..................... 40°27.0′ N 70°00.0′ W If approved, we will closely monitor FR 67362; November 13, 2014) revoked
K .................... 40°27.0′ N 71°20.0′ W the catch from these exempted trips. If this exemption for all of the GOM for
H .................... 41°15.0′ N 71°20.0′ W it is determined that this exemption is the remainder of fishing year 2014,
having a negative impact on groundfish given concerns relating to mortality of
As was approved in fishing year 2014, stocks, we would consider revoking this GOM cod caused by continuous fishing
one of three trawl gear modifications exemption during the fishing year. by gillnets left in the water and the
would be required when using small potential to disrupt spawning when cod
mesh: Drop-chain sweep with a Exemption We Propose To Partially
are caught. For these same concerns, we
minimum of 12 inches (30.48 cm) in Grant, and Partially Deny (1)
are proposing to partially grant the
length; a large-mesh belly panel with a (18) Limits on the Number of Gillnets on exemption for fishing years 2015 and
minimum of 32-inch (81.28-cm) mesh Day Gillnet Vessels 2016 when fishing in all RMAs except
size; or an excluder grate secured the GOM, and to deny the exemption for
forward of the codend with an outlet The FMP limits the number of gillnets
a Day gillnet vessel may fish in the the GOM. Therefore, vessels fishing in
hole forward of the grate with bar the GOM under the Day boat gillnet
spacing of no more than 1.97 inches groundfish RMAs to prevent an
uncontrolled increase in the number of category would be restricted to no more
(5.00 cm) wide. These gear
nets being fished, thus undermining than 100 nets, only 50 of which may be
modifications, when fished properly,
applicable DAS effort controls. The roundfish nets.
have been shown to reduce the catch of
legal and sub-legal groundfish stocks. limits are specific to the type of gillnet New Exemption Proposed (1)
Requiring these modifications is within each RMA: 100 gillnets (of which
no more than 50 can be roundfish (19) Regulated Mesh Size 6.5-Inch
intended to also reduce the incentive for
gillnets) in the GOM RMA (16.5-cm) or Greater, for Directed
a sector vessel to target groundfish with
(§ 648.80(a)(3)(iv)); 50 gillnets in the GB Redfish Trips
small mesh.
A vessel using this exemption is RMA (§ 648.80(a)(4)(iv)); and 75 gillnets Minimum mesh size restrictions
required to meet the same NEFOP and in the Mid-Atlantic (MA) RMA (§ 648.80(a)(3)(i), (a)(4)(i), (b)(2)(i), and
ASM coverage as standard groundfish (§ 648.80(b)(2)(iv)). We previously (c)(2)(i)) were implemented under
trips (i.e., a total of 24 percent in fishing approved this exemption in fishing previous groundfish actions to reduce
year 2015). The vessel would be years 2010, 2011, and 2012 to allow overall mortality on groundfish stocks,
required to declare their intent to use sector vessels to fish up to 150 nets (any change the selection pattern of the
small mesh to target non-regulated combination of flatfish or roundfish fishery to target larger fish, improve
species by submitting a trip start hail nets) in any RMA to provide greater survival of sublegal fish, and allow
through its vessel monitoring system operational flexibility to sector vessels sublegal fish more opportunity to spawn
(VMS) unit prior to departure, which in deploying gillnet gear. Sectors argued before entering the fishery. Beginning in
would be used for monitoring and that the gillnet limits were designed to fishing year 2012, we have approved
enforcement purposes. Trips declaring control fishing effort and are no longer exemptions that allow sector vessels to
this exemption must stow their small- necessary because a sector’s ACE limits target redfish, the smallest species of
mesh gear and use their large-mesh gear overall fishing mortality. regulated groundfish, with a sub-legal
first, and once finished with the large Previous effort analysis of all sector size mesh codend, ranging from 4.5
mesh, would have to submit a vessels using gillnet gear indicated an inches (11.4 cm) to 6 inches (15.2 cm)
Multispecies Catch Report via VMS increase in gear used in the RMA which (see Table 6). In order to use these
with all catch on board at that time. could lead to an increase in interactions previous exemptions, sectors have been
Once the Catch Report was sent, the with protected species. While a sector’s required to meet an 80-percent
vessel could then deploy small mesh ACE is designed to limit a stock’s threshold of redfish catch, relative to
with the required modifications in the fishing mortality, fishing effort may groundfish catch, and a 5-percent
specific areas (see map above), outside affect other species. This increased discard threshold of total groundfish,
of the Nantucket Lightship Closed Area, effort could ultimately lead to a rise in including redfish. These thresholds
at which point, the large mesh could not interactions with protected species; were intended to ensure that a vessel
be redeployed. Any legal-sized allocated however, we do not expect this to be the using the exemption effectively targets
groundfish stocks caught during these case, because a take reduction plan has redfish and does not target other species
small-mesh hauls must be landed and been implemented to reduce bycatch in with a smaller mesh, and attempts to
the associated landed weight (dealer or the fisheries affecting these species. avoid catching sub-legal groundfish.
vessel trip report (VTR)) would be For fishing year 2013, based on the The thresholds were based on
deducted from the sector’s ACE. comments received and the concern for Component 2 of the REDNET report
As in fishing year 2014, we are spawning GOM cod, we restricted the (Kanwit et al. 2013), which used a 4.5-
concerned about vessels potentially use of this exemption to better protect inch mesh codend, and observer data for
catching groundfish, including bycatch spawning cod. Therefore, a vessel trips conducted in fishing year 2012.
of juvenile fish, in the requested fishing in the GOM RMA was able to REDNET is a group that includes the
exemption area with small-mesh nets. use this exemption seasonally, but was Maine Department of Marine Resources,
The expansion of the Small-Mesh restricted to the 100-net gillnet limit in the Massachusetts Division of Marine
Exemption Area 2 by 15 minutes north
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

blocks 124 and 125 in May, and in Fisheries, and the University of
could increase this potential, because blocks 132 and 133 in June. A vessel Massachusetts School for Marine
more groundfish are found in the fishing in the GB RMA, SNE RMA, MA Science and Technology joined with
expansion area. The three gear RMA, and the GOM outside of these other members of the scientific
modifications proposed for this times and areas did not have this community and the industry to develop
exemption could mitigate catch of additional restriction. We granted this a research plan to develop a sustainable,
regulated species when properly exemption with the same GOM seasonal directed, redfish trawl fishery in the
installed, but none have been shown to restrictions for fishing year 2014. GOM. Each year, we have changed the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:26 Mar 06, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09MRP1.SGM 09MRP1

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 45 / Monday, March 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 12389

exemption at the sectors’ request in an misuse and ensuring it is consistent
attempt to balance the goal of increasing with the FMP’s goals and objectives.
use of the exemption while preventing

TABLE 6—REDFISH EXEMPTIONS BY FISHING YEAR
Exemptions Rulemaking Date Citation

6.0 inch (15.2 cm) with 100% NMFS-funded cov- FY 2012 Sector Operations Final Rule .................... May 2, 2012 ..... 77 FR 26129
erage.
4.5 inch (11.4 cm) with 100% NMFS-funded cov- FY 2012 Redfish Exemption Final Rule ................... March 5, 2013 .. 78 FR 14226
erage.
4.5 inch (11.4 cm) with 100% Industry-funded cov- FY 2013 Sector Operations Interim Final Rule ........ May 2, 2013 ..... 78 FR 25591
erage.
6.0 inch (15.2 cm) with standard observer coverage FY 2014 Sector Operations Final Rule .................... April 28, 2014 ... 79 FR 23278
NE Multispecies Federal Register documents can be found at http://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/sustainable/species/multispecies.

For fishing years 2012 and 2013, the percent). Vessels could fish with the redfish portion of their trip. Allowing
exemption required 100-percent regulated mesh nets (6.5-inch [16.5-cm] sectors to legally target groundfish on
monitoring with either an ASM or codends or larger) and with the 6.0-inch the first portion of the trip would
observer on every trip, primarily (15.2-cm) mesh codends on the same provide flexibility and would address
because of concerns over a greater trip; however, for all trips (by sector, by the sector’s concern regarding
retention of sub-legal groundfish, as month) declaring this exemption, we profitability. In addition, the sectors
well as non-allocated species and monitored landings for the entire trip to have requested a 50-percent catch
bycatch. In fishing year 2012, we found determine if the vessel had met the 80- threshold, which would only apply to
that allowing trips that are randomly percent redfish catch threshold and the the second half of the trip. The sectors
selected for federally funded NEFOP or 5-percent discard threshold. argue that this threshold is more
ASM coverage provided an incentive to Following approval of the exemption appropriate for a 5.5-inch (14.0-cm)
take an exemption trip when selected in fishing year 2014, sectors indicated codend, as data from Component 3 of
for coverage, thereby reducing the that an 80-percent redfish catch the REDNET report (Pol and He 2013)
number of observers/monitors available threshold, based on REDNET data indicates that as the codend mesh size
to cover standard sector trips (i.e., trips collected using a 4.5-inch (11.4-cm) increases from 4.5 inches (11.4 cm) to
not utilizing this exemption). If fewer mesh codend, is not appropriate for all 5.5 inches (14.0 cm), selectivity
observers/monitors deploy on standard mesh sizes (i.e., as mesh size increases, decreases, making it more difficult for
sector trips, then the exemption the efficiency of catching redfish vessels to catch only redfish. However,
undermines both the ability to meet decreases). Additionally, given the the lower 50-percent threshold would
average landed value of redfish, they allow greater catch of other regulated
required coverage levels and the
indicated that they do not consider it
reliability of discard rates calculated for groundfish species with small mesh,
economically viable to have an offload
unobserved standard sector trips. which could result in higher discards or
comprised of 80 percent redfish.
Therefore, in fishing year 2013, we targeting of groundfish with small mesh.
Therefore, as of January 2015, few have
required sectors to pay for 100 percent We are proposing to address this by
been taken under this exemption,
of the at-sea cost for a monitor on all implementing reporting requirements to
because, according to sectors, they
redfish exemption trips, which resulted facilitate monitoring and enforcement. If
cannot effectively or profitably target
in sectors not taking a redfish trip that we detect vessels targeting non-redfish
redfish to meet the 80-percent
fishing year. threshold. socks, particularly stocks of concern, the
For fishing year 2014, we granted an For fishing years 2015 and 2016, we RA retains the right to rescind approval
exemption that allowed vessels to use a propose granting the sectors’ request to of the exemption. We request comment
6-inch (15.2-cm) or larger mesh codend use a 5.5-inch (14.0-cm) mesh codend on this issue. The 5-percent discard
to target redfish when fishing in the when fishing in the redfish exemption. threshold for all groundfish, including
Redfish Exemption Area. The vessels A vessel would have the option to fish redfish, would still apply on the redfish
participating in the redfish fishery in the first portion of a trip with current portion of observed trips.
fishing year 2014 were subject to the legal codend mesh size (6.5 inches; 16.5 Due to concern for GOM cod, we have
same NEFOP and ASM target coverage cm), and then switch to a codend no modified the redfish exemption area
as standard groundfish trips (26 smaller than 5.5 inches (14.0 cm) for the (Figure 2) from 2014 (see Figure 2).
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:26 Mar 06, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09MRP1.SGM 09MRP1

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 45 / Monday, March 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 12391

to catch groundfish to avoid having the exemption was denied for fishing year (22) Requirement To Use 6.5-Inch
exemption revoked for exceeding the 2013 (78 FR 25591, May 2, 2013) and (16.5-cm) Mesh Size or Greater for
threshold. fishing year 2014. Directed Redfish Trips, as Previously
Additionally, we are concerned about On November 12, 2014, at the request Approved in Fishing Year 2014
vessels catching groundfish, including of the New England Fishery The exemption request to use a 6.0-
their bycatch of juvenile fish, which Management Council and in response a inch (15.2-cm) mesh codend nets, with
could potentially cause them to exceed stock assessment conducted by the a threshold of no lower than 80 percent
the discard threshold of 5 percent, in Northeast Fisheries Science Center, we redfish of the total groundfish catch on
the Redfish Exemption Area when published an emergency action that hauls using the redfish exemption, for
fishing with codend mesh sized nets increased the GOM haddock ACL for fishing years 2015 and 2016, is identical
smaller than the GOM regulated mesh to the exemption for fishing year 2014.
fishing year 2014 (79 FR 67090). This
size of 6.5 inches (16.5 cm). The 50- A second redfish exemption request,
action nearly doubled each sector’s ACE
percent catch threshold is meant to described above (exemption #19), is
for GOM haddock. Because sectors
reflect the likely proportion of redfish proposed for approval. Therefore, we
anticipated that GOM haddock would
catch while using a 5.5-inch (14.0-cm) are proposing to deny this exemption
not be a concern for fishing year 2014,
mesh codend, based on the results of request.
they again requested this exemption for
Component 3 of REDNET. We are
fishing years 2015 and 2016. Exemption That May Be Considered in
concerned, however, that it could allow
sectors to target groundfish when While the stock status of GOM a Separate Action (1)
fishing with a smaller codend and could haddock has improved, biomass has not Prohibition on Groundfish Trips in
increase discards that would likely go increased to the level it was in fishing Closed Areas I and II
unreported, which could undermine the year 2010, when this exemption was
first approved. In addition, we are In fishing year 2013, we disapproved
protections of the 5-percent bycatch
concerned about the effects of this an exemption that would have allowed
threshold. Therefore, we are specifically
exemption on GOM cod. The November sector vessels restricted access to
seeking comment on this exemption, portions of CAs I and II, provided each
regarding the enforcement concerns, the 2014 interim action implemented to
trip carried an industry-funded ASM.
reporting concerns, and the protect GOM cod revoked an exemption
When we proposed allowing sector
appropriateness of the threshold. that resulted in decreasing the amount
access to these areas, we announced that
If the redfish exemption is approved, of gillnet gear in the GOM, given
we did not have funding to pay for
we intend to monitor use of the concerns relating to mortality of GOM
monitoring the additional trips for
exemption carefully. For example, cod caused by continuous fishing by exemptions requiring a 100-percent
should it be determined that vessels are gillnets left in the water and the coverage level. Industry members
not using the exemption when assigned potential to disrupt spawning when cod indicated that it was too expensive to
an observer or ASM, and only using it are caught. We are similarly concerned participate in the exemption, given the
when unobserved, we would have that using nets smaller than the requirement to pay for a monitor on
concerns about monitoring the minimum size may impact GOM cod every trip. This, in combination with
exemption. Additionally, if a vessel mortality. For these same concerns, we extensive comment opposing access to
does not submit daily catch reports or are proposing to deny the GOM these areas to protect depleted stocks
the required declaration when switching Haddock Sink Gillnet Mesh exemption and our concern about the impacts on
to the redfish portion of the trip, we for fishing years 2015 and 2016. depleted stocks such as GB cod and GB
may not be able to adequately monitor yellowtail flounder, resulted in
the exemption. The RA retains authority (21) Powering Vessel Monitoring
Systems (VMS) While at the Dock disapproval. For a detailed description
to rescind approval of this exemption, if of the exemption request and
it is needed. All vessels in a sector may Beginning in fishing year 2011, we justifications for disapproval, see the
be held jointly and severally liable for approved an exemption from the final rule (78 FR 41772, December 16,
misreporting by a single vessel in a requirement to keep the VMS units 2013).
sector. powered while tied to the dock or on a For fishing year 2014, we remained
Exemptions We Propose To Deny (3) mooring. In fishing year 2012, the unable to fund monitoring costs for
NOAA Office of Law Enforcement (OLE) exemptions requiring a 100-percent
(20) GOM Sink Gillnet Mesh Exemption recognized a lack of compliance. The coverage level. In addition, we had
in May, and January Through April exemption was only applicable for some concerns about funding and
We propose to deny the GOM sink vessels that did not otherwise possess administering the shore-side portion of
gillnet mesh exemption request due to Federal fishing permits for other FMPs any monitoring program for an
concern for GOM cod. We did not that required a VMS unit, and vessels exemption that requires additional
analyze this exemption in the EA were required to follow certain ASM, such as the exemption to access
because no new information was protocols, such as sending a powerdown CAs I and II. However, we authorized
available to change the analyses code before turning off the VMS unit. two EFPs to gather catch data from CAs
previously published in past EAs. Misuse of the exemption decreases our I and II, one in coordination with the
The GOM Sink Gillnet Mesh confidence in our ability to adequately Northeast Fisheries Science Center, the
Exemption was approved for fishing monitor the fishery. During fishing year other with members of the industry.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

years 2010 through 2012. This 2013, we worked with sector managers Results from these EFPs could better
exemption allowed sector vessels to use to identify the sector members who inform us, the industry, and the public,
6-inch (15.2-cm) mesh gillnets in the were out of compliance with the regarding the economic efficacy of
GOM to target GOM haddock exemption. However, in this time, accessing these CAs, while providing
seasonally. However, due to concerns compliance did not improve. Therefore, information specific to bycatch of
regarding the stock status of GOM for fishing years 2015 and 2016, we depleted stocks. Trips taken under these
haddock and the potential increase in propose to not approve this exemption EFPs are attempting to address the
interactions with protected species, the due to lack of compliance. following questions: (1) Could enough

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:26 Mar 06, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09MRP1.SGM 09MRP1

12392 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 45 / Monday, March 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules

fish be caught to adequately offset the Additional Sector Provisions be captured in the sector’s operations
industry’s additional expense of having plan to provide the opportunity for the
Inshore GOM Restrictions
an ASM on board, and (2) could catch sector to monitor the use of this
of groundfish stocks of concern be Several sectors have proposed a provision and ensure that the OLE and
addressed? provision to limit and more accurately the U.S. Coast Guard can enforce the
document a vessel’s behavior when provision.
The two authorized EFPs have
fishing in what they consider the
allowed access to participating vessels At-Sea Monitoring Proposals
inshore portion of the GOM BSA, or the
into the same portions of CAs I and II
area to the west of 70° 15′ W. long. A For fishing years 2015 and 2016, each
that were originally proposed for access vessel that is carrying an observer or sector is required to develop and fund
to sectors. Vessels using the EFPs are ASM would remain free to fish without an ASM program that must be reviewed
required to use specialized trawl gear to restriction. As proposed under the and approved by NMFS. In the event
reduce impacts on flounder species, are Inshore GOM Restriction provision, if a that a proposed ASM program could not
restricted seasonally to avoid spawning vessel is not carrying an observer or be approved, all sectors were asked to
fish, and must adhere to an agreement ASM and fishes any part of its trip in include an option to use the current
between the lobster and groundfish the GOM west of 70° 15′ W. long., the NMFS-designed ASM program as a
fishery in CA II to avoid gear conflicts. vessel would be prohibited from fishing back-up. Sustainable Harvest Sectors 1
One of the two approved EFPs is still outside of the GOM BSA. Also, if a and 3, GB Cod Fixed Gear Sector,
ongoing. Upon review of the EFP vessel is not carrying an observer or Northeast Coastal Communities Sector,
results, we will consider potential ASM and fishes any part of its trip and Maine Coast Community Sector
access to these areas through a separate outside the GOM BSA, this provision have proposed to use the ASM program
action. would prohibit a vessel from fishing that we developed and used for fishing
2014 Interim Cod Action west of 70° 15′ W. long. in the GOM years 2010–2014. We propose this
BSA. The sectors’ proposal includes a program for these sectors because we
On November 13, 2014, at the request requirement for a vessel to declare believe the existing program to be
of the New England Fishery whether or not it intends to fish in the consistent with goals and objectives of
Management Council and in response a inshore GOM area through the trip start monitoring, and with regulatory
stock assessment conducted by the hail. We are providing sector managers requirements. As requested, the
Northeast Fisheries Science Center, we with the ability to monitor this remaining 12 sectors stated that they
published an interim action provision through the Sector would use the NMFS-designed ASM
implemented to protect GOM cod. In Information Management Module program in the event that we did not
this action, one fishing year 2014 (SIMM), a Web site where we currently approve their individual ASM program
exemption (limits on the number of provide roster, trip, discard, and for fishing years 2015 and 2016. NEFS
gillnets on Day gillnet vessels, observer information to sector managers. 4 has not included provisions for an
exemption #18) was revoked when If approved, final declaration ASM program because the sector
fishing in the GOM because of its requirements would be included in each operates as a private permit bank and
potential to affect GOM cod; the vessel’s LOA. We propose to allow a explicitly prohibits fishing.
exemption as it applied in GB, SNE, and sector to use a federally funded NEFOP We propose to approve the ASM
MA remains in place. As described observer or ASM on these trips because programs proposed by the NEFS 1–13
above, we are proposing to not grant the we do not believe it will create bias in (excluding NEFS 4). These programs
exemption for the limits on gillnets for coverage or discard estimates, as fishing state that they will: Contract with a
Day gillnet vessels in the GOM, but behavior is not expected to change as a NMFS-approved ASM provider; meet
grant it in the other RMAs. result of this provision. the specified coverage level; and utilize
Additionally, we have proposed to Prohibition on a Vessel Hauling Another the PTNS for random selection of
modify the previously approved redfish Vessel’s Trap Gear To Target monitored trips and notification to
exemption area (as described in Groundfish providers. In addition, these proposed
exemption #19) due to concern for GOM ASM programs detail protocols for
cod. There are several other exemptions Several sectors have proposed a waivers, incident reporting, and safety
proposed in the GOM that also could provision to allow a vessel to haul requirements. We believe that the
potentially affect GOM cod. These another vessel’s fish trap gear, similar to proposed programs are consistent with
exemptions include: the current exemptions that allow a goals and objectives of monitoring, and
vessel to haul another vessel’s gillnet with regulatory requirements.
(1) 120-day block out of the fishery gear, or hook gear. These exemptions
required for Day gillnet vessels; Although the current regulations
have generally been referred to as require a sector to fund its costs for its
(2) 20-day spawning block out of the ‘‘community’’ gear exemptions. ASM program beginning in fishing year
fishery required for all vessels; Regulations at § 648.84(a) require a 2013, we funded industry’s ASM costs
(3) Prohibition on a vessel hauling vessel to mark all bottom-tending fixed in fishing years 2013 and 2014. It is
another vessel’s gillnet gear; gear, which would include fish trap gear unclear if the Agency will have money
(5) Limits on the number of hooks that used to target groundfish. To facilitate to fund industry’s ASM costs, in whole
may be fished; and enforcement of that regulation, we or in part, for fishing year 2015.
propose requiring that any community Additional information on funding and
(10) Prohibition on a vessel hauling
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

fish trap gear be tagged by each vessel implementation of ASM for fishing year
another vessel’s hook gear. that plans on hauling the gear, similar 2015 will be provided at a future date.
While we request comment on all to how this provision was implemented
exemptions in fishing years 2015 and in fishing year 2014. This would allow Sector EA
2016, we specifically request the public one vessel to deploy the trap gear and To comply with NEPA, a
to comment on exemptions in the GOM another vessel to haul the trap gear, Programmatic EA was prepared
that could affect the GOM cod stock and provided both vessels tag the gear prior encompassing all 17 operations plans,
its ability to rebuild. to deployment. This requirement would analyzing the impacts expected from the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:26 Mar 06, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09MRP1.SGM 09MRP1

Document Created: 2015-12-18 12:05:09
Document Modified: 2015-12-18 12:05:09

Category		Regulatory Information
Collection		Federal Register
sudoc Class		AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106:
Publisher		Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration
Section		Proposed Rules
Action		Proposed rule; request for comments.
Dates		Written comments must be received on or before March 24, 2015.
Contact		Liz Sullivan, Fishery Management Specialist, phone (978) 282-8493, fax (978) 281-9135. To review Federal Register documents referenced in this rule, you can visit: http:// www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/sustainable/species/ multispecies.
FR Citation		80 FR 12380
RIN Number		0648-XD46

80 FR 12380 - Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northeast Multispecies Fishery; 2015 and 2016 Sector Operations Plans and 2015 Contracts and Allocation of Northeast Multispecies Annual Catch Entitlements

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCENational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 45 (March 9, 2015)

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration