80_FR_37307 80 FR 37182 - Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Standardized Bycatch Reporting Methodology Omnibus Amendment

80 FR 37182 - Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Standardized Bycatch Reporting Methodology Omnibus Amendment

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 125 (June 30, 2015)

Page Range37182-37199
FR Document2015-15619

This final rule implements approved management measures contained in the Standardized Bycatch Reporting Methodology Omnibus Amendment to the fishery management plans of the Greater Atlantic Region, developed and submitted to NMFS by the Mid-Atlantic and New England Fishery Management Councils. This amendment is necessary to respond to a remand by the U.S. District of Columbia Court of Appeals decision concerning observer coverage levels specified by the SBRM and to add various measures to improve and expand on the Standardized Bycatch Reporting Methodology previously in place. The intended effect of this action is to implement the following: A new prioritization process for allocation of observers if agency funding is insufficient to achieve target observer coverage levels; bycatch reporting and monitoring mechanisms; analytical techniques and allocation of at-sea fisheries observers; a precision-based performance standard for discard estimates; a review and reporting process; framework adjustment and annual specifications provisions; and provisions for industry-funded observers and observer set-aside programs.

Federal Register, Volume 80 Issue 125 (Tuesday, June 30, 2015)
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 125 (Tuesday, June 30, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 37182-37199]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2015-15619]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 648

[Docket No. 140904749-5507-02]
RIN 0648-BE50


Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 
Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Standardized 
Bycatch Reporting Methodology Omnibus Amendment

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule implements approved management measures 
contained in the Standardized Bycatch Reporting Methodology Omnibus 
Amendment to the fishery management plans of the Greater Atlantic 
Region, developed and submitted to NMFS by the Mid-Atlantic and New 
England Fishery Management Councils. This amendment is necessary to 
respond to a remand by the U.S. District of Columbia Court of Appeals 
decision concerning observer coverage levels specified by the SBRM and 
to add various measures to improve and expand on the Standardized 
Bycatch Reporting Methodology previously in place. The intended effect 
of this action is to implement the following: A new prioritization 
process for allocation of observers if agency funding is insufficient 
to achieve target observer coverage levels; bycatch reporting and 
monitoring mechanisms; analytical techniques and allocation of at-sea 
fisheries observers; a precision-based performance standard for discard 
estimates; a review and reporting process; framework adjustment and 
annual specifications provisions; and provisions for industry-funded 
observers and observer set-aside programs.

DATES: This rule is effective July 30, 2015. The incorporation by 
reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved 
by the Director of the Federal Register as of July 30, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the Standardized Bycatch Reporting Methodology 
(SBRM) Omnibus Amendment, and of the Environmental Assessment (EA), 
with its associated Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) and the 
Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), are available from the Mid-Atlantic 
Fishery Management Council, 800 North State Street, Suite 201, Dover, 
DE 19901; and from the New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water 
Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950. The SBRM Omnibus Amendment and 
EA/FONSI/RIR is also accessible via the Internet at: 
www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    This final rule implements the SBRM Omnibus Amendment management 
measures developed and submitted by the New England and Mid-Atlantic 
Regional Fishery Management Councils, which were approved by NMFS on 
behalf of the Secretary of Commerce on March 13, 2015. A proposed rule 
for this action was published on January 21, 2015 (80 FR 2898), with 
public comments accepted through February 20, 2015.
    Section 303(a)(11) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 
Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) requires that all Fishery 
Management Plans (FMPs) ``establish a standardized reporting 
methodology to assess the amount and type of bycatch occurring in the 
fishery.'' The purpose of the amendment is to: Address the Appellate 
Court's remand by minimizing the discretion allowed in prioritizing 
allocation of observers when there are insufficient funds; explain the 
methods and processes by which bycatch is currently monitored and 
assessed for fisheries in the region; determine whether these methods 
and processes need to be modified and/or supplemented; establish 
standards of precision for bycatch estimation for these fisheries; and, 
thereby, document the SBRM established for all fisheries managed 
through the FMPs of the Greater Atlantic Region. Extensive background 
on the development of the SBRM Omnibus Amendment, including the 
litigation history that precipitated the need for the amendment, is 
provided in the proposed rule and supporting environmental assessment. 
For brevity, that information is not repeated here.
    As detailed below (in the sections titled Bycatch Reporting and 
Monitoring Mechanisms and Analytical Techniques and Allocation of At-
sea Fisheries Observers), this action incorporates by reference 
provisions of the SBRM Omnibus Amendment and EA/FONSI/RIR, identified 
formally as the

[[Page 37183]]

Standardized Bycatch Reporting Methodology: An Omnibus Amendment to the 
Fishery Management Plans of the Mid-Atlantic and New England Regional 
Fishery Management Councils, completed March 2015 by the New England 
Fishery Management Council, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 
National Marine Fisheries Service Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries 
Office, and National Marine Fisheries Service Northeast Fisheries 
Science Center. To ensure that the public can readily access and 
understand the provisions that are incorporated by reference, the full 
SBRM Omnibus Amendment is available online at 
www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov, and from the Greater Atlantic 
Regional Fisheries Office or either the New England or Mid-Atlantic 
Fishery Management Councils (see ADDRESSES).
    This final rule for the SBRM Omnibus Amendment establishes an SBRM 
for all FMPs administered by the Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries 
Office comprised of seven elements: (1) The methods by which data and 
information on discards are collected and obtained; (2) the methods by 
which the data obtained through the mechanisms identified in element 1 
are analyzed and utilized to determine the appropriate allocation of 
at-sea observers; (3) a performance measure by which the effectiveness 
of the SBRM can be measured, tracked, and utilized to effectively 
allocate the appropriate number of observer sea days; (4) a process to 
provide the Councils with periodic reports on discards occurring in 
fisheries they manage and on the effectiveness of the SBRM; (5) a 
measure to enable the Councils to make changes to the SBRM through 
framework adjustments and/or annual specification packages rather than 
full FMP amendments; (6) a description of sources of available funding 
for at-sea observers and a formulaic process for prioritizing at-sea 
observer coverage allocations to match available funding; and (7) 
measures to implement consistent, cross-cutting observer service 
provider approval and certification procedures and to enable the 
Councils to implement either a requirement for industry-funded 
observers or an observer set-aside program through a framework 
adjustment rather than an FMP amendment. These measures are described 
in detail as follows.

Bycatch Reporting and Monitoring Mechanisms

    This final rule incorporates by reference the SBRM Omnibus 
Amendment's use of the status quo methods by which data and information 
on discards occurring in Greater Atlantic Region fisheries are 
collected and obtained. The SBRM uses sampling designs developed to 
minimize bias to the maximum extent practicable. The Northeast 
Fisheries Observer Program (NEFOP) is the primary mechanism to obtain 
data on discards in all Greater Atlantic Region commercial fisheries 
managed under one or more of the regional FMPs. All subject FMPs 
require vessels permitted to participate in Federal fisheries to carry 
an at-sea observer upon request. All data obtained by the NEFOP under 
this SBRM are collected according to the techniques and protocols 
established and detailed in the Fisheries Observer Program Manual and 
the Biological Sampling Manual, which are available online 
(www.nefsc.noaa.gov/fsb/). Data collected by the NEFOP include, but are 
not limited to, the following items: Vessel name; date/time sailed; 
date/time landed; steam time; crew size; home port; port landed; dealer 
name; fishing vessel trip report (FVTR) serial number; gear type(s) 
used; number/amount of gear; number of hauls; weather; location of each 
haul (beginning and ending latitude and longitude); species caught; 
disposition (kept/discarded); reason for discards; and weight of catch. 
These data are collected on all species of organisms caught by the 
vessels. This includes species managed under the regional FMPs or 
afforded protection under the Endangered Species Act or Marine Mammal 
Protection Act, but also includes species of non-managed fish, 
invertebrates, and marine plants. The SBRM will incorporate data 
collection mechanisms implemented by NMFS and affected states as part 
of the Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP) for information 
on recreational fishery discards.

Analytical Techniques and Allocation of At-Sea Fisheries Observers

    This final rule incorporates by reference the SBRM Omnibus 
Amendment's use of the existing methods by which the data obtained 
through the mechanisms included above are analyzed and utilized to 
determine the appropriate allocation of at-sea observers across the 
subject fishing modes, including all managed species and all relevant 
fishing gear types in the Greater Atlantic Region. At-sea fisheries 
observers will, to the maximum extent possible and subject to available 
resources, be allocated and assigned to fishing vessels according to 
the procedures established through the amendment. All appropriate 
filters identified in the amendment will be applied to the results of 
the analysis to determine the observer coverage levels needed to 
achieve the objectives of the SBRM. These filters are designed to aid 
in establishing observer sea day allocations that are more meaningful 
and efficient at achieving the overall objectives of the SBRM.

SBRM Performance Standard

    This action incorporates by reference the intention of the SBRM 
Omnibus Amendment to ensure that the data collected under the SBRM are 
sufficient to produce a coefficient of variation (CV) of the discard 
estimate of no more than 30 percent. This standard is designed to 
ensure that the effectiveness of the SBRM can be measured, tracked, and 
utilized to effectively allocate the appropriate number of observer sea 
days. Each year, the Regional Administrator and the Science and 
Research Director will, subject to available funding, allocate at-sea 
observer coverage to the applicable fisheries of the Greater Atlantic 
Region sufficient to achieve a level of precision (measured as the CV) 
no greater than 30 percent for each applicable species and/or species 
group, subject to the use of the filters noted above.

SBRM Review and Reporting Process

    This final rule incorporates by reference the SBRM Omnibus 
Amendment's requirements for NMFS to prepare an annual report for the 
Councils on discards occurring in Greater Atlantic Region fisheries, 
and to work with the Councils to develop a report every 3 years that 
evaluates the effectiveness of the SBRM. Once each year, the Science 
and Research Director will present to the Councils a report on catch 
and discards occurring in fisheries in the Region. Details about the 
information to be included in the annual discard reports are included 
in the amendment. The specific elements of the discard report may 
change over time to adjust to the changing needs of the Councils. Every 
3 years, the Regional Administrator and the Science and Research 
Director will appoint appropriate staff to work with staff appointed by 
the executive directors of the Councils to obtain and review available 
data on discards and to prepare a report assessing the effectiveness of 
the SBRM.

Framework Adjustment and/or Annual Specification Provisions

    This rule implements regulations to enable the Councils to make 
changes to specific elements of the SBRM through framework adjustments 
and/or annual

[[Page 37184]]

specification packages rather than full FMP amendments. Framework 
adjustments and annual specification packages provide for an efficient 
yet thorough process to modify aspects of the SBRM if a Council 
determines that a change is needed to address a contemporary management 
or scientific issue in a particular FMP. Such changes to the SBRM may 
include modifications to the CV-based performance standard, the means 
by which discard data are collected/obtained in the fishery, the 
stratification (modes) used as the basis for SBRM-related analyses, the 
process for prioritizing observer sea-day allocations, reporting on 
discards or the performance of the SBRM. Such changes may also include 
the establishment of a requirement for industry-funded observers and/or 
observer set-aside provisions.

Prioritization Process

    This rule incorporates by reference the SBRM Omnibus Amendment 
process to identify the funds that will be made available annually for 
SBRM, and how to prioritize the available observer sea-days if the 
funding provided to NMFS for such purposes is insufficient to fully 
implement the SBRM across all fishing modes. This measure is intended 
to limit the discretion the agency has in determining when funds are 
insufficient and how to reallocate observers under insufficient funding 
scenarios to address the concerns raised by the Court of Appeals in 
Oceana v. Locke.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 670 F. 3d 1238 (D.C. Cir. 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the new prioritization process, the amount of money available 
for the SBRM will be the funding allocated to the Region under four 
specific historically-appropriated observer funding lines (less 
deductions for management and administrative costs). Of these, the 
funds made available by Congressional appropriation through the 
Northeast Fisheries Observers funding line must be dedicated to fund 
the proposed SBRM. In fiscal years 2011-2014, the Northeast Fisheries 
Observers funding line made up 53 percent to 59 percent of all observer 
funds for the Greater Atlantic Region under these four funding lines. 
Amounts from three of the funding lines are allocated among the 
fisheries in the five NMFS regions, including the Greater Atlantic 
Region, to meet national observer program needs. The total amount of 
the funds allocated for the Greater Atlantic Region from these three 
funding lines will constitute the remainder of the available SBRM 
funds. In fiscal year 2014, the amount appropriated under the Northeast 
Fisheries Observers funding line was $6.6 million, and another $5.9 
million was made available for fisheries in the Greater Atlantic region 
under the other three funding lines. Funding in fiscal year 2015 for 
the Greater Atlantic Region under the other three funding lines is 
expected to be consistent with past allocations of these funds. 
Historically, the available funding has been insufficient to fully fund 
the SBRM to meet the performance standard. If the available funding 
continues to be insufficient to fully fund the SBRM, the amendment 
establishes a non-discretionary formulaic processes for prioritizing 
how the available observer sea-days would be allocated to the various 
fishing modes to maximize the effectiveness of bycatch reporting and 
bycatch determinations.

Industry-Funded Observers and Observer Set-Aside Program Provisions

    This final rule implements regulatory changes to establish 
consistent, cross-cutting observer service provider approval and 
certification procedures and measures to enable the Councils to 
implement either a requirement for industry-funded observers and/or an 
observer set-aside program through a framework adjustment, rather than 
an FMP amendment.

Corrections and Clarifications

    This final rule also makes minor modifications to the regulations 
under authority granted the Secretary under section 305(d) of the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act to ensure that FMPs are implemented as intended 
and consistent with the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This 
action corrects the list of framework provisions under the Atlantic 
Surfclam and Ocean Quahog FMP at Sec.  648.79(a)(1) to also include, 
``the overfishing definition (both the threshold and target levels).'' 
This text was inadvertently removed from the regulations by the final 
rule to implement annual catch limits and accountability measures for 
fisheries managed by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (76 FR 
60606, September 29, 2011). The regulations at Sec.  648.11(h)(5)(vii) 
are revised to remove reference to the requirement that observer 
service providers must submit raw data within 72 hours. The final rule 
to implement Framework 19 to the Atlantic Sea Scallop FMP (73 FR 30790, 
May 29, 2008) incorrectly stated the time an observer service provider 
has to provide raw data collected by an observer to NMFS, and this 
correction better reflects the Council's intent for that action.
    This action also implements a consistent deadline for payment of 
industry-funded observers in the scallop fishery. Previously, there was 
not a specific due date for payment of industry-funded observers 
following an observed trip. We are implementing a deadline of 45 days 
after the end of an observed fishing trip as a due date for payment for 
all industry-funded observer services rendered in the scallop fishery.

Changes From Proposed Rule

    A minor change has been made to the proposed regulatory text. As 
stated in the proposed rule, this amendment proposed to implement 
consistent, cross-cutting observer service provider and certification 
procedures and measures. To do this, several paragraphs within Sec.  
648.11(h) were proposed to be revised for consistency and to remove 
references that were specific to the current industry-funded scallop 
observer program. However, the specific provision at Sec.  
648.11(h)(5)(viii)(A) only applies to the industry-funded scallop 
observer program, and the reference to scallop vessels in that 
paragraph should not have been removed. Therefore, this final rule 
clarifies that this paragraph applies specifically to scallop vessels.

Comments and Reponses

    A total of 11 individual comment letters with 15 distinct 
categories of comments were received on the proposed rule and SBRM 
Omnibus Amendment.
    Comment 1: One member of the public expressed general support for 
the action as an overhaul of bycatch reporting methods.
    Response: NMFS appreciates the support for the proposed action, 
although the comment did not address any specific provision of the SBRM 
Omnibus Amendment or its proposed rule.
    Comment 2: A letter from the Cape Cod Commercial Fishermen's 
Alliance, an organization representing commercial fishermen, expressed 
concern with how the SBRM would trigger prioritization when funding is 
insufficient and the subsequent impact to the Northeast multispecies 
sector management program, and urged disapproval of the amendment. The 
group stated that the proposed SBRM is overly complicated and 
expensive; that it will hinder industry efforts to develop alternative 
monitoring solutions including electronic monitoring; that it will 
eliminate supplemental observer coverage on midwater trawl vessels 
fishing in groundfish closed areas; and that it negatively impacts the 
groundfish at-sea monitoring program and could put the Northeast 
multispecies sector

[[Page 37185]]

system at risk because the system is heavily reliant on appropriate 
monitoring.
    Response: NMFS acknowledges the prioritization process trigger may 
result in observer funding--previously used by the Agency to 
discretionarily fund at-sea monitoring, electronic monitoring, and/or 
supplemental coverage of midwater-trawl vessels--being used exclusively 
for SBRM if the funding amounts are insufficient to realize the level 
of coverage estimated to achieve the 30-percent CV performance 
standard. This is a direct result of efforts to address the specific 
finding of the U.S. Appeals Court in Oceana v. Locke that the Agency 
had too much discretion to determine the available funding for SBRM. 
The impacts of this change on other monitoring priorities are real and 
will require adjusting expectations and evaluating whether other 
sources of funding for these priorities may be possible. NMFS has 
developed annual agency-wide guidance regarding how observer funding is 
allocated across regions to meet SBRM and other observer needs.
    The groundfish sector at-sea monitoring program is separate from 
the SBRM and is specific to the Northeast Multispecies FMP. The at-sea 
monitoring program provides supplemental monitoring within this fishery 
to address specific management objectives of the New England Fishery 
Management Council. The SBRM Omnibus Amendment does not specifically 
modify the groundfish sector at-sea monitoring program or its 
objectives, including the requirement for the groundfish industry to 
pay for its portion of costs for at-sea monitors if the Federal 
government does not. The groundfish at-sea monitoring provisions were 
developed by the Council and have been in place since 2010. To date, we 
have been able to provide sufficient funding for the groundfish sector 
at-sea monitoring program such that industry did not have to pay for 
at-sea monitoring. With the constraints imposed by this final rule, 
funds previously used to cover groundfish sector at-sea monitoring will 
now be required to fund SBRM. It may be necessary for the Council to 
develop alternatives to ensure accountability with sector annual catch 
entitlements when there are funding shortages that reduce available at-
sea monitoring coverage below the rates needed to ensure a CV of 30 
percent.
    Electronic monitoring has been viewed as one possible means of 
addressing observer funding shortages. In recent years, NMFS has worked 
with groundfish sectors to develop and evaluate monitoring 
alternatives, including electronic monitoring. While electronic 
monitoring is not currently sufficiently developed or suitable to be a 
viable replacement for at-sea observers for the purpose of the SBRM for 
fisheries administered by the Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries 
Office, there are circumstances where it may be appropriate to address 
other monitoring purposes. NMFS is committed to working with our 
industry partners to continue development and implementation of 
electronic monitoring to the extent that it meets management objectives 
and funding is available. The SBRM can be amended at any time in the 
future to incorporate other monitoring means such as electronic 
monitoring.
    In recent years, the Northeast Multispecies FMP has authorized mid-
water trawl vessels to fish in the groundfish closed areas if they 
carried observers. The SBRM Omnibus Amendment may result in the 
unavailability of the funds previously used for this coverage because 
the funds must first go to the SBRM requirements. The requirement for 
midwater trawl vessels to have an observer to fish in the groundfish 
closed areas, however, is not changed by this amendment. Accordingly, 
without funds to provide this supplemental observer coverage, fewer 
midwater trawl trips will have access to these areas.
    Comment 3: Two nongovernmental environmental organizations, Oceana, 
Inc., and Earthjustice, both stated the amendment uses outdated catch 
data from 2004 and does not meet various legal requirements.
    Response: NMFS disagrees with the commenters' assertion that the 
amendment uses outdated data. Where new data would not provide 
additional insight or value in the amendment, the analysis from the 
2007 SBRM amendment was maintained. When new data informed decision 
making in the amendment, NMFS used the most recent data available. Much 
of the amendment describes a system of statistical calculations that 
remain valid and appropriate even when newer data are not analyzed to 
provide context. The descriptions of the fisheries and fishing modes 
and the analysis of the impacts of alternatives uses catch data from 
2012. Other analysis used more recent data. Some analyses in Chapter 5 
of the Omnibus Amendment Environmental Assessment are illustrative 
examples of the sample size analysis used to determine how many 
observer sea-days are needed to achieve the 30-percent CV performance 
standard, and the bycatch rate analysis that uses data from observed 
fishing trips to estimate bycatch across the whole fishery. These 
analyses are conducted each year with updated data as a part of the 
SBRM process. The validity of these examples is not dependent on using 
data from a specific fishing year. The detailed analysis and 
description of the process that was conducted and presented in the 2007 
SBRM amendment is still valid today. Recreating this work for this 
specific action would have taken a significant amount of time and 
effort, but would not have provided any additional insight into the 
SBRM process. Therefore, updated analysis was conducted and added to 
the document where needed to reflect the changes in the fisheries since 
the initial 2007 SBRM amendment was developed and implemented.
    Comment 4: Oceana and Earthjustice assert that the action does not 
contain a sufficient range of reasonable alternatives including a no-
action alternative, and that some alternatives were improperly rejected 
from consideration, including using non-managed species as drivers of 
observer coverage and use of electronic monitoring as a component of 
the SBRM. Oceana states the SBRM would have significant impacts and 
should require a full environmental impact statement (EIS) under the 
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
    Response: NMFS disagrees with the commenters' claim that the 
amendment does not meet the legal requirements of the NEPA, including 
that the amendment does not properly address cumulative impacts, does 
not have an adequate no-action alternative, does not have an adequate 
range of alternatives, and that it requires an EIS. Consistent with 
NEPA, Council for Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations, and NOAA 
administrative policy, NMFS and the Councils collaborated to prepare an 
EA to evaluate the significance of the environmental impacts expected 
as a result of the management measures considered in the SBRM Omnibus 
Amendment. The results of this assessment are provided in section 8.9.2 
of the amendment, which supports the finding of no significant impacts 
(FONSI) signed by the agency on March 10, 2015. The commenters provide 
no evidence that the conclusion in the FONSI is not supported by the 
facts presented in the EA for this finding. NMFS asserts that the EA 
considers a sufficient range of alternatives to satisfy the 
requirements of NEPA. As described throughout the amendment (the 
Executive Summary, chapters 6, 7, and 8), the alternatives considered 
by the Councils were structured around seven

[[Page 37186]]

specific elements that together comprise the Greater Atlantic Region 
SBRM. Multiple alternatives were developed and considered for each 
element and, in some cases, various sub-options were also developed and 
considered. Section 7.3 of the amendment explicitly provides a 
discussion of the expected cumulative effects associated with this 
action. NMFS asserts that this treatment of cumulative effects is 
consistent with CEQ regulations and current NOAA policy.
    Oceana presented these same contentions before the Court in its 
challenge to the 2007 SBRM amendment (Oceana v. Locke, 725 F. Supp. 2d 
46 (D.D.C. 2010) reversed on other grounds (Oceana v. Locke, 670 F. 3d 
1238 (DCC. 2011)). In that case, the U.S. District Court thoroughly 
reviewed their arguments and concluded that an EA for the 2007 SBRM 
amendment was consistent with NEPA. The Court specifically stated that, 
``NMFS sufficiently considered the issue of cumulative effects and 
concluded that any potential downstream impacts were not `reasonably 
foreseeable and directly linked' to the Amendment'' \2\ and that 
``NMFS' consideration of alternatives in the EA was sufficient to meet 
the requirements of NEPA.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Oceana v. Locke, 725 F. Supp. 2d 46 (D.D.C. 2010) at pg 24, 
reversed on other grounds Oceana v. Locke, 670 F. 3d 1238 (D.C.C. 
2011).
    \3\ Id. At pg 25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While some components of the amendment remain essentially unchanged 
from the 2007 SBRM amendment, several components, including the 
affected environment and cumulative impacts analyses have been updated 
to account for changes since 2007. NMFS asserts that the amendment 
continues to meet all legal requirements, including NEPA.
    NMFS disagrees with the commenters' assertion that alternatives 
were improperly listed as considered but rejected. When the Councils 
initiated this action, they explicitly supported the previous Council 
decisions regarding the range of alternatives, including the 
alternatives considered but rejected. Both Councils directed the plan 
development team for this action specifically to focus on the legal 
deficiencies identified by the Court of Appeals and some minor 
revisions suggested by the 3-year review report. Given the primary 
scope of this action to specifically focus on the Court's remand, 
alternatives previously considered but rejected in the 2007 amendment 
were deemed considered and rejected for this action. Chapter 6.8 of the 
SBRM Omnibus Amendment reiterates the discussion of why each 
alternative was considered but rejected in the prior action, and 
explains how each does not meet the purpose and need of the SBRM 
Omnibus Amendment. The commenters offer no new information or 
circumstances that show these alternatives should have not been 
rejected from further consideration for this action.
    Comment 5: Oceana states that the adoption of annual catch limits 
and associated accountability measures in recent years has 
significantly changed the data collection needs for management and that 
the SBRM needs to fully discuss and meet all bycatch monitoring needs 
of each FMP, including inseason actions. Oceana asserts the annual 
discard reports described in the SBRM Omnibus Amendment will not 
provide bycatch data at a level of detail necessary to meet all 
management priorities of the Councils.
    Response: NMFS disagrees with Oceana's claim that the SBRM Omnibus 
Amendment does not meet the monitoring needs of annual catch limits and 
accountability measures mandated by the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The 
Magnuson-Stevens Act requires each Council to develop annual catch 
limits for each of its managed fisheries. Further guidance on annual 
catch limit requirements was issued by NMFS in 2009 (74 FR 3178). The 
SBRM is designed to meet the statutory requirements to establish a 
mechanism for collecting bycatch information from each fishery and 
estimating the discards of each species on an annual basis, to 
effectively monitor these annual catch limits. The SBRM forms the basis 
for bycatch monitoring in the Region, but need not address all 
monitoring requirements of all fishery management plans. Oceana 
conflates the Magnuson-Stevens Act requirement for annual catch limits 
(ACLs), which are typically set for the whole stock at an annual level, 
and assessed after the conclusion of each fishing year, with the 
Councils' prerogative to manage fisheries using smaller scale 
requirements such as sub-ACLs for groundfish sector fisheries and other 
fisheries that may trigger inseason management actions. The specific 
monitoring requirements of these management programs may be addressed 
outside of the SBRM with separate observer or monitoring requirements. 
Most FMPs that use in-season actions to open or close fisheries use 
landings data to make that determination, and do not rely on near real-
time estimates of discards. When the New England Council designed the 
Northeast multispecies sector program, it recommended NMFS monitor 
catch, including discards, at the sector level and require measures 
designed to allow for inseason management actions. To meet this need, 
the Council created the sector at-sea monitoring program. The sector 
at-sea monitoring program requires additional monitoring coverage, 
beyond SBRM targets, which can then provide the additional information 
the Council determined was necessary for its groundfish-specific 
management objectives. If there is a need for more finely-tuned 
monitoring requirements in a particular fishery, the FMP for that 
fishery can be amended to address those requirements, including 
increasing monitoring or observer coverage over and above the SBRM 
levels. For example, the Industry-Funded Monitoring Omnibus Amendment 
currently under development by the New England and Mid-Atlantic 
Councils includes measures intended to facilitate the monitoring of 
incidental catch limits or bycatch events in the Atlantic Herring and 
the Atlantic Mackerel, Squids, and Butterfish FMPs. NMFS has determined 
that unless a specific FMP has requirements for such additional 
monitoring, the SBRM is sufficient for monitoring bycatch for the 
purposes of assessing total catch against annual catch limits. The 
commenters have not provided any evidence that the SBRM would not be 
sufficient to provide the estimated bycatch component of the total 
annual catch of a fishery that is used to monitor ACLs. Nor have they 
submitted any recommendations or alternatives that were not considered.
    Comment 6: Oceana and Earthjustice claim the SBRM Omnibus Amendment 
does not adequately discuss the potential for bias in observer data 
that could adversely affect estimated bycatch. The commenters' are 
critical of the 30-percent CV standard, and suggest this level of 
precision is not sufficient for bycatch estimates. Supporting this 
contention, both groups cite a technical review of the 2007 SBRM 
Amendment by Dr. Murdoch McAllister of the University of British 
Columbia.
    Response: NMFS disagrees with Oceana's contention that the 
amendment does not sufficiently address the issue of potential bias in 
observer data and the alleged impact of such bias on the accuracy of 
bycatch estimations. Chapter 5 of the SBRM Omnibus Amendment discusses 
at length and in detail bias and precision issues as they relate to the 
SBRM. As discussed in the SBRM Omnibus Amendment and described below, 
new research and analysis has been conducted since 2007 of potential

[[Page 37187]]

observer bias and the implications for discard estimation.
    Oceana cites the Agency's analysis of at-sea monitoring 
requirements for the Northeast multispecies sector fishery,\4\ but 
draws an unsupported conclusion about potential bias in observed trips 
versus unobserved trips. An analysis contained in that report examined 
if there were indications of an observer effect on groundfish trips 
using trawl or gillnet gear that could result in either systematic or 
localized biases, meaning that the observer data used to generate 
discard estimates may not be representative. This study essentially 
looked for differences in performance when a vessel carried an observer 
and when it did not. This analysis found evidence for some difference 
in fishing behavior between observed and unobserved groundfish trips; 
however, the analysis does not conclude whether the apparent 
differences would necessarily result in discard rates on unobserved 
trips that are different (higher or lower) than on observed trips. If 
the discard rate is unchanged, then the apparent differences would not 
affect total discard estimates. Additional analysis included in the 
report found that even if there is some bias, the discard rate for the 
groundfish sector trips studied would need to be five to ten times 
higher on unobserved trips for total catch to exceed the acceptable 
biological catch. None of the analyses conducted to date suggest 
behavioral differences on observed versus unobserved trips of this 
magnitude. In any event, the analysis for the Northeast multispecies 
sector fishery is not directly relevant for all fisheries covered by 
the SBRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Summary of Analyses Conducted to Determine At-Sea Monitoring 
Requirements for Multispecies Sectors FY 2013. 
www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/ro/fso/reports/Sectors/ASM/FY2013_Multispecies_Sector_ASM_Requirements_Summary.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Oceana made similar claims of potential bias about the 2007 SBRM 
amendment, but the U.S. District Court found that the amendment 
contained an extensive consideration of bias, precision, and accuracy. 
Commenters do not add any additional information or analysis that 
contradicts the finding of the District Court. NMFS, nevertheless, 
supports continued analysis of potential sources of bias, and the SBRM 
can be modified in the future to address any shortcomings that are 
identified.
    NMFS disagrees with the commenters' contention that the choice of a 
30-percent CV performance standard is inappropriate. The rationale for 
a 30-percent CV performance standard is explained in Chapters 5 and 6.3 
of the SBRM Omnibus Amendment and in the 2004 NMFS technical memorandum 
``Evaluating bycatch: A national approach to standardized bycatch 
monitoring programs'' (NMFS-F/SPO-66). The commenters' cite a technical 
review of the 2007 SBRM amendment to argue that this level of precision 
would not be suitable for stock assessments. However, the cited section 
of the technical review refers to a level of variability in estimates 
of total catch, while the SBRM is addressing the variability in 
estimated discards of a species group in a single fishing mode. For 
most fisheries in the Greater Atlantic Region, discards are a 
relatively small portion of total catch, and the subdivision by 
different fishing modes would result in estimates of total discards 
with much lower total variability. This error on the part of the 
commenters about relevant scale is a common and understandable 
confusion about precision. Oceana made a similar argument before the 
U.S. District Court in its challenge to the 2007 SBRM Amendment. In 
that case, the Court found that NMFS's decision to use a 30-percent CV, 
and the agency's response to the technical review, was reasonable and 
did not violate the Magnuson-Stevens Act or any other applicable law. 
In its most recent comments, Oceana provides no new information or 
analysis that contradicts the Court's conclusion.
    Comment 7: Oceana and Earthjustice state that the proposed 
prioritization process is not a sufficient response to the Appeals 
Court order in Oceana v. Locke. Oceana states the proposed funding 
trigger is not sufficiently distinct from the status quo. In the 
opinion of the commenters, the amendment does not adequately explain: 
Why only the named funding lines would be used for SBRM and not others; 
whether other discretionary sources of money exist; how the agency 
might handle new funding lines that might be applicable; and what the 
term ``consistent with historic practice'' means. Oceana suggests that 
the amendment must consider other sources of potential funding 
including other Federal funding sources and development of new 
industry-funding alternatives. Oceana states that the prioritization of 
observer coverage should affect catch buffers, and refers to National 
Standard 1 guidance to argue that any change in the anticipated 
precision of discard estimates should be directly tied to the 
uncertainty buffers around allowable catch.
    Response: NMFS disagrees with the commenters' contentions that the 
prioritization process does not address the Court's finding in Oceana 
v. Locke. Contrary to Oceana's assertion, the prioritization funding 
trigger places real and significant restrictions on the Agency's 
discretion to determine the available funding for the SBRM. The four 
funding lines identified in the amendment where chosen because they 
represent the primary sources of observer funding in the Greater 
Atlantic Region, and had been used to fund the SBRM in previous years. 
By committing the Region to use the funds available in those specific 
lines to support the SBRM, NMFS is creating a transparent mechanism for 
determining under what circumstances the SBRM prioritization process 
would be triggered.
    The Agency is not contending that it has no discretion in how to 
spend any other funding lines, or that there are no other funding lines 
that may be available to support other monitoring priorities in the 
Region. NMFS must maintain some flexibility to use appropriated funding 
to respond to appropriations changes and changes in conditions and 
priorities within the Region and across the country. To do otherwise 
would be irresponsible and could be counter to legal requirements and 
jeopardize the Agency's mission. NMFS acknowledges that Congressional 
appropriations may change over time. The SBRM Amendment does not 
speculate about potential future changes in existing or potential 
future funding lines. The provisions of the SBRM prioritization process 
may be adjusted to incorporate future changes through an FMP framework 
action. Framework adjustment development would occur through 
established Council public participation processes. NMFS has developed 
annual agency-wide guidance that further explains how and why specific 
funding decisions are made for SBRM programs and other observer needs 
throughout the country.
    Oceana expresses confusion regarding the meaning of the phrase 
``consistent with historic practice'' used in the amendment. To provide 
context, this phrase is intended to reflect that not every dollar 
allocated to the Region through the specified funding lines will 
necessarily be converted into observer sea-days. All funding lines to 
regional offices and science centers are subject to standard overhead 
deductions that are used to support shared resources and infrastructure 
that do not receive their own appropriation of funds, such as building 
rent and maintenance, utilities, shared information technology, etc. In 
addition, the cost of the SBRM includes more than just observer sea-
days. Additional costs include, but are not limited to, shore-side 
expenses to support the observer program, training

[[Page 37188]]

of observers, and development of improved sampling procedures. These 
expenses will necessarily vary from year to year, and it was not 
practicable to try to enumerate all possible expenses that may be 
needed to support the SBRM. The intent of specifying that funds will be 
used ``consistent with historic practice'' means that these additional 
costs will be incurred at levels that are consistent with what has 
occurred in the past such that not all specified funds will be 
converted to observer sea-days.
    NMFS rejects Oceana's contention that the amendment must include an 
alternative for the fishing industry to pay for any funding shortfall. 
Industry-funded monitoring programs are complex and must be carefully 
tailored to each specific fishery as a management/policy decision in 
each specific FMP. As stated in Chapter 1 of the SBRM Omnibus 
Amendment, the SBRM is a methodology to assess the amount and type of 
bycatch in the fisheries and not a management plan for how each fishery 
operates. It is not necessary or practicable to develop such programs 
for all of the fisheries in the Region through this action. The 
Councils have the flexibility to consider industry-funded programs, to 
meet SBRM or other monitoring priorities, on a case by case basis, 
depending on the needs and circumstances of each fishery.
    NMFS disagrees with Oceana's repeated assertions that the 
anticipated precision of estimated discards must be directly tied to 
changes in the uncertainty buffers around catch limits. Each data 
source has a certain degree of uncertainty associated with it. The 
specific amount of uncertainty can only be estimated and cannot be 
parsed into specific amounts at different catch levels of different 
species in different fisheries. NMFS' National Standard 1 guidelines 
recommend the use of buffers around catch thresholds to account for 
these various sources of management and scientific uncertainty (74 FR 
3178; January 16, 2009). The Councils have adopted control rules and/or 
make use of scientific and technical expertise so that these buffers 
address numerous sources of potential uncertainty that may be present 
in these catch limits into a single value. Each source of uncertainty 
may vary and the buffers are set conservatively to account for this 
variability and the complex interplay that may exist between sources of 
uncertainty. To propose adjusting these buffers to automatically 
account for changes in the precision estimate for one component of the 
total catch, in this case discards of a specific species in a specific 
fishing mode, misunderstands the general nature of these buffers and 
the complexities they are intended to address. The precision of a 
discard estimate does not necessarily reflect the magnitude or 
importance of that estimate. A very small amount of estimated discards 
could be very imprecise without having a significant impact on total 
catch. Similarly, if a species is discarded by several fishing modes, a 
change in precision in one mode may not significantly affect the 
precision of the total estimated discards for that stock. How the 
variability in discard estimates impacts the scientific uncertainty of 
overall catch estimates is outside the scope of this action and is best 
considered on a case by case basis, through the Councils' acceptable 
biological catch (ABC) control rules and Scientific and Statistical 
Committees. NMFS acknowledges that, in certain cases, the magnitude or 
importance of estimated discards may be cause for ABC control rules 
and/or Scientific and Statistical Committees to specifically consider 
discard estimate precision and underlying uncertainty when recommending 
an ABC, but not formulaically as the commenter suggests.
    NMFS disagrees with Oceana's claim that the SBRM Omnibus Amendment 
fails to mandate that data be reported in a rational manner useful for 
fisheries management. As described in Chapter 1 of the SBRM amendment, 
the SBRM is a general, over-arching methodology for assessing bycatch 
in all fisheries managed by the New England and Mid-Atlantic Fishery 
Management Councils to meet the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens 
Act. It is not designed as a specific, real-time quota monitoring 
process. The amendment specifies minimum components to include in the 
annual discard reports, and anticipates that the format and content of 
these reports will evolve over time. The 2007 SBRM amendment was very 
prescriptive of the detailed information to be included in the annual 
discard reports. However, this resulted in annual discard reports with 
over 1,000 pages of tables. While these reports contained a lot of 
information, they were not as useful for management as intended. The 
revised SBRM Omnibus Amendment calls for annual discard reports to 
contain more summarized data that could be presented in different ways. 
We intend to work with the Councils on an ongoing basis to ensure these 
reports continue to provide the information fishery managers need in a 
format that is useful in their work. As explained in Chapters 1 and 2 
of the Omnibus Amendment, fishing modes are used as the operational 
unit for assigning observer coverage because it reflects information 
that is available when a vessel leaves the dock. While data may be 
collected by fishing mode, the calculated discards can be reported in 
multiple ways. NMFS looks forward to working with the Councils to 
prepare annual discard reports that provide needed information to 
support their management decisions.
    Comment 8: Earthjustice claims the importance filters remove 
coverage from important fleets, and the SBRM must not prevent NMFS from 
paying for the government costs of new industry-funded monitoring 
programs. The commenter also asserts that the implications of the 
amendment on supplemental observer coverage of mid-water trawl 
fisheries were first discussed in August 2014, after the Councils had 
taken final action. The commenter urges the agency to disapprove the 
amendment and initiate scoping for a new amendment and EIS.
    Response: NMFS disagrees with the commenter's contention that the 
importance filters create a situation that ``is not only absurd and 
irrational, but entirely inconsistent with the needs of the fishery'' 
with regard to monitoring the bycatch of river herring and shad species 
caught in the midwater trawl fisheries. As described in Chapter 6.2.3 
of the amendment, the importance filters are a tool to aid in 
establishing observer sea day allocations that are more meaningful and 
efficient at achieving the overall objectives of the SBRM. As the 
commenter acknowledges, midwater trawl vessels that incidentally catch 
these species typically retain and land them, and as such, those fish 
are not bycatch as defined by the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Therefore, such 
incidental catch is outside of the mandate of the SBRM. Not all 
monitoring priorities must be part of the SBRM. In cases where a 
Council determines monitoring of incidental catch of specific species 
is a management priority, NMFS works with the Council to design and 
evaluate monitoring options, including at-sea observers or monitors, 
dockside sampling, electronic monitoring, or other options that best 
address the needs of the specific fishery.
    NMFS acknowledges the commenter's concern that the agency may not 
be able to fully fund the government's costs associated with a future 
industry-funded monitoring program. One of the goals of another 
initiative, the Industry-Funded Monitoring Omnibus Amendment, currently 
under development by the Councils is to create

[[Page 37189]]

a process for prioritizing available appropriated government and 
industry funds to efficiently provide supplemental monitoring for 
management goals beyond the SBRM. Currently, the agency may not use 
private funds to finance the costs of fundamental government 
obligations in a manner that is not consistent with the Antideficiency 
Act, Miscellaneous Receipts Statute, and other appropriations laws or 
rules. In the Industry-Funded Monitoring Omnibus Amendment, the New 
England and Mid-Atlantic Councils are considering how to prioritize and 
coordinate government funds necessary for supporting at-sea observers 
and other monitoring needs consistent with the Councils' 
recommendations for industry-funded observer programs outside of the 
SBRM requirements. Development of this process would ensure that when 
funds are available, they will be used consistent with the priorities 
regarding observer coverage and monitoring needs established by the 
Councils. NMFS will continue to work to identify potential funding 
sources that could be utilized to support the Councils' monitoring 
priorities.
    NMFS disagrees with the commenter's assertion that the implications 
of how the SBRM impacts at-sea observer coverage in other fisheries 
were first discussed in August 2014. NMFS staff gave a special 
presentation about the funding of the Northeast Fisheries Observer 
Program at both the New England and Mid-Atlantic Council meetings in 
April 2014. These presentations highlighted the sources of funding and 
potential effect of the proposed SBRM funding trigger on available SBRM 
coverage and other monitoring programs previously funded by the 
effected funding lines. This message was then reiterated during the 
presentation of the SBRM Omnibus Amendment at the same meetings, before 
the Councils voted to take final action on the amendment.
    Comment 9: The Center for Biological Diversity, an environmental 
group, submitted a letter focusing on the potential impact of the SBRM 
on endangered species. The commenter suggests that the allocation of 
observers should be focused on the conservation status of potential 
bycatch species, particularly those that are overfished, undergoing 
overfishing, or have been identified as endangered, threatened, or 
species of concern. The group also asserted that the amendment does not 
adequately consider potential adverse effects on endangered species.
    Response: NMFS disagrees with the commenter's assertion that the 
SBRM should be driven primarily by the conservation status of the 
potential bycatch species. Section 303(a)(11) of the Magnuson-Stevens 
Act requires that each FMP ``establish a standardized reporting 
methodology to assess the amount and type of bycatch occurring in the 
fishery'' regardless of the conservation status of the species caught 
in the fishery. As stated in Chapter 1.3 of amendment, the primary 
purpose of bycatch reporting and monitoring is to collect information 
that can be used reliably as the basis for making sound fisheries 
management decisions for all managed species in the Greater Atlantic 
Region, including stock assessments and annual catch accounting. Figure 
1 in Appendix H of the SBRM Omnibus Amendment illustrates that beyond a 
certain point, increased observer coverage provides diminishing returns 
as far as improved precision of estimated discards. As a result, 
prioritizing observer coverage by conservation status could risk 
sacrificing the precision of bycatch estimates for several species to 
achieve a marginal improvement in one, which is unlikely to meet the 
stated objectives of this action.
    NMFS disagrees with the commenter's contention that the SBRM 
Omnibus Amendment does not adequately consider adverse effects to 
endangered species. As discussed in Chapter 5 of the amendment, the 
SBRM applies the 30-percent CV performance standard to species afforded 
protection under the Endangered Species Act, as it does for species 
managed under a FMP. This has been the case since the implementation of 
the 2007 SBRM Amendment. Since that time, the agency has continued to 
effectively use discard estimates for these species for management 
purposes, including monitoring incidental take limits, and there is no 
information indicating these estimates are inadequate. The SBRM Omnibus 
Amendment is primarily administrative in nature and is not expected to 
result in any changes in fishing effort or behavior, fishing gears 
used, or areas fished, and therefore will not adversely affect 
endangered and threatened species in any manner not considered in prior 
consultations.
    Comment 10: One commercial fisherman expressed frustration with how 
observer coverage and at-sea monitors are allocated across the 
groundfish fleet. The commenter suggested assigning observers based on 
the amount of bycatch rather than the estimated variance in discards. 
The commenter was also very concerned about the potential cost to 
vessels of industry-funded monitoring.
    Response: As described in Chapter 5 of the SBRM Omnibus Amendment, 
the target observer coverage rates are calculated based on the variance 
of discards (i.e., the CV performance standard) rather than on total 
amount of discards from any one fishing mode. This approach is designed 
to provide a suitable level of precision in discard estimates to meet 
the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The SBRM focuses on 
providing a statistically rigorous sampling of fishing activity, which 
will provide a more precise estimate of total discards, rather than a 
direct measurement or census of discards. Thus, it is intended to 
provide a better measurement of overall discards, rather than trying to 
directly observe a high volume of discards that might lead to a less 
precise estimate of total discards when unobserved trips are factored 
in. The comment regarding the potential burden that paying for at-sea 
monitors would place on the groundfish industry is addressed under 
Comment 2, above.
    Comment 11: One commercial fisherman expressed concerns that the 
proposed funding trigger would be too restrictive on the use of certain 
observer funds and would prevent funds from being used to cover the 
groundfish industry costs for at-sea monitors as it has in the past.
    Response: NMFS agrees with this individual's observation. Funds 
previously used to cover groundfish at-sea monitors may be fully 
committed to the SBRM process by the amendment's measures to the extent 
that SBRM funding amounts are insufficient to realize the level of 
observer coverage estimated to achieve the 30-percent CV performance 
standard. Additional detail on this comment is addressed in the 
response to Comment 2, above.
    Comment 12: One member of the public wrote in support of the 
proposed 45-day payment period for observer services to the scallop 
fishing fleet, and suggested that such a payment period be specified in 
any future action to develop industry-funded observer programs. The 
commenter also suggested that the proposed rule at Sec.  
648.11(h)(5)(vii)(A) incorrectly states that an observer has 24 hours 
for electronic submission of observer data after a trip has landed, and 
that the correct time should be 48 hours.
    Response: This comment refers to one of three minor modifications 
to the regulations in the proposed rule that are not part of the SBRM 
Omnibus Amendment, but were proposed under authority granted the 
Secretary under section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act to ensure 
that FMPs are

[[Page 37190]]

implemented as intended and consistent with the requirements of the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act. NMFS agrees that a clear payment deadline is 
valuable for both the observer service providers and the vessel 
operators who are contracting observer services.
    The requirement to submit electronic observer data within 24 hours 
reflects the current regulations. NMFS acknowledges that current 
practice is to allow 48 hours for electronic submission of observer 
data. The proposed rule did not specifically propose addressing this 
inconsistency, and as a result there was no opportunity for public 
comment. Therefore, NMFS is not changing this regulation in this rule. 
There may be other areas within this section of the regulations where 
current practice has evolved away from the specific provisions in the 
regulations. NMFS may address these inconsistencies in a future 
rulemaking.
    Comment 13: A letter from The Nature Conservancy expressed support 
for improving fishery monitoring systems and cited the benefits of 
accurate and reliable data. The commenter urged NMFS to clarify the 
agency's intention to take steps necessary to implement additional 
tools for collecting timely and accurate fishery-related data, 
including the use of electronic monitoring. In particular, the 
commenter urged the agency to ensure that the SBRM support, and not 
hinder, the earliest possible implementation of electronic monitoring. 
The commenter also expressed support for the SBRM review and reporting 
process, and requested that the triennial review include a broader set 
of stakeholders beyond NMFS and the Councils.
    Response: NMFS acknowledges that the funding-related prioritization 
trigger may require some funding sources that have previously been used 
to support development of electronic monitoring to be used exclusively 
for the SBRM. This may delay implementation of electronic monitoring in 
the Region. The commenter cited the recent adoption of electronic 
monitoring requirements to monitor bluefin tuna bycatch in the pelagic 
longline fishery under the Consolidated Atlantic Highly Migratory 
Species FMP as evidence that electronic monitoring is ready to meet the 
bycatch monitoring goals of the SBRM. NMFS is very supportive of the 
new electronic monitoring program to monitor bycatch of bluefin tuna in 
the pelagic longline fishery. Lessons learned in the implementation of 
the bluefin tuna program should help inform other electronic monitoring 
programs in the future. However, a technology that is suitable for 
identification of bycatch of a distinctive species by a specific gear 
type, such as bluefin tuna in the pelagic longline fishery, may not yet 
be as suitable or affordable for monitoring more complex bycatch 
situations covered by the SBRM, such as differentiating flounder 
species in a multispecies trawl fishery, or providing length and weight 
data (all of which would be essential for electronic monitoring to 
effectively replace observers under the SBRM). Electronic monitoring is 
a technological tool that may be used to serve monitoring purposes that 
may differ between fisheries. The suitability and manner of using this 
tool for a particular purpose must be considered in the context of each 
proposed program. NMFS supports the continued development of electronic 
monitoring and will continue to evaluate its applicability as a 
component of a comprehensive SBRM and other coverage purposes.
    The team that conducted the 3-year review of the SBRM in 2011 
included staff from the Northeast Fisheries Science Center, the Greater 
Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, the New England and Mid-Atlantic 
Fishery Management Councils, and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries 
Commission. Because much of the data analyzed as part of the 3-year 
review are confidential under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the team was 
limited to individuals authorized to access such information. The 
annual discard reports as well as the final 3-year review report 
present information in a format consistent with data confidentiality 
requirements and are all publically available. NMFS and the Councils 
will consider how additional stakeholders might be included in the next 
review in a way that could allow their input without compromising the 
confidentiality of catch and discard data.
    Comment 14: The Marine Mammal Commission submitted a letter 
requesting NMFS include additional information in the final rule about 
whether the SBRM has implications for observer programs under the 
Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). In addition, the letter noted 
particular support for the proposed use of a non-discretionary 
formulaic process for prioritizing available observer sea-days, and the 
provision to facilitate the future development of an industry-funded 
observer program through a framework adjustment.
    Response: NMFS appreciates the commenter's support for the use of a 
non-discretionary formulaic process for prioritizing available observer 
sea-days, and the provision to facilitate the future development of an 
industry-funded observer program through the FMP's framework adjustment 
process. Observer programs explicitly funded to support the MMPA are 
not affected by this amendment. NMFS receives dedicated funding for 
observers under the MMPA, which is a separate funding allocation from 
the SBRM program. Because the funding for these MMPA observers is 
outside of the funding lines dedicated to the SBRM, the allocation of 
MMPA observers is not directly subject to the observer allocation 
process or prioritization process described in the SBRM Omnibus 
Amendment. The MMPA observers are allocated across fisheries based on 
the estimated likelihood of marine mammal interactions. At-sea 
observers allocated under the SBRM actually provide additional marine 
mammal observer coverage as they record and report any interactions 
with marine mammals that occur on observed fishing trips. Likewise, at-
sea monitors in the groundfish sector program record any interactions 
they witness. Similarly, in the absence of a marine mammal interaction, 
MMPA observers record information about the trip and observed bycatch 
that contributes to our overall estimation of bycatch in Greater 
Atlantic fisheries. However, if a marine mammal is present, these 
observers are required to focus their attention on that marine mammal 
interaction, and monitoring of other bycatch becomes a secondary 
priority. For additional information about how marine mammal 
interactions are monitored, please see the Greater Atlantic Region's 
Marine Mammal Program Web site at: 
www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/Protected/mmp/.
    Comment 15: The comments submitted by Environmental Defense Fund, 
an environmental organization, expressed concerns about the impact of 
the proposed SBRM on the continued development and implementation of 
electronic monitoring in the Region. The commenter expressed concern 
that the amendment should have included electronic monitoring as an 
explicit component of the SBRM. The group asserts that 100-percent 
electronic monitoring would reduce uncertainty in catch data and 
improve stock assessments, and that electronic monitoring could provide 
a lower sea-day cost than current at-sea observers. The group is 
critical that the proposed funding trigger is not properly explained 
and would prevent funds from being available for electronic monitoring 
or to cover the government

[[Page 37191]]

costs associated with any future industry-funded monitoring programs.
    Response: The responses above to Comment 3, Comment 4, and Comment 
9 address many of the points raised by the commenter. NMFS does not 
agree with the commenter's characterization of the potential cost 
savings with electronic monitoring at this time. The commenter promotes 
the potential for a lower cost per sea-day with electronic monitoring 
than with at-sea observers, but also advocates for 100-percent 
electronic monitoring on every fishing trip. This is a substantial 
increase in coverage rate when compared to the current SBRM using at-
sea observers. The affordability of electronic monitoring has yet to be 
determined. Electronic monitoring costs will be determined largely by 
the purpose and scope of particular electronic monitoring coverage and 
the available technology to meet those needs. Even at a potentially 
lower cost per day, the increase in coverage to 100 percent of trips 
would likely result in a program that is significantly more expensive 
than the SBRM is currently. This does not take into account that 
electronic monitoring is not yet considered robust enough to replace 
observers for bycatch monitoring in some gears types or for identifying 
all bycatch to the species level. In addition, some amount of at-sea 
observer coverage is likely to still be required to collect biological 
samples, which would further increase the costs. NMFS will continue to 
support development of electronic monitoring as a potential tool where 
it is fitting and appropriate.

Classification

    The Administrator, Greater Atlantic Region, NMFS, determined that 
the SBRM Omnibus Amendment is necessary for the conservation and 
management of Greater Atlantic fisheries and that it is consistent with 
the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable law.
    This final rule has been determined to be not significant for 
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
    The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce 
certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration during the proposed rule stage that this action would 
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. The factual basis for the certification was published in the 
proposed rule and is not repeated here. No comments were received 
regarding this certification. As a result, a regulatory flexibility 
analysis was not required and none was prepared.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648

    Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 
Incorporation by reference.

    Dated: June 17, 2015.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.

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

PART 648--FISHERIES OF THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES

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

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


0
2. In Sec.  648.11, add paragraph (g)(5)(iii), and revise paragraphs 
(h)(1), (h)(3)(iv), (h)(3)(vi), (h)(3)(viii), (h)(3)(ix), (h)(4), 
(h)(5), (h)(7) introductory text, (i)(1), (i)(2), (i)(3)(ii) and (v), 
(i)(4), and (i)(5) to read as follows:


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

* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (5) * * *
    (iii) Owners of scallop vessels shall pay observer service 
providers for observer services within 45 days of the end of a fishing 
trip on which an observer deployed.
* * * * *
    (h) Observer service provider approval and responsibilities--(1) 
General. An entity seeking to provide observer services must apply for 
and obtain approval from NMFS following submission of a complete 
application. A list of approved observer service providers shall be 
distributed to vessel owners and shall be posted on the NMFS/NEFOP Web 
site at: www.nefsc.noaa.gov/femad/fsb/.
* * * * *
    (3) * * *
    (iv) A statement, signed under penalty of perjury, from each owner 
or owners, board members, and officers, if a corporation, describing 
any criminal conviction(s), Federal contract(s) they have had and the 
performance rating they received on the contracts, and previous 
decertification action(s) while working as an observer or observer 
service provider.
* * * * *
    (vi) A description of the applicant's ability to carry out the 
responsibilities and duties of a fishery observer services provider as 
set out under paragraph (h)(5) of this section, and the arrangements to 
be used.
* * * * *
    (viii) Proof that its observers, whether contracted or employed by 
the service provider, are compensated with salaries that meet or exceed 
the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) guidelines for observers. Observers 
shall be compensated as Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) non-exempt 
employees. Observer providers shall provide any other benefits and 
personnel services in accordance with the terms of each observer's 
contract or employment status.
    (ix) The names of its fully equipped, NMFS/NEFOP certified, 
observers on staff or a list of its training candidates (with resumes) 
and a request for an appropriate NMFS/NEFOP Observer Training class. 
The NEFOP training has a minimum class size of eight individuals, which 
may be split among multiple vendors requesting training. Requests for 
training classes with fewer than eight individuals will be delayed 
until further requests make up the full training class size.
* * * * *
    (4) Application evaluation. (i) NMFS shall review and evaluate each 
application submitted under paragraph (h)(3) of this section. Issuance 
of approval as an observer provider shall be based on completeness of 
the application, and a determination by NMFS of the applicant's ability 
to perform the duties and responsibilities of a fishery observer 
service provider, as demonstrated in the application information. A 
decision to approve or deny an application shall be made by NMFS within 
15 business days of receipt of the application by NMFS.
    (ii) If NMFS approves the application, the observer service 
provider's name will be added to the list of approved observer service 
providers found on the NMFS/NEFOP Web site specified in paragraph 
(h)(1) of this section, and in any outreach information to the 
industry. Approved observer service providers shall be notified in 
writing and provided with any information pertinent to its 
participation in the fishery observer program.
    (iii) An application shall be denied if NMFS determines that the 
information provided in the application is not complete or the 
evaluation criteria are not met. NMFS shall notify the applicant in 
writing of any deficiencies in the application or information submitted 
in support of the application. An applicant who receives a denial of 
his or her application may present additional information to rectify 
the deficiencies specified in the written

[[Page 37192]]

denial, provided such information is submitted to NMFS within 30 days 
of the applicant's receipt of the denial notification from NMFS. In the 
absence of additional information, and after 30 days from an 
applicant's receipt of a denial, an observer provider is required to 
resubmit an application containing all of the information required 
under the application process specified in paragraph (h)(3) of this 
section to be re-considered for being added to the list of approved 
observer service providers.
    (5) Responsibilities of observer service providers. (i) An observer 
service provider must provide observers certified by NMFS/NEFOP 
pursuant to paragraph (i) of this section for deployment in a fishery 
when contacted and contracted by the owner, operator, or vessel manager 
of a fishing vessel, unless the observer service provider refuses to 
deploy an observer on a requesting vessel for any of the reasons 
specified at paragraph (h)(5)(viii) of this section.
    (ii) An observer service provider must provide to each of its 
observers:
    (A) All necessary transportation, including arrangements and 
logistics, of observers to the initial location of deployment, to all 
subsequent vessel assignments, and to any debriefing locations, if 
necessary;
    (B) Lodging, per diem, and any other services necessary for 
observers assigned to a fishing vessel or to attend an appropriate 
NMFS/NEFOP observer training class;
    (C) The required observer equipment, in accordance with equipment 
requirements listed on the NMFS/NEFOP Web site specified in paragraph 
(h)(1) of this section, prior to any deployment and/or prior to NMFS 
observer certification training; and
    (D) Individually assigned communication equipment, in working 
order, such as a mobile phone, for all necessary communication. An 
observer service provider may alternatively compensate observers for 
the use of the observer's personal mobile phone, or other device, for 
communications made in support of, or necessary for, the observer's 
duties.
    (iii) Observer deployment logistics. Each approved observer service 
provider must assign an available certified observer to a vessel upon 
request. Each approved observer service provider must be accessible 24 
hours per day, 7 days per week, to enable an owner, operator, or 
manager of a vessel to secure observer coverage when requested. The 
telephone system must be monitored a minimum of four times daily to 
ensure rapid response to industry requests. Observer service providers 
approved under paragraph (h) of this section are required to report 
observer deployments to NMFS daily for the purpose of determining 
whether the predetermined coverage levels are being achieved in the 
appropriate fishery.
    (iv) Observer deployment limitations. (A) A candidate observer's 
first four deployments and the resulting data shall be immediately 
edited and approved after each trip by NMFS/NEFOP prior to any further 
deployments by that observer. If data quality is considered acceptable, 
the observer would be certified.
    (B) Unless alternative arrangements are approved by NMFS, an 
observer provider must not deploy any observer on the same vessel for 
more than two consecutive multi-day trips, and not more than twice in 
any given month for multi-day deployments.
    (v) Communications with observers. An observer service provider 
must have an employee responsible for observer activities on call 24 
hours a day to handle emergencies involving observers or problems 
concerning observer logistics, whenever observers are at sea, stationed 
shoreside, in transit, or in port awaiting vessel assignment.
    (vi) Observer training requirements. The following information must 
be submitted to NMFS/NEFOP at least 7 days prior to the beginning of 
the proposed training class: A list of observer candidates; observer 
candidate resumes; and a statement signed by the candidate, under 
penalty of perjury, that discloses the candidate's criminal 
convictions, if any. All observer trainees must complete a basic 
cardiopulmonary resuscitation/first aid course prior to the end of a 
NMFS/NEFOP Observer Training class. NMFS may reject a candidate for 
training if the candidate does not meet the minimum qualification 
requirements as outlined by NMFS/NEFOP minimum eligibility standards 
for observers as described on the NMFS/NEFOP Web site.
    (vii) Reports--(A) Observer deployment reports. The observer 
service provider must report to NMFS/NEFOP when, where, to whom, and to 
what fishery (including Open Area or Access Area for sea scallop trips) 
an observer has been deployed, within 24 hours of the observer's 
departure. The observer service provider must ensure that the observer 
reports back to NMFS its Observer Contract (OBSCON) data, as described 
in the certified observer training, within 24 hours of landing. OBSCON 
data are to be submitted electronically or by other means specified by 
NMFS. The observer service provider shall provide the raw (unedited) 
data collected by the observer to NMFS within 4 business days of the 
trip landing.
    (B) Safety refusals. The observer service provider must report to 
NMFS any trip that has been refused due to safety issues, e.g., failure 
to hold a valid USCG Commercial Fishing Vessel Safety Examination Decal 
or to meet the safety requirements of the observer's pre-trip vessel 
safety checklist, within 24 hours of the refusal.
    (C) Biological samples. The observer service provider must ensure 
that biological samples, including whole marine mammals, sea turtles, 
and sea birds, are stored/handled properly and transported to NMFS 
within 7 days of landing.
    (D) Observer debriefing. The observer service provider must ensure 
that the observer remains available to NMFS, either in-person or via 
phone, at NMFS' discretion, including NMFS Office for Law Enforcement, 
for debriefing for at least 2 weeks following any observed trip. If 
requested by NMFS, an observer that is at sea during the 2-week period 
must contact NMFS upon his or her return.
    (E) Observer availability report. The observer service provider 
must report to NMFS any occurrence of inability to respond to an 
industry request for observer coverage due to the lack of available 
observers by 5 p.m., Eastern Time, of any day on which the provider is 
unable to respond to an industry request for observer coverage.
    (F) Other reports. The observer service provider must report 
possible observer harassment, discrimination, concerns about vessel 
safety or marine casualty, or observer illness or injury; and any 
information, allegations, or reports regarding observer conflict of 
interest or breach of the standards of behavior, to NMFS/NEFOP within 
24 hours of the event or within 24 hours of learning of the event.
    (G) Observer status report. The observer service provider must 
provide NMFS/NEFOP with an updated list of contact information for all 
observers that includes the observer identification number, observer's 
name, mailing address, email address, phone numbers, homeports or 
fisheries/trip types assigned, and must include whether or not the 
observer is ``in service,'' indicating when the observer has requested 
leave and/or is not currently working for an industry funded program.
    (H) Vessel contract. The observer service provider must submit to 
NMFS/NEFOP, if requested, a copy of each type of signed and valid 
contract (including all attachments, appendices, addendums, and 
exhibits incorporated

[[Page 37193]]

into the contract) between the observer provider and those entities 
requiring observer services.
    (I) Observer contract. The observer service provider must submit to 
NMFS/NEFOP, if requested, a copy of each type of signed and valid 
contract (including all attachments, appendices, addendums, and 
exhibits incorporated into the contract) between the observer provider 
and specific observers.
    (J) Additional information. The observer service provider must 
submit to NMFS/NEFOP, if requested, copies of any information developed 
and/or used by the observer provider and distributed to vessels, such 
as informational pamphlets, payment notification, description of 
observer duties, etc.
    (viii) Refusal to deploy an observer. (A) An observer service 
provider may refuse to deploy an observer on a requesting scallop 
vessel if the observer service provider does not have an available 
observer within 48 hours of receiving a request for an observer from a 
vessel.
    (B) An observer service provider may refuse to deploy an observer 
on a requesting fishing vessel if the observer service provider has 
determined that the requesting vessel is inadequate or unsafe pursuant 
to the reasons described at Sec.  600.746 of this chapter.
    (C) The observer service provider may refuse to deploy an observer 
on a fishing vessel that is otherwise eligible to carry an observer for 
any other reason, including failure to pay for previous observer 
deployments, provided the observer service provider has received prior 
written confirmation from NMFS authorizing such refusal.
* * * * *
    (7) Removal of observer service provider from the list of approved 
observer service providers. An observer service provider that fails to 
meet the requirements, conditions, and responsibilities specified in 
paragraphs (h)(5) and (6) of this section shall be notified by NMFS, in 
writing, that it is subject to removal from the list of approved 
observer service providers. Such notification shall specify the reasons 
for the pending removal. An observer service provider that has received 
notification that it is subject to removal from the list of approved 
observer service providers may submit written information to rebut the 
reasons for removal from the list. Such rebuttal must be submitted 
within 30 days of notification received by the observer service 
provider that the observer service provider is subject to removal and 
must be accompanied by written evidence rebutting the basis for 
removal. NMFS shall review information rebutting the pending removal 
and shall notify the observer service provider within 15 days of 
receipt of the rebuttal whether or not the removal is warranted. If no 
response to a pending removal is received by NMFS, the observer service 
provider shall be automatically removed from the list of approved 
observer service providers. The decision to remove the observer service 
provider from the list, either after reviewing a rebuttal, or if no 
rebuttal is submitted, shall be the final decision of NMFS and the 
Department of Commerce. Removal from the list of approved observer 
service providers does not necessarily prevent such observer service 
provider from obtaining an approval in the future if a new application 
is submitted that demonstrates that the reasons for removal are 
remedied. Certified observers under contract with an observer service 
provider that has been removed from the list of approved service 
providers must complete their assigned duties for any fishing trips on 
which the observers are deployed at the time the observer service 
provider is removed from the list of approved observer service 
providers. An observer service provider removed from the list of 
approved observer service providers is responsible for providing NMFS 
with the information required in paragraph (h)(5)(vii) of this section 
following completion of the trip. NMFS may consider, but is not limited 
to, the following in determining if an observer service provider may 
remain on the list of approved observer service providers:
* * * * *
    (i) Observer certification. (1) To be certified, employees or sub-
contractors operating as observers for observer service providers 
approved under paragraph (h) of this section must meet NMFS National 
Minimum Eligibility Standards for observers. NMFS National Minimum 
Eligibility Standards are available at the National Observer Program 
Web site: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/op/pds/categories/science_and_technology.html.
    (2) Observer training. In order to be deployed on any fishing 
vessel, a candidate observer must have passed an appropriate NMFS/NEFOP 
Observer Training course. If a candidate fails training, the candidate 
shall be notified in writing on or before the last day of training. The 
notification will indicate the reasons the candidate failed the 
training. Observer training shall include an observer training trip, as 
part of the observer's training, aboard a fishing vessel with a 
trainer. A candidate observer's first four deployments and the 
resulting data shall be immediately edited and approved after each trip 
by NMFS/NEFOP, prior to any further deployments by that observer. If 
data quality is considered acceptable, the observer would be certified.
    (3) * * *
    (ii) Be physically and mentally capable of carrying out the 
responsibilities of an observer on board fishing vessels, pursuant to 
standards established by NMFS. Such standards are available from NMFS/
NEFOP Web site specified in paragraph (h)(1) of this section and shall 
be provided to each approved observer service provider;
* * * * *
    (v) Accurately record their sampling data, write complete reports, 
and report accurately any observations relevant to conservation of 
marine resources or their environment.
    (4) Probation and decertification. NMFS may review observer 
certifications and issue observer certification probation and/or 
decertification as described in NMFS policy found on the NMFS/NEFOP Web 
site specified in paragraph (h)(1) of this section.
    (5) Issuance of decertification. Upon determination that 
decertification is warranted under paragraph (i)(4) of this section, 
NMFS shall issue a written decision to decertify the observer to the 
observer and approved observer service providers via certified mail at 
the observer's most current address provided to NMFS. The decision 
shall identify whether a certification is revoked and shall identify 
the specific reasons for the action taken. Decertification is effective 
immediately as of the date of issuance, unless the decertification 
official notes a compelling reason for maintaining certification for a 
specified period and under specified conditions. Decertification is the 
final decision of NMFS and the Department of Commerce and may not be 
appealed.
* * * * *

0
3. Add Sec.  648.18 to subpart A to read as follows:


Sec.  648.18  Standardized bycatch reporting methodology.

    NMFS shall comply with the Standardized Bycatch Reporting 
Methodology (SBRM) provisions established in the following fishery 
management plans by the Standardized Bycatch Reporting Methodology: An 
Omnibus Amendment to the Fishery Management Plans of the Mid-Atlantic 
and New England Regional Fishery Management Councils, completed

[[Page 37194]]

March 2015, also known as the SBRM Omnibus Amendment, by the New 
England Fishery Management Council, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management 
Council, National Marine Fisheries Service Greater Atlantic Regional 
Fisheries Office, and National Marine Fisheries Service Northeast 
Fisheries Science Center: Atlantic Bluefish; Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, 
and Butterfish; Atlantic Sea Scallop; Atlantic Surfclam and Ocean 
Quahog; Atlantic Herring; Atlantic Salmon; Deep-Sea Red Crab; Monkfish; 
Northeast Multispecies; Northeast Skate Complex; Spiny Dogfish; Summer 
Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass; and Tilefish. The Director of the 
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference in accordance 
with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. You may obtain a copy of the 
SBRM Omnibus Amendment from the Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries 
Office (www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov, 978-281-9300). You may 
inspect a copy at the Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, 55 
Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930 or at the National Archives 
and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability 
of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: 
www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

0
4. In Sec.  648.22, add paragraph (c)(13) to read as follows:


Sec.  648.22  Atlantic mackerel, squid, and butterfish specifications.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (13) Changes, as appropriate, to the SBRM, including the 
coefficient of variation (CV) based performance standard, the means by 
which discard data are collected/obtained, fishery stratification, the 
process for prioritizing observer sea-day allocations, reports, and/or 
industry-funded observers or observer set aside programs.
* * * * *

0
5. In Sec.  648.25, revise paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:


Sec.  648.25  Atlantic Mackerel, squid, and butterfish framework 
adjustments to management measures.

    (a) * * *
    (1) Adjustment process. The MAFMC shall develop and analyze 
appropriate management actions over the span of at least two MAFMC 
meetings. The MAFMC must provide the public with advance notice of the 
availability of the recommendation(s), appropriate justification(s) and 
economic and biological analyses, and the opportunity to comment on the 
proposed adjustment(s) at the first meeting and prior to and at the 
second MAFMC meeting. The MAFMC's recommendations on adjustments or 
additions to management measures must come from one or more of the 
following categories: Adjustments within existing ABC control rule 
levels; adjustments to the existing MAFMC risk policy; introduction of 
new AMs, including sub-ACTs; minimum fish size; maximum fish size; gear 
restrictions; gear requirements or prohibitions; permitting 
restrictions; recreational possession limit; recreational seasons; 
closed areas; commercial seasons; commercial trip limits; commercial 
quota system, including commercial quota allocation procedure and 
possible quota set-asides to mitigate bycatch; recreational harvest 
limit; annual specification quota setting process; FMP Monitoring 
Committee composition and process; description and identification of 
EFH (and fishing gear management measures that impact EFH); description 
and identification of habitat areas of particular concern; overfishing 
definition and related thresholds and targets; regional gear 
restrictions; regional season restrictions (including option to split 
seasons); restrictions on vessel size (LOA and GRT) or shaft 
horsepower; changes to the SBRM, including the CV-based performance 
standard, the means by which discard data are collected/obtained, 
fishery stratification, the process for prioritizing observer sea-day 
allocations, reports, and/or industry-funded observers or observer set 
aside programs; any other management measures currently included in the 
FMP; set aside quota for scientific research; regional management; 
process for inseason adjustment to the annual specification; mortality 
caps for river herring and shad species; time/area management for river 
herring and shad species; and provisions for river herring and shad 
incidental catch avoidance program, including adjustments to the 
mechanism and process for tracking fleet activity, reporting incidental 
catch events, compiling data, and notifying the fleet of changes to the 
area(s); the definition/duration of `test tows,' if test tows would be 
utilized to determine the extent of river herring incidental catch in a 
particular area(s); the threshold for river herring incidental catch 
that would trigger the need for vessels to be alerted and move out of 
the area(s); the distance that vessels would be required to move from 
the area(s); and the time that vessels would be required to remain out 
of the area(s). Measures contained within this list that require 
significant departures from previously contemplated measures or that 
are otherwise introducing new concepts may require amendment of the FMP 
instead of a framework adjustment.
* * * * *

0
6. In Sec.  648.41, revise paragraph (a) to read as follows:


Sec.  648.41  Framework specifications.

    (a) Within season management action. The New England Fishery 
Management Council (NEFMC) may, at any time, initiate action to 
implement, add to or adjust Atlantic salmon management measures to:
    (1) Allow for Atlantic salmon aquaculture projects in the EEZ, 
provided such an action is consistent with the goals and objectives of 
the Atlantic Salmon FMP; and
    (2) Make changes to the SBRM, including the CV-based performance 
standard, the means by which discard data are collected/obtained, 
fishery stratification, the process for prioritizing observer sea-day 
allocations, reports, and/or industry-funded observers or observer set 
aside programs.
* * * * *

0
7. In Sec.  648.55, revise paragraphs (f)(39) and (40), and add 
paragraph (f)(41) to read as follows:


Sec.  648.55  Framework adjustments to management measures.

* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (39) Adjusting EFH closed area management boundaries or other 
associated measures;
    (40) Changes to the SBRM, including the CV-based performance 
standard, the means by which discard data are collected/obtained, 
fishery stratification, the process for prioritizing observer sea-day 
allocations, reports, and/or industry-funded observers or observer set-
aside programs; and
    (41) Any other management measures currently included in the FMP.
* * * * *

0
8. In Sec.  648.79, revise paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:


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

    (a) * * *
    (1) Adjustment process. The MAFMC shall develop and analyze 
appropriate management actions over the span of at least two MAFMC 
meetings. The MAFMC must provide the public with advance notice of the 
availability of the recommendation(s), appropriate justification(s) and 
economic and

[[Page 37195]]

biological analyses, and the opportunity to comment on the proposed 
adjustment(s) at the first meeting, and prior to and at the second 
MAFMC meeting. The MAFMC's recommendations on adjustments or additions 
to management measures must come from one or more of the following 
categories: Adjustments within existing ABC control rule levels; 
adjustments to the existing MAFMC risk policy; introduction of new AMs, 
including sub-ACTs; the overfishing definition (both the threshold and 
target levels); description and identification of EFH (and fishing gear 
management measures that impact EFH); habitat areas of particular 
concern; set-aside quota for scientific research; VMS; OY range; 
suspension or adjustment of the surfclam minimum size limit; and 
changes to the SBRM, including the CV-based performance standard, the 
means by which discard data are collected/obtained, fishery 
stratification, the process for prioritizing observer sea-day 
allocations, reports, and/or industry-funded observers or observer set 
aside programs. Issues that require significant departures from 
previously contemplated measures or that are otherwise introducing new 
concepts may require an amendment of the FMP instead of a framework 
adjustment.
* * * * *

0
9. In Sec.  648.90, revise paragraphs (a)(2)(i), (a)(2)(iii), 
(b)(1)(ii), and (c)(1)(i) and (ii) to read as follows:


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

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (2) Biennial review. (i) The NE multispecies PDT shall meet on or 
before September 30 every other year to perform a review of the 
fishery, using the most current scientific information available 
provided primarily from the NEFSC. Data provided by states, ASMFC, the 
USCG, and other sources may also be considered by the PDT. Based on 
this review, the PDT will develop ACLs for the upcoming fishing year(s) 
as described in paragraph (a)(4) of this section and develop options 
for consideration by the Council if necessary, on any changes, 
adjustments, or additions to DAS allocations, closed areas, or other 
measures necessary to rebuild overfished stocks and achieve the FMP 
goals and objectives, including changes to the SBRM.
* * * * *
    (iii) Based on this review, the PDT shall recommend ACLs and 
develop options necessary to achieve the FMP goals and objectives, 
which may include a preferred option. The PDT must demonstrate through 
analyses and documentation that the options they develop are expected 
to meet the FMP goals and objectives. The PDT may review the 
performance of different user groups or fleet sectors in developing 
options. The range of options developed by the PDT may include any of 
the management measures in the FMP, including, but not limited to: 
ACLs, which must be based on the projected fishing mortality levels 
required to meet the goals and objectives outlined in the FMP for the 
12 regulated species and ocean pout if able to be determined; 
identifying and distributing ACLs and other sub-components of the ACLs 
among various segments of the fishery; AMs; DAS changes; possession 
limits; gear restrictions; closed areas; permitting restrictions; 
minimum fish sizes; recreational fishing measures; describing and 
identifying EFH; fishing gear management measures to protect EFH; 
designating habitat areas of particular concern within EFH; and changes 
to the SBRM, including the CV-based performance standard, the means by 
which discard data are collected/obtained, fishery stratification, the 
process for prioritizing observer sea-day allocations, reports, and/or 
industry-funded observers or observer set aside programs. In addition, 
the following conditions and measures may be adjusted through future 
framework adjustments: Revisions to DAS measures, including DAS 
allocations (such as the distribution of DAS among the four categories 
of DAS), future uses for Category C DAS, and DAS baselines, adjustments 
for steaming time, etc.; modifications to capacity measures, such as 
changes to the DAS transfer or DAS leasing measures; calculation of 
area-specific ACLs, area management boundaries, and adoption of area-
specific management measures; sector allocation requirements and 
specifications, including the establishment of a new sector, the 
disapproval of an existing sector, the allowable percent of ACL 
available to a sector through a sector allocation, and the calculation 
of PSCs; sector administration provisions, including at-sea and 
dockside monitoring measures; sector reporting requirements; state-
operated permit bank administrative provisions; measures to implement 
the U.S./Canada Resource Sharing Understanding, including any specified 
TACs (hard or target); changes to administrative measures; additional 
uses for Regular B DAS; reporting requirements; the GOM Inshore 
Conservation and Management Stewardship Plan; adjustments to the 
Handgear A or B permits; gear requirements to improve selectivity, 
reduce bycatch, and/or reduce impacts of the fishery on EFH; SAP 
modifications; revisions to the ABC control rule and status 
determination criteria, including, but not limited to, changes in the 
target fishing mortality rates, minimum biomass thresholds, numerical 
estimates of parameter values, and the use of a proxy for biomass may 
be made either through a biennial adjustment or framework adjustment; 
changes to the SBRM, including the CV-based performance standard, the 
means by which discard data are collected/obtained, fishery 
stratification, the process for prioritizing observer sea-day 
allocations, reports, and/or industry-funded observers or observer set 
aside programs; and any other measures currently included in the FMP.
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) The Whiting PDT, after reviewing the available information on 
the status of the stock and the fishery, may recommend to the Council 
any measures necessary to assure that the specifications will not be 
exceeded; changes to the SBRM, including the CV-based performance 
standard, the means by which discard data are collected/obtained, 
fishery stratification, the process for prioritizing observer sea-day 
allocations, reports, and/or industry-funded observers or observer set 
aside programs; as well as changes to the appropriate specifications.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) After a management action has been initiated, the Council shall 
develop and analyze appropriate management actions over the span of at 
least two Council meetings. The Council shall provide the public with 
advance notice of the availability of both the proposals and the 
analyses and opportunity to comment on them prior to and at the second 
Council meeting. The Council's recommendation on adjustments or 
additions to management measures, other than to address gear conflicts, 
must come from one or more of the following categories: DAS changes; 
effort monitoring; data reporting; possession limits; gear 
restrictions; closed areas; permitting restrictions; crew limits; 
minimum fish sizes; onboard observers; minimum hook size and hook 
style; the use of crucifer in the hook-gear fishery; sector 
requirements;

[[Page 37196]]

recreational fishing measures; area closures and other appropriate 
measures to mitigate marine mammal entanglements and interactions; 
description and identification of EFH; fishing gear management measures 
to protect EFH; designation of habitat areas of particular concern 
within EFH; changes to the SBRM, including the CV-based performance 
standard, the means by which discard data are collected/obtained, 
fishery stratification, the process for prioritizing observer sea-day 
allocations, reports, and/or industry-funded observers or observer set 
aside programs; and any other management measures currently included in 
the FMP.
    (ii) The Council's recommendation on adjustments or additions to 
management measures pertaining to small-mesh NE multispecies, other 
than to address gear conflicts, must come from one or more of the 
following categories: Quotas and appropriate seasonal adjustments for 
vessels fishing in experimental or exempted fisheries that use small 
mesh in combination with a separator trawl/grate (if applicable); 
modifications to separator grate (if applicable) and mesh 
configurations for fishing for small-mesh NE multispecies; adjustments 
to whiting stock boundaries for management purposes; adjustments for 
fisheries exempted from minimum mesh requirements to fish for small-
mesh NE multispecies (if applicable); season adjustments; declarations; 
participation requirements for any of the Gulf of Maine/Georges Bank 
small-mesh multispecies exemption areas; OFL and ABC values; ACL, TAL, 
or TAL allocations, including the proportions used to allocate by 
season or area; small-mesh multispecies possession limits, including 
in-season AM possession limits; changes to reporting requirements and 
methods to monitor the fishery; and biological reference points, 
including selected reference time series, survey strata used to 
calculate biomass, and the selected survey for status determination; 
and changes to the SBRM, including the CV-based performance standard, 
the means by which discard data are collected/obtained, fishery 
stratification, the process for prioritizing observer sea-day 
allocations, reports, and/or industry-funded observers or observer set 
aside programs.
* * * * *

0
10. In Sec.  648.96, revise paragraph (a)(3)(ii) to read as follows:


Sec.  648.96  FMP review, specification, and framework adjustment 
process.

    (a) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (ii) The range of options developed by the Councils may include any 
of the management measures in the Monkfish FMP, including, but not 
limited to: ACTs; closed seasons or closed areas; minimum size limits; 
mesh size limits; net limits; liver-to-monkfish landings ratios; annual 
monkfish DAS allocations and monitoring; trip or possession limits; 
blocks of time out of the fishery; gear restrictions; transferability 
of permits and permit rights or administration of vessel upgrades, 
vessel replacement, or permit assignment; measures to minimize the 
impact of the monkfish fishery on protected species; gear requirements 
or restrictions that minimize bycatch or bycatch mortality; 
transferable DAS programs; changes to the SBRM, including the CV-based 
performance standard, the means by which discard data are collected/
obtained, fishery stratification, the process for prioritizing observer 
sea-day allocations, reports, and/or industry-funded observers or 
observer set aside programs; changes to the Monkfish Research Set-Aside 
Program; and other frameworkable measures included in Sec. Sec.  648.55 
and 648.90.
* * * * *

0
11. In Sec.  648.102, add paragraph (a)(10) to read as follows:


Sec.  648.102  Summer flounder specifications.

    (a) * * *
    (10) Changes, as appropriate, to the SBRM, including the CV-based 
performance standard, the means by which discard data are collected/
obtained, fishery stratification, the process for prioritizing observer 
sea-day allocations, reports, and/or industry-funded observers or 
observer set aside programs.
* * * * *

0
12. In Sec.  648.110, revise paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:


Sec.  648.110  Summer flounder framework adjustments to management 
measures.

    (a) * * *
    (1) Adjustment process. The MAFMC shall develop and analyze 
appropriate management actions over the span of at least two MAFMC 
meetings. The MAFMC must provide the public with advance notice of the 
availability of the recommendation(s), appropriate justification(s) and 
economic and biological analyses, and the opportunity to comment on the 
proposed adjustment(s) at the first meeting and prior to and at the 
second MAFMC meeting. The MAFMC's recommendations on adjustments or 
additions to management measures must come from one or more of the 
following categories: Adjustments within existing ABC control rule 
levels; adjustments to the existing MAFMC risk policy; introduction of 
new AMs, including sub-ACTs; minimum fish size; maximum fish size; gear 
restrictions; gear requirements or prohibitions; permitting 
restrictions; recreational possession limit; recreational seasons; 
closed areas; commercial seasons; commercial trip limits; commercial 
quota system including commercial quota allocation procedure and 
possible quota set asides to mitigate bycatch; recreational harvest 
limit; specification quota setting process; FMP Monitoring Committee 
composition and process; description and identification of essential 
fish habitat (and fishing gear management measures that impact EFH); 
description and identification of habitat areas of particular concern; 
regional gear restrictions; regional season restrictions (including 
option to split seasons); restrictions on vessel size (LOA and GRT) or 
shaft horsepower; operator permits; changes to the SBRM, including the 
CV-based performance standard, the means by which discard data are 
collected/obtained, fishery stratification, the process for 
prioritizing observer sea-day allocations, reports, and/or industry-
funded observers or observer set aside programs; any other commercial 
or recreational management measures; any other management measures 
currently included in the FMP; and set aside quota for scientific 
research. Issues that require significant departures from previously 
contemplated measures or that are otherwise introducing new concepts 
may require an amendment of the FMP instead of a framework adjustment.
* * * * *

0
13. In Sec.  648.122, add paragraph (a)(13) to read as follows:


Sec.  648.122  Scup specifications.

    (a) * * *
    (13) Changes, as appropriate, to the SBRM, including the CV-based 
performance standard, the means by which discard data are collected/
obtained, fishery stratification, the process for prioritizing observer 
sea-day allocations, reports, and/or industry-funded observers or 
observer set aside programs.
* * * * *

0
14. In Sec.  648.130, revise paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:


Sec.  648.130  Scup framework adjustments to management measures.

    (a) * * *
    (1) Adjustment process. The MAFMC shall develop and analyze 
appropriate

[[Page 37197]]

management actions over the span of at least two MAFMC meetings. The 
MAFMC must provide the public with advance notice of the availability 
of the recommendation(s), appropriate justification(s) and economic and 
biological analyses, and the opportunity to comment on the proposed 
adjustment(s) at the first meeting and prior to and at the second MAFMC 
meeting. The MAFMC's recommendations on adjustments or additions to 
management measures must come from one or more of the following 
categories: Adjustments within existing ABC control rules; adjustments 
to the existing MAFMC risk policy; introduction of new AMs, including 
sub-ACTs; minimum fish size; maximum fish size; gear restrictions; gear 
restricted areas; gear requirements or prohibitions; permitting 
restrictions; recreational possession limits; recreational seasons; 
closed areas; commercial seasons; commercial trip limits; commercial 
quota system including commercial quota allocation procedure and 
possible quota set asides to mitigate bycatch; recreational harvest 
limits; annual specification quota setting process; FMP Monitoring 
Committee composition and process; description and identification of 
EFH (and fishing gear management measures that impact EFH); description 
and identification of habitat areas of particular concern; regional 
gear restrictions; regional season restrictions (including option to 
split seasons); restrictions on vessel size (LOA and GRT) or shaft 
horsepower; operator permits; changes to the SBRM, including the CV-
based performance standard, the means by which discard data are 
collected/obtained, fishery stratification, the process for 
prioritizing observer sea-day allocations, reports, and/or industry-
funded observers or observer set aside programs; any other commercial 
or recreational management measures; any other management measures 
currently included in the FMP; and set aside quota for scientific 
research.
* * * * *

0
15. In Sec.  648.142, add paragraph (a)(12) to read as follows:


Sec.  648.142  Black sea bass specifications.

    (a) * * *
    (12) Changes, as appropriate, to the SBRM, including the CV-based 
performance standard, the means by which discard data are collected/
obtained, fishery stratification, the process for prioritizing observer 
sea-day allocations, reports, and/or industry-funded observers or 
observer set aside programs.
* * * * *

0
16. In Sec.  648.162, add paragraph (a)(9) to read as follows:


Sec.  648.162  Bluefish specifications.

    (a) * * *
    (9) Changes, as appropriate, to the SBRM, including the CV-based 
performance standard, the means by which discard data are collected/
obtained, fishery stratification, the process for prioritizing observer 
sea-day allocations, reports, and/or industry-funded observers or 
observer set aside programs; and
* * * * *

0
17. In Sec.  648.167, revise paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:


Sec.  648.167  Bluefish framework adjustment to management measures.

    (a) * * *
    (1) Adjustment process. After a management action has been 
initiated, the MAFMC shall develop and analyze appropriate management 
actions over the span of at least two MAFMC meetings. The MAFMC shall 
provide the public with advance notice of the availability of both the 
proposals and the analysis and the opportunity to comment on them prior 
to and at the second MAFMC meeting. The MAFMC's recommendation on 
adjustments or additions to management measures must come from one or 
more of the following categories: Adjustments within existing ABC 
control rule levels; adjustments to the existing MAFMC risk policy; 
introduction of new AMs, including sub-ACTs; minimum fish size; maximum 
fish size; gear restrictions; gear requirements or prohibitions; 
permitting restrictions; recreational possession limit; recreational 
season; closed areas; commercial season; description and identification 
of EFH; fishing gear management measures to protect EFH; designation of 
habitat areas of particular concern within EFH; changes to the SBRM, 
including the CV-based performance standard, the means by which discard 
data are collected/obtained, fishery stratification, the process for 
prioritizing observer sea-day allocations, reports, and/or industry-
funded observers or observer set aside programs; and any other 
management measures currently included in the FMP. Measures that 
require significant departures from previously contemplated measures or 
that are otherwise introducing new concepts may require an amendment of 
the FMP instead of a framework adjustment.
* * * * *

0
18. In Sec.  648.200, revise the introductory text of paragraph (b) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  648.200  Specifications.

* * * * *
    (b) Guidelines. As the basis for its recommendations under 
paragraph (a) of this section, the PDT shall review available data 
pertaining to: Commercial and recreational catch data; current 
estimates of fishing mortality; discards; stock status; recent 
estimates of recruitment; virtual population analysis results and other 
estimates of stock size; sea sampling and trawl survey data or, if sea 
sampling data are unavailable, length frequency information from trawl 
surveys; impact of other fisheries on herring mortality; and any other 
relevant information. The specifications recommended pursuant to 
paragraph (a) of this section must be consistent with the following:
* * * * *

0
19. In Sec.  648.206, add paragraph (b)(29) to read as follows:


Sec.  648.206  Framework provisions.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (29) Changes, as appropriate, to the SBRM, including the CV-based 
performance standard, the means by which discard data are collected/
obtained, fishery stratification, the process for prioritizing observer 
sea-day allocations, reports, and/or industry-funded observers or 
observer set aside programs;
* * * * *

0
20. In Sec.  648.232, add paragraph (a)(6) to read as follows:


Sec.  648.232  Spiny dogfish specifications.

    (a) * * *
    (6) Changes, as appropriate, to the SBRM, including the CV-based 
performance standard, the means by which discard data are collected/
obtained, fishery stratification, the process for prioritizing observer 
sea-day allocations, reports, and/or industry-funded observers or 
observer set aside programs;
* * * * *

0
21. In Sec.  648.239, revise paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:


Sec.  648.239  Spiny dogfish framework adjustments to management 
measures.

    (a) * * *
    (1) Adjustment process. After the Councils initiate a management 
action, they shall develop and analyze appropriate management actions 
over the span of at least two Council meetings. The Councils shall 
provide

[[Page 37198]]

the public with advance notice of the availability of both the 
proposals and the analysis for comment prior to, and at, the second 
Council meeting. The Councils' recommendation on adjustments or 
additions to management measures must come from one or more of the 
following categories: Adjustments within existing ABC control rule 
levels; adjustments to the existing MAFMC risk policy; introduction of 
new AMs, including sub-ACTs; minimum fish size; maximum fish size; gear 
requirements, restrictions, or prohibitions (including, but not limited 
to, mesh size restrictions and net limits); regional gear restrictions; 
permitting restrictions, and reporting requirements; recreational 
fishery measures (including possession and size limits and season and 
area restrictions); commercial season and area restrictions; commercial 
trip or possession limits; fin weight to spiny dogfish landing weight 
restrictions; onboard observer requirements; commercial quota system 
(including commercial quota allocation procedures and possible quota 
set-asides to mitigate bycatch, conduct scientific research, or for 
other purposes); recreational harvest limit; annual quota specification 
process; FMP Monitoring Committee composition and process; description 
and identification of essential fish habitat; description and 
identification of habitat areas of particular concern; overfishing 
definition and related thresholds and targets; regional season 
restrictions (including option to split seasons); restrictions on 
vessel size (length and GRT) or shaft horsepower; target quotas; 
measures to mitigate marine mammal entanglements and interactions; 
regional management; changes to the SBRM, including the CV-based 
performance standard, the means by which discard data are collected/
obtained, fishery stratification, the process for prioritizing observer 
sea-day allocations, reports, and/or industry-funded observers or 
observer set aside programs; any other management measures currently 
included in the Spiny Dogfish FMP; and measures to regulate aquaculture 
projects. Measures that require significant departures from previously 
contemplated measures or that are otherwise introducing new concepts 
may require an amendment of the FMP instead of a framework adjustment.
* * * * *

0
22. In Sec.  648.260, revise paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:


Sec.  648.260  Specifications.

    (a) * * *
    (1) The Red Crab PDT shall meet at least once annually during the 
intervening years between Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation 
(SAFE) Reports, described in paragraph (b) of this section, to review 
the status of the stock and the fishery. Based on such review, the PDT 
shall provide a report to the Council on any changes or new information 
about the red crab stock and/or fishery, and it shall recommend whether 
the specifications for the upcoming year(s) need to be modified. At a 
minimum, this review shall include a review of at least the following 
data, if available: Commercial catch data; current estimates of fishing 
mortality and catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE); discards; stock status; 
recent estimates of recruitment; virtual population analysis results 
and other estimates of stock size; sea sampling, port sampling, and 
survey data or, if sea sampling data are unavailable, length frequency 
information from port sampling and/or surveys; impact of other 
fisheries on the mortality of red crabs; and any other relevant 
information.
* * * * *

0
23. In Sec.  648.261, revise paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:


Sec.  648.261  Framework adjustment process.

    (a) * * *
    (1) In response to an annual review of the status of the fishery or 
the resource by the Red Crab PDT, or at any other time, the Council may 
recommend adjustments to any of the measures proposed by the Red Crab 
FMP, including the SBRM. The Red Crab Oversight Committee may request 
that the Council initiate a framework adjustment. Framework adjustments 
shall require one initial meeting (the agenda must include notification 
of the impending proposal for a framework adjustment) and one final 
Council meeting. After a management action has been initiated, the 
Council shall develop and analyze appropriate management actions within 
the scope identified below. The Council may refer the proposed 
adjustments to the Red Crab Committee for further deliberation and 
review. Upon receiving the recommendations of the Oversight Committee, 
the Council shall publish notice of its intent to take action and 
provide the public with any relevant analyses and opportunity to 
comment on any possible actions. After receiving public comment, the 
Council must take action (to approve, modify, disapprove, or table) on 
the recommendation at the Council meeting following the meeting at 
which it first received the recommendations. Documentation and analyses 
for the framework adjustment shall be available at least 2 weeks before 
the final meeting.
* * * * *

0
24. In Sec.  648.292, revise paragraph (a) to read as follows:


Sec.  648.292  Tilefish specifications.

* * * * *
    (a) Annual specification process. The Tilefish Monitoring Committee 
shall review the ABC recommendation of the SSC, tilefish landings and 
discards information, and any other relevant available data to 
determine if the ACL, ACT, or total allowable landings (TAL) requires 
modification to respond to any changes to the stock's biological 
reference points or to ensure that the rebuilding schedule is 
maintained. The Monitoring Committee will consider whether any 
additional management measures or revisions to existing measures are 
necessary to ensure that the TAL will not be exceeded, including 
changes, as appropriate, to the SBRM. Based on that review, the 
Monitoring Committee will recommend ACL, ACT, and TAL to the Tilefish 
Committee of the MAFMC. Based on these recommendations and any public 
comment received, the Tilefish Committee shall recommend to the MAFMC 
the appropriate ACL, ACT, TAL, and other management measures for a 
single fishing year or up to 3 years. The MAFMC shall review these 
recommendations and any public comments received, and recommend to the 
Regional Administrator, at least 120 days prior to the beginning of the 
next fishing year, the appropriate ACL, ACT, TAL, the percentage of TAL 
allocated to research quota, and any management measures to ensure that 
the TAL will not be exceeded, for the next fishing year, or up to 3 
fishing years. The MAFMC's recommendations must include supporting 
documentation, as appropriate, concerning the environmental and 
economic impacts of the recommendations. The Regional Administrator 
shall review these recommendations, and after such review, NMFS will 
publish a proposed rule in the Federal Register specifying the annual 
ACL, ACT, TAL and any management measures to ensure that the TAL will 
not be exceeded for the upcoming fishing year or years. After 
considering public comments, NMFS will publish a final rule in the 
Federal Register to implement the ACL, ACT, TAL and any management 
measures. The previous year's specifications will remain effective 
unless revised through the specification process and/or the

[[Page 37199]]

research quota process described in paragraph (e) of this section. NMFS 
will issue notification in the Federal Register if the previous year's 
specifications will not be changed.
* * * * *

0
25. In Sec.  648.299, add paragraph (a)(1)(xviii) to read as follows:


Sec.  648.299  Tilefish framework specifications.

    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (xviii) Changes, as appropriate, to the SBRM, including the CV-
based performance standard, the means by which discard data are 
collected/obtained, fishery stratification, the process for 
prioritizing observer sea-day allocations, reports, and/or industry-
funded observers or observer set aside programs;
* * * * *

0
26. In Sec.  648.320, revise paragraphs (a)(5)(ii) and (iii), and add 
paragraph (a)(5)(iv) to read as follows:


Sec.  648.320  Skate FMP review and monitoring.

    (a) * * *
    (5) * * *
    (ii) In-season possession limit triggers for the wing and/or bait 
fisheries;
    (iii) Required adjustments to in-season possession limit trigger 
percentages or the ACL-ACT buffer, based on the accountability measures 
specified at Sec.  648.323; and
    (iv) Changes, as appropriate, to the SBRM, including the CV-based 
performance standard, the means by which discard data are collected/
obtained, fishery stratification, the process for prioritizing observer 
sea-day allocations, reports, and/or industry-funded observers or 
observer set aside programs.
* * * * *

0
27. In Sec.  648.321, revise paragraphs (b)(22) and (23), and add 
paragraph (b)(24) to read as follows:


Sec.  648.321  Framework adjustment process.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (22) Reduction of the baseline 25-percent ACL-ACT buffer to less 
than 25 percent;
    (23) Changes to catch monitoring procedures; and
    (24) Changes, as appropriate, to the SBRM, including the CV-based 
performance standard, the means by which discard data are collected/
obtained, fishery stratification, the process for prioritizing observer 
sea-day allocations, reports, and/or industry-funded observers or 
observer set aside programs.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2015-15619 Filed 6-29-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-22-P



                                                  37182              Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 125 / Tuesday, June 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

                                                  concurrence of the NMFS Greater                         DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE                                 Impact Review (RIR), are available from
                                                  Atlantic Regional Administrator, can                                                                           the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management
                                                  transfer or combine summer flounder                     National Oceanic and Atmospheric                       Council, 800 North State Street, Suite
                                                  commercial quota under § 648.102(c)(2).                 Administration                                         201, Dover, DE 19901; and from the
                                                  The Regional Administrator is required                                                                         New England Fishery Management
                                                  to consider the criteria in                             50 CFR Part 648                                        Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2,
                                                  § 648.102(c)(2)(i) when evaluating                                                                             Newburyport, MA 01950. The SBRM
                                                                                                          [Docket No. 140904749–5507–02]
                                                  requests for quota transfers or                                                                                Omnibus Amendment and EA/FONSI/
                                                  combinations.                                           RIN 0648–BE50                                          RIR is also accessible via the Internet at:
                                                                                                                                                                 www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov.
                                                     North Carolina has agreed to transfer                Magnuson-Stevens Fishery                               FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
                                                  7,340 lb (3,329 kg) of its 2015                         Conservation and Management Act                        Douglas Potts, Fishery Policy Analyst,
                                                  commercial summer flounder quota to                     Provisions; Fisheries of the                           978–281–9341.
                                                  Virginia. This transfer was prompted by                 Northeastern United States;
                                                                                                                                                                 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
                                                  landings of a North Carolina vessel that                Standardized Bycatch Reporting
                                                  was granted safe harbor in Virginia due                 Methodology Omnibus Amendment                          Background
                                                  to mechanical failure on May 3, 2015.                                                                             This final rule implements the SBRM
                                                                                                          AGENCY:  National Marine Fisheries
                                                  As a result of these landings, a quota                                                                         Omnibus Amendment management
                                                                                                          Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
                                                  transfer is necessary to account for an                                                                        measures developed and submitted by
                                                                                                          Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
                                                  increase in Virginia landings that would                                                                       the New England and Mid-Atlantic
                                                                                                          Commerce.
                                                  have otherwise accrued against the                                                                             Regional Fishery Management Councils,
                                                                                                          ACTION: Final rule.
                                                  North Carolina quota.                                                                                          which were approved by NMFS on
                                                     The Regional Administrator has                       SUMMARY:   This final rule implements                  behalf of the Secretary of Commerce on
                                                  determined that the criteria set forth in               approved management measures                           March 13, 2015. A proposed rule for this
                                                  § 648.102(c)(2)(i) have been met. The                   contained in the Standardized Bycatch                  action was published on January 21,
                                                  transfer is consistent with the criteria                Reporting Methodology Omnibus                          2015 (80 FR 2898), with public
                                                  because it will not preclude the overall                Amendment to the fishery management                    comments accepted through February
                                                  annual quota from being fully harvested,                plans of the Greater Atlantic Region,                  20, 2015.
                                                  the transfer addresses an unforeseen                    developed and submitted to NMFS by                        Section 303(a)(11) of the Magnuson-
                                                                                                          the Mid-Atlantic and New England                       Stevens Fishery Conservation and
                                                  variation or contingency in the fishery,
                                                                                                          Fishery Management Councils. This                      Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens
                                                  and the transfer is consistent with the
                                                                                                          amendment is necessary to respond to a                 Act) requires that all Fishery
                                                  objectives of the FMP and the
                                                                                                          remand by the U.S. District of Columbia                Management Plans (FMPs) ‘‘establish a
                                                  Magnuson-Stevens Fishery                                                                                       standardized reporting methodology to
                                                  Conservation and Management Act. The                    Court of Appeals decision concerning
                                                                                                          observer coverage levels specified by the              assess the amount and type of bycatch
                                                  revised summer flounder commercial                                                                             occurring in the fishery.’’ The purpose
                                                                                                          SBRM and to add various measures to
                                                  quotas for calendar year 2015 are:                                                                             of the amendment is to: Address the
                                                                                                          improve and expand on the
                                                  Virginia, 2,401,568 lb (1,089,330 kg);                  Standardized Bycatch Reporting                         Appellate Court’s remand by
                                                  and North Carolina, 2,976,243 lb                        Methodology previously in place. The                   minimizing the discretion allowed in
                                                  (1,350,001 kg).                                         intended effect of this action is to                   prioritizing allocation of observers when
                                                  Classification                                          implement the following: A new                         there are insufficient funds; explain the
                                                                                                          prioritization process for allocation of               methods and processes by which
                                                    This action is taken under 50 CFR                     observers if agency funding is                         bycatch is currently monitored and
                                                  part 648 and is exempt from review                      insufficient to achieve target observer                assessed for fisheries in the region;
                                                  under Executive Order 12866.                            coverage levels; bycatch reporting and                 determine whether these methods and
                                                                                                          monitoring mechanisms; analytical                      processes need to be modified and/or
                                                     Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
                                                                                                          techniques and allocation of at-sea                    supplemented; establish standards of
                                                    Dated: June 25, 2015.                                 fisheries observers; a precision-based                 precision for bycatch estimation for
                                                  Jennifer M. Wallace,                                    performance standard for discard                       these fisheries; and, thereby, document
                                                  Acting Director, Office of Sustainable                  estimates; a review and reporting                      the SBRM established for all fisheries
                                                  Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.           process; framework adjustment and                      managed through the FMPs of the
                                                  [FR Doc. 2015–16019 Filed 6–29–15; 8:45 am]             annual specifications provisions; and                  Greater Atlantic Region. Extensive
                                                                                                          provisions for industry-funded                         background on the development of the
                                                  BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
                                                                                                          observers and observer set-aside                       SBRM Omnibus Amendment, including
                                                                                                          programs.                                              the litigation history that precipitated
                                                                                                                                                                 the need for the amendment, is
                                                                                                          DATES:  This rule is effective July 30,                provided in the proposed rule and
                                                                                                          2015. The incorporation by reference of                supporting environmental assessment.
                                                                                                          certain publications listed in the                     For brevity, that information is not
                                                                                                          regulations is approved by the Director                repeated here.
                                                                                                          of the Federal Register as of July 30,
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES




                                                                                                                                                                    As detailed below (in the sections
                                                                                                          2015.                                                  titled Bycatch Reporting and Monitoring
                                                                                                          ADDRESSES:   Copies of the Standardized                Mechanisms and Analytical Techniques
                                                                                                          Bycatch Reporting Methodology (SBRM)                   and Allocation of At-sea Fisheries
                                                                                                          Omnibus Amendment, and of the                          Observers), this action incorporates by
                                                                                                          Environmental Assessment (EA), with                    reference provisions of the SBRM
                                                                                                          its associated Finding of No Significant               Omnibus Amendment and EA/FONSI/
                                                                                                          Impact (FONSI) and the Regulatory                      RIR, identified formally as the


                                             VerDate Sep<11>2014   16:01 Jun 29, 2015   Jkt 235001   PO 00000   Frm 00048   Fmt 4700   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\30JNR1.SGM   30JNR1


                                                                     Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 125 / Tuesday, June 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations                                          37183

                                                  Standardized Bycatch Reporting                          Amendment’s use of the status quo                      identified in the amendment will be
                                                  Methodology: An Omnibus Amendment                       methods by which data and information                  applied to the results of the analysis to
                                                  to the Fishery Management Plans of the                  on discards occurring in Greater                       determine the observer coverage levels
                                                  Mid-Atlantic and New England Regional                   Atlantic Region fisheries are collected                needed to achieve the objectives of the
                                                  Fishery Management Councils,                            and obtained. The SBRM uses sampling                   SBRM. These filters are designed to aid
                                                  completed March 2015 by the New                         designs developed to minimize bias to                  in establishing observer sea day
                                                  England Fishery Management Council,                     the maximum extent practicable. The                    allocations that are more meaningful
                                                  Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management                         Northeast Fisheries Observer Program                   and efficient at achieving the overall
                                                  Council, National Marine Fisheries                      (NEFOP) is the primary mechanism to                    objectives of the SBRM.
                                                  Service Greater Atlantic Regional                       obtain data on discards in all Greater
                                                                                                                                                                 SBRM Performance Standard
                                                  Fisheries Office, and National Marine                   Atlantic Region commercial fisheries
                                                  Fisheries Service Northeast Fisheries                   managed under one or more of the                          This action incorporates by reference
                                                  Science Center. To ensure that the                      regional FMPs. All subject FMPs require                the intention of the SBRM Omnibus
                                                  public can readily access and                           vessels permitted to participate in                    Amendment to ensure that the data
                                                  understand the provisions that are                      Federal fisheries to carry an at-sea                   collected under the SBRM are sufficient
                                                  incorporated by reference, the full                     observer upon request. All data obtained               to produce a coefficient of variation
                                                  SBRM Omnibus Amendment is                               by the NEFOP under this SBRM are                       (CV) of the discard estimate of no more
                                                  available online at                                     collected according to the techniques                  than 30 percent. This standard is
                                                  www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov,                 and protocols established and detailed                 designed to ensure that the effectiveness
                                                  and from the Greater Atlantic Regional                  in the Fisheries Observer Program                      of the SBRM can be measured, tracked,
                                                  Fisheries Office or either the New                      Manual and the Biological Sampling                     and utilized to effectively allocate the
                                                  England or Mid-Atlantic Fishery                         Manual, which are available online                     appropriate number of observer sea
                                                  Management Councils (see ADDRESSES).                    (www.nefsc.noaa.gov/fsb/). Data                        days. Each year, the Regional
                                                     This final rule for the SBRM Omnibus                 collected by the NEFOP include, but are                Administrator and the Science and
                                                  Amendment establishes an SBRM for all                   not limited to, the following items:                   Research Director will, subject to
                                                  FMPs administered by the Greater                        Vessel name; date/time sailed; date/time               available funding, allocate at-sea
                                                  Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office                      landed; steam time; crew size; home                    observer coverage to the applicable
                                                  comprised of seven elements: (1) The                    port; port landed; dealer name; fishing                fisheries of the Greater Atlantic Region
                                                  methods by which data and information                   vessel trip report (FVTR) serial number;               sufficient to achieve a level of precision
                                                  on discards are collected and obtained;                 gear type(s) used; number/amount of                    (measured as the CV) no greater than 30
                                                  (2) the methods by which the data                       gear; number of hauls; weather; location               percent for each applicable species and/
                                                  obtained through the mechanisms                         of each haul (beginning and ending                     or species group, subject to the use of
                                                  identified in element 1 are analyzed and                latitude and longitude); species caught;               the filters noted above.
                                                  utilized to determine the appropriate                   disposition (kept/discarded); reason for   SBRM Review and Reporting Process
                                                  allocation of at-sea observers; (3) a                   discards; and weight of catch. These
                                                  performance measure by which the                        data are collected on all species of          This final rule incorporates by
                                                  effectiveness of the SBRM can be                        organisms caught by the vessels. This      reference the SBRM Omnibus
                                                  measured, tracked, and utilized to                      includes species managed under the         Amendment’s requirements for NMFS
                                                  effectively allocate the appropriate                    regional FMPs or afforded protection       to prepare an annual report for the
                                                  number of observer sea days; (4) a                      under the Endangered Species Act or        Councils on discards occurring in
                                                  process to provide the Councils with                    Marine Mammal Protection Act, but also     Greater Atlantic Region fisheries, and to
                                                  periodic reports on discards occurring                  includes species of non-managed fish,      work with the Councils to develop a
                                                  in fisheries they manage and on the                     invertebrates, and marine plants. The      report every 3 years that evaluates the
                                                  effectiveness of the SBRM; (5) a measure                SBRM will incorporate data collection      effectiveness of the SBRM. Once each
                                                  to enable the Councils to make changes                  mechanisms implemented by NMFS             year, the Science and Research Director
                                                  to the SBRM through framework                           and affected states as part of the Marine  will present to the Councils a report on
                                                  adjustments and/or annual specification                 Recreational Information Program           catch and discards occurring in fisheries
                                                  packages rather than full FMP                           (MRIP) for information on recreational     in the Region. Details about the
                                                  amendments; (6) a description of                        fishery discards.                          information to be included in the
                                                  sources of available funding for at-sea                                                            annual discard reports are included in
                                                  observers and a formulaic process for                   Analytical Techniques and Allocation of the amendment. The specific elements
                                                  prioritizing at-sea observer coverage                   At-Sea Fisheries Observers                 of the discard report may change over
                                                  allocations to match available funding;                    This final rule incorporates by         time to adjust to the changing needs of
                                                  and (7) measures to implement                           reference the SBRM Omnibus                 the Councils. Every 3 years, the
                                                  consistent, cross-cutting observer                      Amendment’s use of the existing            Regional Administrator and the Science
                                                  service provider approval and                           methods by which the data obtained         and Research Director will appoint
                                                  certification procedures and to enable                  through the mechanisms included above appropriate staff to work with staff
                                                  the Councils to implement either a                      are analyzed and utilized to determine     appointed by the executive directors of
                                                  requirement for industry-funded                         the appropriate allocation of at-sea       the Councils to obtain and review
                                                  observers or an observer set-aside                      observers across the subject fishing       available data on discards and to
                                                  program through a framework                             modes, including all managed species       prepare a report assessing the
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES




                                                  adjustment rather than an FMP                           and all relevant fishing gear types in the effectiveness of the SBRM.
                                                  amendment. These measures are                           Greater Atlantic Region. At-sea fisheries
                                                                                                          observers will, to the maximum extent      Framework Adjustment and/or Annual
                                                  described in detail as follows.
                                                                                                          possible and subject to available          Specification Provisions
                                                  Bycatch Reporting and Monitoring                        resources, be allocated and assigned to       This rule implements regulations to
                                                  Mechanisms                                              fishing vessels according to the           enable the Councils to make changes to
                                                    This final rule incorporates by                       procedures established through the         specific elements of the SBRM through
                                                  reference the SBRM Omnibus                              amendment. All appropriate filters         framework adjustments and/or annual


                                             VerDate Sep<11>2014   16:01 Jun 29, 2015   Jkt 235001   PO 00000   Frm 00049   Fmt 4700   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\30JNR1.SGM   30JNR1


                                                  37184                 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 125 / Tuesday, June 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

                                                  specification packages rather than full                    $6.6 million, and another $5.9 million                 industry-funded observers in the scallop
                                                  FMP amendments. Framework                                  was made available for fisheries in the                fishery. Previously, there was not a
                                                  adjustments and annual specification                       Greater Atlantic region under the other                specific due date for payment of
                                                  packages provide for an efficient yet                      three funding lines. Funding in fiscal                 industry-funded observers following an
                                                  thorough process to modify aspects of                      year 2015 for the Greater Atlantic                     observed trip. We are implementing a
                                                  the SBRM if a Council determines that                      Region under the other three funding                   deadline of 45 days after the end of an
                                                  a change is needed to address a                            lines is expected to be consistent with                observed fishing trip as a due date for
                                                  contemporary management or scientific                      past allocations of these funds.                       payment for all industry-funded
                                                  issue in a particular FMP. Such changes                    Historically, the available funding has                observer services rendered in the
                                                  to the SBRM may include modifications                      been insufficient to fully fund the SBRM               scallop fishery.
                                                  to the CV-based performance standard,                      to meet the performance standard. If the
                                                                                                                                                                    Changes From Proposed Rule
                                                  the means by which discard data are                        available funding continues to be
                                                  collected/obtained in the fishery, the                     insufficient to fully fund the SBRM, the                  A minor change has been made to the
                                                  stratification (modes) used as the basis                   amendment establishes a non-                           proposed regulatory text. As stated in
                                                  for SBRM-related analyses, the process                     discretionary formulaic processes for                  the proposed rule, this amendment
                                                  for prioritizing observer sea-day                          prioritizing how the available observer                proposed to implement consistent,
                                                  allocations, reporting on discards or the                  sea-days would be allocated to the                     cross-cutting observer service provider
                                                  performance of the SBRM. Such changes                      various fishing modes to maximize the                  and certification procedures and
                                                  may also include the establishment of a                    effectiveness of bycatch reporting and                 measures. To do this, several paragraphs
                                                  requirement for industry-funded                            bycatch determinations.                                within § 648.11(h) were proposed to be
                                                  observers and/or observer set-aside                                                                               revised for consistency and to remove
                                                                                                             Industry-Funded Observers and                          references that were specific to the
                                                  provisions.
                                                                                                             Observer Set-Aside Program Provisions                  current industry-funded scallop
                                                  Prioritization Process                                        This final rule implements regulatory               observer program. However, the specific
                                                     This rule incorporates by reference                     changes to establish consistent, cross-                provision at § 648.11(h)(5)(viii)(A) only
                                                  the SBRM Omnibus Amendment                                 cutting observer service provider                      applies to the industry-funded scallop
                                                  process to identify the funds that will be                 approval and certification procedures                  observer program, and the reference to
                                                  made available annually for SBRM, and                      and measures to enable the Councils to                 scallop vessels in that paragraph should
                                                  how to prioritize the available observer                   implement either a requirement for                     not have been removed. Therefore, this
                                                  sea-days if the funding provided to                        industry-funded observers and/or an                    final rule clarifies that this paragraph
                                                  NMFS for such purposes is insufficient                     observer set-aside program through a                   applies specifically to scallop vessels.
                                                  to fully implement the SBRM across all                     framework adjustment, rather than an
                                                  fishing modes. This measure is intended                    FMP amendment.                                         Comments and Reponses
                                                  to limit the discretion the agency has in                                                                            A total of 11 individual comment
                                                                                                             Corrections and Clarifications                         letters with 15 distinct categories of
                                                  determining when funds are insufficient
                                                  and how to reallocate observers under                         This final rule also makes minor                    comments were received on the
                                                  insufficient funding scenarios to address                  modifications to the regulations under                 proposed rule and SBRM Omnibus
                                                  the concerns raised by the Court of                        authority granted the Secretary under                  Amendment.
                                                  Appeals in Oceana v. Locke.1                               section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens                    Comment 1: One member of the
                                                     Under the new prioritization process,                   Act to ensure that FMPs are                            public expressed general support for the
                                                  the amount of money available for the                      implemented as intended and consistent                 action as an overhaul of bycatch
                                                  SBRM will be the funding allocated to                      with the requirements of the Magnuson-                 reporting methods.
                                                  the Region under four specific                             Stevens Act. This action corrects the list                Response: NMFS appreciates the
                                                  historically-appropriated observer                         of framework provisions under the                      support for the proposed action,
                                                  funding lines (less deductions for                         Atlantic Surfclam and Ocean Quahog                     although the comment did not address
                                                  management and administrative costs).                      FMP at § 648.79(a)(1) to also include,                 any specific provision of the SBRM
                                                  Of these, the funds made available by                      ‘‘the overfishing definition (both the                 Omnibus Amendment or its proposed
                                                  Congressional appropriation through the                    threshold and target levels).’’ This text              rule.
                                                  Northeast Fisheries Observers funding                      was inadvertently removed from the                        Comment 2: A letter from the Cape
                                                  line must be dedicated to fund the                         regulations by the final rule to                       Cod Commercial Fishermen’s Alliance,
                                                  proposed SBRM. In fiscal years 2011–                       implement annual catch limits and                      an organization representing
                                                  2014, the Northeast Fisheries Observers                    accountability measures for fisheries                  commercial fishermen, expressed
                                                  funding line made up 53 percent to 59                      managed by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery                    concern with how the SBRM would
                                                  percent of all observer funds for the                      Management Council (76 FR 60606,                       trigger prioritization when funding is
                                                  Greater Atlantic Region under these four                   September 29, 2011). The regulations at                insufficient and the subsequent impact
                                                  funding lines. Amounts from three of                       § 648.11(h)(5)(vii) are revised to remove              to the Northeast multispecies sector
                                                  the funding lines are allocated among                      reference to the requirement that                      management program, and urged
                                                  the fisheries in the five NMFS regions,                    observer service providers must submit                 disapproval of the amendment. The
                                                  including the Greater Atlantic Region, to                  raw data within 72 hours. The final rule               group stated that the proposed SBRM is
                                                  meet national observer program needs.                      to implement Framework 19 to the                       overly complicated and expensive; that
                                                  The total amount of the funds allocated                    Atlantic Sea Scallop FMP (73 FR 30790,                 it will hinder industry efforts to develop
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES




                                                  for the Greater Atlantic Region from                       May 29, 2008) incorrectly stated the                   alternative monitoring solutions
                                                  these three funding lines will constitute                  time an observer service provider has to               including electronic monitoring; that it
                                                  the remainder of the available SBRM                        provide raw data collected by an                       will eliminate supplemental observer
                                                  funds. In fiscal year 2014, the amount                     observer to NMFS, and this correction                  coverage on midwater trawl vessels
                                                  appropriated under the Northeast                           better reflects the Council’s intent for               fishing in groundfish closed areas; and
                                                  Fisheries Observers funding line was                       that action.                                           that it negatively impacts the groundfish
                                                                                                                This action also implements a                       at-sea monitoring program and could
                                                    1 670   F. 3d 1238 (D.C. Cir. 2011).                     consistent deadline for payment of                     put the Northeast multispecies sector


                                             VerDate Sep<11>2014     16:01 Jun 29, 2015    Jkt 235001   PO 00000   Frm 00050   Fmt 4700   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\30JNR1.SGM   30JNR1


                                                                     Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 125 / Tuesday, June 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations                                           37185

                                                  system at risk because the system is                    evaluate monitoring alternatives,                      observed fishing trips to estimate
                                                  heavily reliant on appropriate                          including electronic monitoring. While                 bycatch across the whole fishery. These
                                                  monitoring.                                             electronic monitoring is not currently                 analyses are conducted each year with
                                                     Response: NMFS acknowledges the                      sufficiently developed or suitable to be               updated data as a part of the SBRM
                                                  prioritization process trigger may result               a viable replacement for at-sea observers              process. The validity of these examples
                                                  in observer funding—previously used                     for the purpose of the SBRM for                        is not dependent on using data from a
                                                  by the Agency to discretionarily fund at-               fisheries administered by the Greater                  specific fishing year. The detailed
                                                  sea monitoring, electronic monitoring,                  Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, there              analysis and description of the process
                                                  and/or supplemental coverage of                         are circumstances where it may be                      that was conducted and presented in the
                                                  midwater-trawl vessels—being used                       appropriate to address other monitoring                2007 SBRM amendment is still valid
                                                  exclusively for SBRM if the funding                     purposes. NMFS is committed to                         today. Recreating this work for this
                                                  amounts are insufficient to realize the                 working with our industry partners to                  specific action would have taken a
                                                  level of coverage estimated to achieve                  continue development and                               significant amount of time and effort,
                                                  the 30-percent CV performance                           implementation of electronic                           but would not have provided any
                                                  standard. This is a direct result of efforts            monitoring to the extent that it meets                 additional insight into the SBRM
                                                  to address the specific finding of the                  management objectives and funding is                   process. Therefore, updated analysis
                                                  U.S. Appeals Court in Oceana v. Locke                   available. The SBRM can be amended at                  was conducted and added to the
                                                  that the Agency had too much                            any time in the future to incorporate                  document where needed to reflect the
                                                  discretion to determine the available                   other monitoring means such as                         changes in the fisheries since the initial
                                                  funding for SBRM. The impacts of this                   electronic monitoring.                                 2007 SBRM amendment was developed
                                                  change on other monitoring priorities                      In recent years, the Northeast                      and implemented.
                                                  are real and will require adjusting                     Multispecies FMP has authorized mid-                      Comment 4: Oceana and Earthjustice
                                                  expectations and evaluating whether                     water trawl vessels to fish in the                     assert that the action does not contain
                                                  other sources of funding for these                      groundfish closed areas if they carried                a sufficient range of reasonable
                                                  priorities may be possible. NMFS has                    observers. The SBRM Omnibus                            alternatives including a no-action
                                                  developed annual agency-wide                            Amendment may result in the                            alternative, and that some alternatives
                                                  guidance regarding how observer                         unavailability of the funds previously                 were improperly rejected from
                                                  funding is allocated across regions to                  used for this coverage because the funds               consideration, including using non-
                                                  meet SBRM and other observer needs.                     must first go to the SBRM requirements.                managed species as drivers of observer
                                                     The groundfish sector at-sea                         The requirement for midwater trawl                     coverage and use of electronic
                                                  monitoring program is separate from the                 vessels to have an observer to fish in the             monitoring as a component of the
                                                  SBRM and is specific to the Northeast                   groundfish closed areas, however, is not               SBRM. Oceana states the SBRM would
                                                  Multispecies FMP. The at-sea                            changed by this amendment.                             have significant impacts and should
                                                  monitoring program provides                             Accordingly, without funds to provide                  require a full environmental impact
                                                  supplemental monitoring within this                     this supplemental observer coverage,                   statement (EIS) under the National
                                                  fishery to address specific management                  fewer midwater trawl trips will have                   Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
                                                  objectives of the New England Fishery                   access to these areas.                                    Response: NMFS disagrees with the
                                                  Management Council. The SBRM                               Comment 3: Two nongovernmental                      commenters’ claim that the amendment
                                                  Omnibus Amendment does not                              environmental organizations, Oceana,                   does not meet the legal requirements of
                                                  specifically modify the groundfish                      Inc., and Earthjustice, both stated the                the NEPA, including that the
                                                  sector at-sea monitoring program or its                 amendment uses outdated catch data                     amendment does not properly address
                                                  objectives, including the requirement                   from 2004 and does not meet various                    cumulative impacts, does not have an
                                                  for the groundfish industry to pay for its              legal requirements.                                    adequate no-action alternative, does not
                                                  portion of costs for at-sea monitors if the                Response: NMFS disagrees with the                   have an adequate range of alternatives,
                                                  Federal government does not. The                        commenters’ assertion that the                         and that it requires an EIS. Consistent
                                                  groundfish at-sea monitoring provisions                 amendment uses outdated data. Where                    with NEPA, Council for Environmental
                                                  were developed by the Council and                       new data would not provide additional                  Quality (CEQ) regulations, and NOAA
                                                  have been in place since 2010. To date,                 insight or value in the amendment, the                 administrative policy, NMFS and the
                                                  we have been able to provide sufficient                 analysis from the 2007 SBRM                            Councils collaborated to prepare an EA
                                                  funding for the groundfish sector at-sea                amendment was maintained. When new                     to evaluate the significance of the
                                                  monitoring program such that industry                   data informed decision making in the                   environmental impacts expected as a
                                                  did not have to pay for at-sea                          amendment, NMFS used the most                          result of the management measures
                                                  monitoring. With the constraints                        recent data available. Much of the                     considered in the SBRM Omnibus
                                                  imposed by this final rule, funds                       amendment describes a system of                        Amendment. The results of this
                                                  previously used to cover groundfish                     statistical calculations that remain valid             assessment are provided in section 8.9.2
                                                  sector at-sea monitoring will now be                    and appropriate even when newer data                   of the amendment, which supports the
                                                  required to fund SBRM. It may be                        are not analyzed to provide context. The               finding of no significant impacts
                                                  necessary for the Council to develop                    descriptions of the fisheries and fishing              (FONSI) signed by the agency on March
                                                  alternatives to ensure accountability                   modes and the analysis of the impacts                  10, 2015. The commenters provide no
                                                  with sector annual catch entitlements                   of alternatives uses catch data from                   evidence that the conclusion in the
                                                  when there are funding shortages that                   2012. Other analysis used more recent                  FONSI is not supported by the facts
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES




                                                  reduce available at-sea monitoring                      data. Some analyses in Chapter 5 of the                presented in the EA for this finding.
                                                  coverage below the rates needed to                      Omnibus Amendment Environmental                        NMFS asserts that the EA considers a
                                                  ensure a CV of 30 percent.                              Assessment are illustrative examples of                sufficient range of alternatives to satisfy
                                                     Electronic monitoring has been                       the sample size analysis used to                       the requirements of NEPA. As described
                                                  viewed as one possible means of                         determine how many observer sea-days                   throughout the amendment (the
                                                  addressing observer funding shortages.                  are needed to achieve the 30-percent CV                Executive Summary, chapters 6, 7, and
                                                  In recent years, NMFS has worked with                   performance standard, and the bycatch                  8), the alternatives considered by the
                                                  groundfish sectors to develop and                       rate analysis that uses data from                      Councils were structured around seven


                                             VerDate Sep<11>2014   16:01 Jun 29, 2015   Jkt 235001   PO 00000   Frm 00051   Fmt 4700   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\30JNR1.SGM   30JNR1


                                                  37186              Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 125 / Tuesday, June 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

                                                  specific elements that together comprise                reiterates the discussion of why each                  it recommended NMFS monitor catch,
                                                  the Greater Atlantic Region SBRM.                       alternative was considered but rejected                including discards, at the sector level
                                                  Multiple alternatives were developed                    in the prior action, and explains how                  and require measures designed to allow
                                                  and considered for each element and, in                 each does not meet the purpose and                     for inseason management actions. To
                                                  some cases, various sub-options were                    need of the SBRM Omnibus                               meet this need, the Council created the
                                                  also developed and considered. Section                  Amendment. The commenters offer no                     sector at-sea monitoring program. The
                                                  7.3 of the amendment explicitly                         new information or circumstances that                  sector at-sea monitoring program
                                                  provides a discussion of the expected                   show these alternatives should have not                requires additional monitoring coverage,
                                                  cumulative effects associated with this                 been rejected from further consideration               beyond SBRM targets, which can then
                                                  action. NMFS asserts that this treatment                for this action.                                       provide the additional information the
                                                  of cumulative effects is consistent with                   Comment 5: Oceana states that the                   Council determined was necessary for
                                                  CEQ regulations and current NOAA                        adoption of annual catch limits and                    its groundfish-specific management
                                                  policy.                                                 associated accountability measures in                  objectives. If there is a need for more
                                                     Oceana presented these same                          recent years has significantly changed                 finely-tuned monitoring requirements in
                                                  contentions before the Court in its                     the data collection needs for                          a particular fishery, the FMP for that
                                                  challenge to the 2007 SBRM amendment                    management and that the SBRM needs                     fishery can be amended to address those
                                                  (Oceana v. Locke, 725 F. Supp. 2d 46                    to fully discuss and meet all bycatch                  requirements, including increasing
                                                  (D.D.C. 2010) reversed on other grounds                 monitoring needs of each FMP,                          monitoring or observer coverage over
                                                  (Oceana v. Locke, 670 F. 3d 1238 (DCC.                  including inseason actions. Oceana                     and above the SBRM levels. For
                                                  2011)). In that case, the U.S. District                 asserts the annual discard reports                     example, the Industry-Funded
                                                  Court thoroughly reviewed their                         described in the SBRM Omnibus                          Monitoring Omnibus Amendment
                                                  arguments and concluded that an EA for                  Amendment will not provide bycatch                     currently under development by the
                                                  the 2007 SBRM amendment was                             data at a level of detail necessary to                 New England and Mid-Atlantic
                                                  consistent with NEPA. The Court                         meet all management priorities of the                  Councils includes measures intended to
                                                  specifically stated that, ‘‘NMFS                        Councils.                                              facilitate the monitoring of incidental
                                                  sufficiently considered the issue of                       Response: NMFS disagrees with                       catch limits or bycatch events in the
                                                  cumulative effects and concluded that                   Oceana’s claim that the SBRM Omnibus                   Atlantic Herring and the Atlantic
                                                  any potential downstream impacts were                   Amendment does not meet the                            Mackerel, Squids, and Butterfish FMPs.
                                                  not ‘reasonably foreseeable and directly                monitoring needs of annual catch limits                NMFS has determined that unless a
                                                  linked’ to the Amendment’’ 2 and that                   and accountability measures mandated                   specific FMP has requirements for such
                                                  ‘‘NMFS’ consideration of alternatives in                by the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The                       additional monitoring, the SBRM is
                                                  the EA was sufficient to meet the                       Magnuson-Stevens Act requires each                     sufficient for monitoring bycatch for the
                                                  requirements of NEPA.’’ 3                               Council to develop annual catch limits                 purposes of assessing total catch against
                                                     While some components of the                         for each of its managed fisheries.                     annual catch limits. The commenters
                                                  amendment remain essentially                            Further guidance on annual catch limit                 have not provided any evidence that the
                                                  unchanged from the 2007 SBRM                            requirements was issued by NMFS in                     SBRM would not be sufficient to
                                                  amendment, several components,                          2009 (74 FR 3178). The SBRM is                         provide the estimated bycatch
                                                  including the affected environment and                  designed to meet the statutory                         component of the total annual catch of
                                                  cumulative impacts analyses have been                   requirements to establish a mechanism                  a fishery that is used to monitor ACLs.
                                                  updated to account for changes since                    for collecting bycatch information from                Nor have they submitted any
                                                  2007. NMFS asserts that the amendment                   each fishery and estimating the discards               recommendations or alternatives that
                                                  continues to meet all legal requirements,               of each species on an annual basis, to                 were not considered.
                                                  including NEPA.                                         effectively monitor these annual catch                    Comment 6: Oceana and Earthjustice
                                                     NMFS disagrees with the                              limits. The SBRM forms the basis for                   claim the SBRM Omnibus Amendment
                                                  commenters’ assertion that alternatives                 bycatch monitoring in the Region, but                  does not adequately discuss the
                                                  were improperly listed as considered                    need not address all monitoring                        potential for bias in observer data that
                                                  but rejected. When the Councils                         requirements of all fishery management                 could adversely affect estimated
                                                  initiated this action, they explicitly                  plans. Oceana conflates the Magnuson-                  bycatch. The commenters’ are critical of
                                                  supported the previous Council                          Stevens Act requirement for annual                     the 30-percent CV standard, and suggest
                                                  decisions regarding the range of                        catch limits (ACLs), which are typically               this level of precision is not sufficient
                                                  alternatives, including the alternatives                set for the whole stock at an annual                   for bycatch estimates. Supporting this
                                                  considered but rejected. Both Councils                  level, and assessed after the conclusion               contention, both groups cite a technical
                                                  directed the plan development team for                  of each fishing year, with the Councils’               review of the 2007 SBRM Amendment
                                                  this action specifically to focus on the                prerogative to manage fisheries using                  by Dr. Murdoch McAllister of the
                                                  legal deficiencies identified by the Court              smaller scale requirements such as sub-                University of British Columbia.
                                                  of Appeals and some minor revisions                     ACLs for groundfish sector fisheries and                  Response: NMFS disagrees with
                                                                                                          other fisheries that may trigger inseason              Oceana’s contention that the
                                                  suggested by the 3-year review report.
                                                                                                          management actions. The specific                       amendment does not sufficiently
                                                  Given the primary scope of this action
                                                                                                          monitoring requirements of these                       address the issue of potential bias in
                                                  to specifically focus on the Court’s
                                                                                                          management programs may be                             observer data and the alleged impact of
                                                  remand, alternatives previously
                                                                                                          addressed outside of the SBRM with                     such bias on the accuracy of bycatch
                                                  considered but rejected in the 2007
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES




                                                                                                          separate observer or monitoring                        estimations. Chapter 5 of the SBRM
                                                  amendment were deemed considered
                                                                                                          requirements. Most FMPs that use in-                   Omnibus Amendment discusses at
                                                  and rejected for this action. Chapter 6.8
                                                                                                          season actions to open or close fisheries              length and in detail bias and precision
                                                  of the SBRM Omnibus Amendment
                                                                                                          use landings data to make that                         issues as they relate to the SBRM. As
                                                     2 Oceana v. Locke, 725 F. Supp. 2d 46 (D.D.C.
                                                                                                          determination, and do not rely on near                 discussed in the SBRM Omnibus
                                                  2010) at pg 24, reversed on other grounds Oceana        real-time estimates of discards. When                  Amendment and described below, new
                                                  v. Locke, 670 F. 3d 1238 (D.C.C. 2011).                 the New England Council designed the                   research and analysis has been
                                                     3 Id. At pg 25.                                      Northeast multispecies sector program,                 conducted since 2007 of potential


                                             VerDate Sep<11>2014   16:01 Jun 29, 2015   Jkt 235001   PO 00000   Frm 00052   Fmt 4700   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\30JNR1.SGM   30JNR1


                                                                     Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 125 / Tuesday, June 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations                                          37187

                                                  observer bias and the implications for                  6.3 of the SBRM Omnibus Amendment                      Contrary to Oceana’s assertion, the
                                                  discard estimation.                                     and in the 2004 NMFS technical                         prioritization funding trigger places real
                                                     Oceana cites the Agency’s analysis of                memorandum ‘‘Evaluating bycatch: A                     and significant restrictions on the
                                                  at-sea monitoring requirements for the                  national approach to standardized                      Agency’s discretion to determine the
                                                  Northeast multispecies sector fishery,4                 bycatch monitoring programs’’ (NMFS–                   available funding for the SBRM. The
                                                  but draws an unsupported conclusion                     F/SPO–66). The commenters’ cite a                      four funding lines identified in the
                                                  about potential bias in observed trips                  technical review of the 2007 SBRM                      amendment where chosen because they
                                                  versus unobserved trips. An analysis                    amendment to argue that this level of                  represent the primary sources of
                                                  contained in that report examined if                    precision would not be suitable for                    observer funding in the Greater Atlantic
                                                  there were indications of an observer                   stock assessments. However, the cited                  Region, and had been used to fund the
                                                  effect on groundfish trips using trawl or               section of the technical review refers to              SBRM in previous years. By committing
                                                  gillnet gear that could result in either                a level of variability in estimates of total           the Region to use the funds available in
                                                  systematic or localized biases, meaning                 catch, while the SBRM is addressing the                those specific lines to support the
                                                  that the observer data used to generate                 variability in estimated discards of a                 SBRM, NMFS is creating a transparent
                                                  discard estimates may not be                            species group in a single fishing mode.                mechanism for determining under what
                                                  representative. This study essentially                  For most fisheries in the Greater                      circumstances the SBRM prioritization
                                                  looked for differences in performance                   Atlantic Region, discards are a relatively             process would be triggered.
                                                  when a vessel carried an observer and                   small portion of total catch, and the                     The Agency is not contending that it
                                                  when it did not. This analysis found                    subdivision by different fishing modes                 has no discretion in how to spend any
                                                  evidence for some difference in fishing                 would result in estimates of total                     other funding lines, or that there are no
                                                  behavior between observed and                           discards with much lower total                         other funding lines that may be
                                                  unobserved groundfish trips; however,                   variability. This error on the part of the             available to support other monitoring
                                                  the analysis does not conclude whether                  commenters about relevant scale is a                   priorities in the Region. NMFS must
                                                  the apparent differences would                          common and understandable confusion                    maintain some flexibility to use
                                                  necessarily result in discard rates on                  about precision. Oceana made a similar                 appropriated funding to respond to
                                                  unobserved trips that are different                     argument before the U.S. District Court                appropriations changes and changes in
                                                  (higher or lower) than on observed trips.               in its challenge to the 2007 SBRM                      conditions and priorities within the
                                                  If the discard rate is unchanged, then                  Amendment. In that case, the Court                     Region and across the country. To do
                                                  the apparent differences would not                      found that NMFS’s decision to use a 30-                otherwise would be irresponsible and
                                                  affect total discard estimates. Additional              percent CV, and the agency’s response                  could be counter to legal requirements
                                                  analysis included in the report found                   to the technical review, was reasonable                and jeopardize the Agency’s mission.
                                                  that even if there is some bias, the                    and did not violate the Magnuson-                      NMFS acknowledges that Congressional
                                                  discard rate for the groundfish sector                  Stevens Act or any other applicable law.               appropriations may change over time.
                                                  trips studied would need to be five to                  In its most recent comments, Oceana                    The SBRM Amendment does not
                                                  ten times higher on unobserved trips for                provides no new information or analysis                speculate about potential future changes
                                                  total catch to exceed the acceptable                    that contradicts the Court’s conclusion.               in existing or potential future funding
                                                  biological catch. None of the analyses                     Comment 7: Oceana and Earthjustice                  lines. The provisions of the SBRM
                                                  conducted to date suggest behavioral                    state that the proposed prioritization                 prioritization process may be adjusted
                                                  differences on observed versus                          process is not a sufficient response to                to incorporate future changes through
                                                  unobserved trips of this magnitude. In                  the Appeals Court order in Oceana v.                   an FMP framework action. Framework
                                                  any event, the analysis for the Northeast               Locke. Oceana states the proposed                      adjustment development would occur
                                                  multispecies sector fishery is not                      funding trigger is not sufficiently                    through established Council public
                                                  directly relevant for all fisheries covered             distinct from the status quo. In the                   participation processes. NMFS has
                                                  by the SBRM.                                            opinion of the commenters, the                         developed annual agency-wide
                                                     Oceana made similar claims of                        amendment does not adequately                          guidance that further explains how and
                                                  potential bias about the 2007 SBRM                      explain: Why only the named funding                    why specific funding decisions are
                                                  amendment, but the U.S. District Court                  lines would be used for SBRM and not                   made for SBRM programs and other
                                                  found that the amendment contained an                   others; whether other discretionary                    observer needs throughout the country.
                                                  extensive consideration of bias,                        sources of money exist; how the agency                    Oceana expresses confusion regarding
                                                  precision, and accuracy. Commenters do                  might handle new funding lines that                    the meaning of the phrase ‘‘consistent
                                                  not add any additional information or                   might be applicable; and what the term                 with historic practice’’ used in the
                                                  analysis that contradicts the finding of                ‘‘consistent with historic practice’’                  amendment. To provide context, this
                                                  the District Court. NMFS, nevertheless,                 means. Oceana suggests that the                        phrase is intended to reflect that not
                                                  supports continued analysis of potential                amendment must consider other sources                  every dollar allocated to the Region
                                                  sources of bias, and the SBRM can be                    of potential funding including other                   through the specified funding lines will
                                                  modified in the future to address any                   Federal funding sources and                            necessarily be converted into observer
                                                  shortcomings that are identified.                       development of new industry-funding                    sea-days. All funding lines to regional
                                                     NMFS disagrees with the                              alternatives. Oceana states that the                   offices and science centers are subject to
                                                  commenters’ contention that the choice                  prioritization of observer coverage                    standard overhead deductions that are
                                                  of a 30-percent CV performance                          should affect catch buffers, and refers to             used to support shared resources and
                                                  standard is inappropriate. The rationale                National Standard 1 guidance to argue                  infrastructure that do not receive their
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES




                                                  for a 30-percent CV performance                         that any change in the anticipated                     own appropriation of funds, such as
                                                  standard is explained in Chapters 5 and                 precision of discard estimates should be               building rent and maintenance, utilities,
                                                                                                          directly tied to the uncertainty buffers               shared information technology, etc. In
                                                    4 Summary of Analyses Conducted to Determine
                                                                                                          around allowable catch.                                addition, the cost of the SBRM includes
                                                  At-Sea Monitoring Requirements for Multispecies            Response: NMFS disagrees with the                   more than just observer sea-days.
                                                  Sectors FY 2013.
                                                  www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/ro/fso/
                                                                                                          commenters’ contentions that the                       Additional costs include, but are not
                                                  reports/Sectors/ASM/FY2013_Multispecies_Sector_         prioritization process does not address                limited to, shore-side expenses to
                                                  ASM_Requirements_Summary.pdf.                           the Court’s finding in Oceana v. Locke.                support the observer program, training


                                             VerDate Sep<11>2014   16:01 Jun 29, 2015   Jkt 235001   PO 00000   Frm 00053   Fmt 4700   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\30JNR1.SGM   30JNR1


                                                  37188              Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 125 / Tuesday, June 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

                                                  of observers, and development of                        the general nature of these buffers and                Amendment, fishing modes are used as
                                                  improved sampling procedures. These                     the complexities they are intended to                  the operational unit for assigning
                                                  expenses will necessarily vary from year                address. The precision of a discard                    observer coverage because it reflects
                                                  to year, and it was not practicable to try              estimate does not necessarily reflect the              information that is available when a
                                                  to enumerate all possible expenses that                 magnitude or importance of that                        vessel leaves the dock. While data may
                                                  may be needed to support the SBRM.                      estimate. A very small amount of                       be collected by fishing mode, the
                                                  The intent of specifying that funds will                estimated discards could be very                       calculated discards can be reported in
                                                  be used ‘‘consistent with historic                      imprecise without having a significant                 multiple ways. NMFS looks forward to
                                                  practice’’ means that these additional                  impact on total catch. Similarly, if a                 working with the Councils to prepare
                                                  costs will be incurred at levels that are               species is discarded by several fishing                annual discard reports that provide
                                                  consistent with what has occurred in                    modes, a change in precision in one                    needed information to support their
                                                  the past such that not all specified funds              mode may not significantly affect the                  management decisions.
                                                  will be converted to observer sea-days.                 precision of the total estimated discards                 Comment 8: Earthjustice claims the
                                                     NMFS rejects Oceana’s contention                     for that stock. How the variability in                 importance filters remove coverage from
                                                  that the amendment must include an                      discard estimates impacts the scientific               important fleets, and the SBRM must
                                                  alternative for the fishing industry to                 uncertainty of overall catch estimates is              not prevent NMFS from paying for the
                                                  pay for any funding shortfall. Industry-                outside the scope of this action and is                government costs of new industry-
                                                  funded monitoring programs are                          best considered on a case by case basis,               funded monitoring programs. The
                                                  complex and must be carefully tailored                  through the Councils’ acceptable                       commenter also asserts that the
                                                  to each specific fishery as a                           biological catch (ABC) control rules and               implications of the amendment on
                                                  management/policy decision in each                      Scientific and Statistical Committees.                 supplemental observer coverage of mid-
                                                  specific FMP. As stated in Chapter 1 of                 NMFS acknowledges that, in certain                     water trawl fisheries were first
                                                  the SBRM Omnibus Amendment, the                         cases, the magnitude or importance of                  discussed in August 2014, after the
                                                  SBRM is a methodology to assess the                     estimated discards may be cause for                    Councils had taken final action. The
                                                  amount and type of bycatch in the                       ABC control rules and/or Scientific and                commenter urges the agency to
                                                  fisheries and not a management plan for                 Statistical Committees to specifically                 disapprove the amendment and initiate
                                                  how each fishery operates. It is not                    consider discard estimate precision and                scoping for a new amendment and EIS.
                                                  necessary or practicable to develop such                underlying uncertainty when                               Response: NMFS disagrees with the
                                                  programs for all of the fisheries in the                recommending an ABC, but not                           commenter’s contention that the
                                                  Region through this action. The                         formulaically as the commenter                         importance filters create a situation that
                                                  Councils have the flexibility to consider               suggests.                                              ‘‘is not only absurd and irrational, but
                                                  industry-funded programs, to meet                                                                              entirely inconsistent with the needs of
                                                  SBRM or other monitoring priorities, on                    NMFS disagrees with Oceana’s claim                  the fishery’’ with regard to monitoring
                                                  a case by case basis, depending on the                  that the SBRM Omnibus Amendment                        the bycatch of river herring and shad
                                                  needs and circumstances of each                         fails to mandate that data be reported in              species caught in the midwater trawl
                                                  fishery.                                                a rational manner useful for fisheries                 fisheries. As described in Chapter 6.2.3
                                                     NMFS disagrees with Oceana’s                         management. As described in Chapter 1                  of the amendment, the importance
                                                  repeated assertions that the anticipated                of the SBRM amendment, the SBRM is                     filters are a tool to aid in establishing
                                                  precision of estimated discards must be                 a general, over-arching methodology for                observer sea day allocations that are
                                                  directly tied to changes in the                         assessing bycatch in all fisheries                     more meaningful and efficient at
                                                  uncertainty buffers around catch limits.                managed by the New England and Mid-                    achieving the overall objectives of the
                                                  Each data source has a certain degree of                Atlantic Fishery Management Councils                   SBRM. As the commenter
                                                  uncertainty associated with it. The                     to meet the requirements of the                        acknowledges, midwater trawl vessels
                                                  specific amount of uncertainty can only                 Magnuson-Stevens Act. It is not                        that incidentally catch these species
                                                  be estimated and cannot be parsed into                  designed as a specific, real-time quota                typically retain and land them, and as
                                                  specific amounts at different catch                     monitoring process. The amendment                      such, those fish are not bycatch as
                                                  levels of different species in different                specifies minimum components to                        defined by the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
                                                  fisheries. NMFS’ National Standard 1                    include in the annual discard reports,                 Therefore, such incidental catch is
                                                  guidelines recommend the use of buffers                 and anticipates that the format and                    outside of the mandate of the SBRM.
                                                  around catch thresholds to account for                  content of these reports will evolve over              Not all monitoring priorities must be
                                                  these various sources of management                     time. The 2007 SBRM amendment was                      part of the SBRM. In cases where a
                                                  and scientific uncertainty (74 FR 3178;                 very prescriptive of the detailed                      Council determines monitoring of
                                                  January 16, 2009). The Councils have                    information to be included in the                      incidental catch of specific species is a
                                                  adopted control rules and/or make use                   annual discard reports. However, this                  management priority, NMFS works with
                                                  of scientific and technical expertise so                resulted in annual discard reports with                the Council to design and evaluate
                                                  that these buffers address numerous                     over 1,000 pages of tables. While these                monitoring options, including at-sea
                                                  sources of potential uncertainty that                   reports contained a lot of information,                observers or monitors, dockside
                                                  may be present in these catch limits into               they were not as useful for management                 sampling, electronic monitoring, or
                                                  a single value. Each source of                          as intended. The revised SBRM                          other options that best address the
                                                  uncertainty may vary and the buffers are                Omnibus Amendment calls for annual                     needs of the specific fishery.
                                                  set conservatively to account for this                  discard reports to contain more                           NMFS acknowledges the commenter’s
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES




                                                  variability and the complex interplay                   summarized data that could be                          concern that the agency may not be able
                                                  that may exist between sources of                       presented in different ways. We intend                 to fully fund the government’s costs
                                                  uncertainty. To propose adjusting these                 to work with the Councils on an                        associated with a future industry-
                                                  buffers to automatically account for                    ongoing basis to ensure these reports                  funded monitoring program. One of the
                                                  changes in the precision estimate for                   continue to provide the information                    goals of another initiative, the Industry-
                                                  one component of the total catch, in this               fishery managers need in a format that                 Funded Monitoring Omnibus
                                                  case discards of a specific species in a                is useful in their work. As explained in               Amendment, currently under
                                                  specific fishing mode, misunderstands                   Chapters 1 and 2 of the Omnibus                        development by the Councils is to create


                                             VerDate Sep<11>2014   16:01 Jun 29, 2015   Jkt 235001   PO 00000   Frm 00054   Fmt 4700   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\30JNR1.SGM   30JNR1


                                                                     Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 125 / Tuesday, June 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations                                          37189

                                                  a process for prioritizing available                    should be driven primarily by the                         Response: As described in Chapter 5
                                                  appropriated government and industry                    conservation status of the potential                   of the SBRM Omnibus Amendment, the
                                                  funds to efficiently provide                            bycatch species. Section 303(a)(11) of                 target observer coverage rates are
                                                  supplemental monitoring for                             the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that                 calculated based on the variance of
                                                  management goals beyond the SBRM.                       each FMP ‘‘establish a standardized                    discards (i.e., the CV performance
                                                  Currently, the agency may not use                       reporting methodology to assess the                    standard) rather than on total amount of
                                                  private funds to finance the costs of                   amount and type of bycatch occurring in                discards from any one fishing mode.
                                                  fundamental government obligations in                   the fishery’’ regardless of the                        This approach is designed to provide a
                                                  a manner that is not consistent with the                conservation status of the species caught              suitable level of precision in discard
                                                  Antideficiency Act, Miscellaneous                       in the fishery. As stated in Chapter 1.3               estimates to meet the requirements of
                                                  Receipts Statute, and other                             of amendment, the primary purpose of                   the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The SBRM
                                                  appropriations laws or rules. In the                    bycatch reporting and monitoring is to                 focuses on providing a statistically
                                                  Industry-Funded Monitoring Omnibus                      collect information that can be used                   rigorous sampling of fishing activity,
                                                  Amendment, the New England and Mid-                     reliably as the basis for making sound                 which will provide a more precise
                                                  Atlantic Councils are considering how                   fisheries management decisions for all                 estimate of total discards, rather than a
                                                  to prioritize and coordinate government                 managed species in the Greater Atlantic                direct measurement or census of
                                                  funds necessary for supporting at-sea                   Region, including stock assessments and                discards. Thus, it is intended to provide
                                                  observers and other monitoring needs                    annual catch accounting. Figure 1 in                   a better measurement of overall
                                                  consistent with the Councils’                           Appendix H of the SBRM Omnibus                         discards, rather than trying to directly
                                                  recommendations for industry-funded                     Amendment illustrates that beyond a                    observe a high volume of discards that
                                                  observer programs outside of the SBRM                   certain point, increased observer                      might lead to a less precise estimate of
                                                  requirements. Development of this                       coverage provides diminishing returns                  total discards when unobserved trips are
                                                  process would ensure that when funds                    as far as improved precision of                        factored in. The comment regarding the
                                                  are available, they will be used                        estimated discards. As a result,                       potential burden that paying for at-sea
                                                  consistent with the priorities regarding                prioritizing observer coverage by                      monitors would place on the groundfish
                                                  observer coverage and monitoring needs                  conservation status could risk                         industry is addressed under Comment 2,
                                                  established by the Councils. NMFS will                  sacrificing the precision of bycatch                   above.
                                                  continue to work to identify potential                  estimates for several species to achieve                  Comment 11: One commercial
                                                  funding sources that could be utilized to               a marginal improvement in one, which                   fisherman expressed concerns that the
                                                  support the Councils’ monitoring                        is unlikely to meet the stated objectives              proposed funding trigger would be too
                                                  priorities.                                             of this action.                                        restrictive on the use of certain observer
                                                     NMFS disagrees with the                                 NMFS disagrees with the                             funds and would prevent funds from
                                                  commenter’s assertion that the                          commenter’s contention that the SBRM                   being used to cover the groundfish
                                                  implications of how the SBRM impacts                    Omnibus Amendment does not                             industry costs for at-sea monitors as it
                                                  at-sea observer coverage in other                       adequately consider adverse effects to                 has in the past.
                                                  fisheries were first discussed in August                endangered species. As discussed in                       Response: NMFS agrees with this
                                                  2014. NMFS staff gave a special                         Chapter 5 of the amendment, the SBRM                   individual’s observation. Funds
                                                  presentation about the funding of the                   applies the 30-percent CV performance                  previously used to cover groundfish at-
                                                  Northeast Fisheries Observer Program at                 standard to species afforded protection                sea monitors may be fully committed to
                                                  both the New England and Mid-Atlantic                   under the Endangered Species Act, as it                the SBRM process by the amendment’s
                                                  Council meetings in April 2014. These                   does for species managed under a FMP.                  measures to the extent that SBRM
                                                  presentations highlighted the sources of                This has been the case since the                       funding amounts are insufficient to
                                                  funding and potential effect of the                     implementation of the 2007 SBRM                        realize the level of observer coverage
                                                  proposed SBRM funding trigger on                        Amendment. Since that time, the agency                 estimated to achieve the 30-percent CV
                                                  available SBRM coverage and other                       has continued to effectively use discard               performance standard. Additional detail
                                                  monitoring programs previously funded                   estimates for these species for                        on this comment is addressed in the
                                                  by the effected funding lines. This                     management purposes, including                         response to Comment 2, above.
                                                  message was then reiterated during the                  monitoring incidental take limits, and                    Comment 12: One member of the
                                                  presentation of the SBRM Omnibus                        there is no information indicating these               public wrote in support of the proposed
                                                  Amendment at the same meetings,                         estimates are inadequate. The SBRM                     45-day payment period for observer
                                                  before the Councils voted to take final                 Omnibus Amendment is primarily                         services to the scallop fishing fleet, and
                                                  action on the amendment.                                administrative in nature and is not                    suggested that such a payment period be
                                                     Comment 9: The Center for Biological                 expected to result in any changes in                   specified in any future action to develop
                                                  Diversity, an environmental group,                      fishing effort or behavior, fishing gears              industry-funded observer programs. The
                                                  submitted a letter focusing on the                      used, or areas fished, and therefore will              commenter also suggested that the
                                                  potential impact of the SBRM on                         not adversely affect endangered and                    proposed rule at § 648.11(h)(5)(vii)(A)
                                                  endangered species. The commenter                       threatened species in any manner not                   incorrectly states that an observer has 24
                                                  suggests that the allocation of observers               considered in prior consultations.                     hours for electronic submission of
                                                  should be focused on the conservation                      Comment 10: One commercial                          observer data after a trip has landed,
                                                  status of potential bycatch species,                    fisherman expressed frustration with                   and that the correct time should be 48
                                                  particularly those that are overfished,                 how observer coverage and at-sea                       hours.
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES




                                                  undergoing overfishing, or have been                    monitors are allocated across the                         Response: This comment refers to one
                                                  identified as endangered, threatened, or                groundfish fleet. The commenter                        of three minor modifications to the
                                                  species of concern. The group also                      suggested assigning observers based on                 regulations in the proposed rule that are
                                                  asserted that the amendment does not                    the amount of bycatch rather than the                  not part of the SBRM Omnibus
                                                  adequately consider potential adverse                   estimated variance in discards. The                    Amendment, but were proposed under
                                                  effects on endangered species.                          commenter was also very concerned                      authority granted the Secretary under
                                                     Response: NMFS disagrees with the                    about the potential cost to vessels of                 section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens
                                                  commenter’s assertion that the SBRM                     industry-funded monitoring.                            Act to ensure that FMPs are


                                             VerDate Sep<11>2014   16:01 Jun 29, 2015   Jkt 235001   PO 00000   Frm 00055   Fmt 4700   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\30JNR1.SGM   30JNR1


                                                  37190              Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 125 / Tuesday, June 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

                                                  implemented as intended and consistent                  a distinctive species by a specific gear               development of an industry-funded
                                                  with the requirements of the Magnuson-                  type, such as bluefin tuna in the pelagic              observer program through the FMP’s
                                                  Stevens Act. NMFS agrees that a clear                   longline fishery, may not yet be as                    framework adjustment process.
                                                  payment deadline is valuable for both                   suitable or affordable for monitoring                  Observer programs explicitly funded to
                                                  the observer service providers and the                  more complex bycatch situations                        support the MMPA are not affected by
                                                  vessel operators who are contracting                    covered by the SBRM, such as                           this amendment. NMFS receives
                                                  observer services.                                      differentiating flounder species in a                  dedicated funding for observers under
                                                     The requirement to submit electronic                 multispecies trawl fishery, or providing               the MMPA, which is a separate funding
                                                  observer data within 24 hours reflects                  length and weight data (all of which                   allocation from the SBRM program.
                                                  the current regulations. NMFS                           would be essential for electronic                      Because the funding for these MMPA
                                                  acknowledges that current practice is to                monitoring to effectively replace                      observers is outside of the funding lines
                                                  allow 48 hours for electronic                           observers under the SBRM). Electronic                  dedicated to the SBRM, the allocation of
                                                  submission of observer data. The                        monitoring is a technological tool that                MMPA observers is not directly subject
                                                  proposed rule did not specifically                      may be used to serve monitoring                        to the observer allocation process or
                                                  propose addressing this inconsistency,                  purposes that may differ between                       prioritization process described in the
                                                  and as a result there was no opportunity                fisheries. The suitability and manner of               SBRM Omnibus Amendment. The
                                                  for public comment. Therefore, NMFS is                  using this tool for a particular purpose
                                                  not changing this regulation in this rule.                                                                     MMPA observers are allocated across
                                                                                                          must be considered in the context of
                                                  There may be other areas within this                                                                           fisheries based on the estimated
                                                                                                          each proposed program. NMFS supports
                                                  section of the regulations where current                                                                       likelihood of marine mammal
                                                                                                          the continued development of electronic
                                                  practice has evolved away from the                      monitoring and will continue to                        interactions. At-sea observers allocated
                                                  specific provisions in the regulations.                 evaluate its applicability as a                        under the SBRM actually provide
                                                  NMFS may address these                                  component of a comprehensive SBRM                      additional marine mammal observer
                                                  inconsistencies in a future rulemaking.                 and other coverage purposes.                           coverage as they record and report any
                                                     Comment 13: A letter from The                           The team that conducted the 3-year                  interactions with marine mammals that
                                                  Nature Conservancy expressed support                    review of the SBRM in 2011 included                    occur on observed fishing trips.
                                                  for improving fishery monitoring                        staff from the Northeast Fisheries                     Likewise, at-sea monitors in the
                                                  systems and cited the benefits of                       Science Center, the Greater Atlantic                   groundfish sector program record any
                                                  accurate and reliable data. The                         Regional Fisheries Office, the New                     interactions they witness. Similarly, in
                                                  commenter urged NMFS to clarify the                     England and Mid-Atlantic Fishery                       the absence of a marine mammal
                                                  agency’s intention to take steps                        Management Councils, and the Atlantic                  interaction, MMPA observers record
                                                  necessary to implement additional tools                 States Marine Fisheries Commission.                    information about the trip and observed
                                                  for collecting timely and accurate                      Because much of the data analyzed as                   bycatch that contributes to our overall
                                                  fishery-related data, including the use of              part of the 3-year review are                          estimation of bycatch in Greater Atlantic
                                                  electronic monitoring. In particular, the               confidential under the Magnuson-                       fisheries. However, if a marine mammal
                                                  commenter urged the agency to ensure                    Stevens Act, the team was limited to                   is present, these observers are required
                                                  that the SBRM support, and not hinder,                  individuals authorized to access such                  to focus their attention on that marine
                                                  the earliest possible implementation of                 information. The annual discard reports                mammal interaction, and monitoring of
                                                  electronic monitoring. The commenter                    as well as the final 3-year review report              other bycatch becomes a secondary
                                                  also expressed support for the SBRM                     present information in a format                        priority. For additional information
                                                  review and reporting process, and                       consistent with data confidentiality                   about how marine mammal interactions
                                                  requested that the triennial review                     requirements and are all publically                    are monitored, please see the Greater
                                                  include a broader set of stakeholders                   available. NMFS and the Councils will                  Atlantic Region’s Marine Mammal
                                                  beyond NMFS and the Councils.                           consider how additional stakeholders                   Program Web site at:
                                                     Response: NMFS acknowledges that                     might be included in the next review in                www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/
                                                  the funding-related prioritization trigger              a way that could allow their input                     Protected/mmp/.
                                                  may require some funding sources that                   without compromising the
                                                  have previously been used to support                                                                              Comment 15: The comments
                                                                                                          confidentiality of catch and discard
                                                  development of electronic monitoring to                                                                        submitted by Environmental Defense
                                                                                                          data.
                                                  be used exclusively for the SBRM. This                     Comment 14: The Marine Mammal                       Fund, an environmental organization,
                                                  may delay implementation of electronic                  Commission submitted a letter                          expressed concerns about the impact of
                                                  monitoring in the Region. The                           requesting NMFS include additional                     the proposed SBRM on the continued
                                                  commenter cited the recent adoption of                  information in the final rule about                    development and implementation of
                                                  electronic monitoring requirements to                   whether the SBRM has implications for                  electronic monitoring in the Region. The
                                                  monitor bluefin tuna bycatch in the                     observer programs under the Marine                     commenter expressed concern that the
                                                  pelagic longline fishery under the                      Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). In                       amendment should have included
                                                  Consolidated Atlantic Highly Migratory                  addition, the letter noted particular                  electronic monitoring as an explicit
                                                  Species FMP as evidence that electronic                 support for the proposed use of a non-                 component of the SBRM. The group
                                                  monitoring is ready to meet the bycatch                 discretionary formulaic process for                    asserts that 100-percent electronic
                                                  monitoring goals of the SBRM. NMFS is                   prioritizing available observer sea-days,              monitoring would reduce uncertainty in
                                                  very supportive of the new electronic                   and the provision to facilitate the future             catch data and improve stock
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES




                                                  monitoring program to monitor bycatch                   development of an industry-funded                      assessments, and that electronic
                                                  of bluefin tuna in the pelagic longline                 observer program through a framework                   monitoring could provide a lower sea-
                                                  fishery. Lessons learned in the                         adjustment.                                            day cost than current at-sea observers.
                                                  implementation of the bluefin tuna                         Response: NMFS appreciates the                      The group is critical that the proposed
                                                  program should help inform other                        commenter’s support for the use of a                   funding trigger is not properly
                                                  electronic monitoring programs in the                   non-discretionary formulaic process for                explained and would prevent funds
                                                  future. However, a technology that is                   prioritizing available observer sea-days,              from being available for electronic
                                                  suitable for identification of bycatch of               and the provision to facilitate the future             monitoring or to cover the government


                                             VerDate Sep<11>2014   16:01 Jun 29, 2015   Jkt 235001   PO 00000   Frm 00056   Fmt 4700   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\30JNR1.SGM   30JNR1


                                                                     Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 125 / Tuesday, June 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations                                           37191

                                                  costs associated with any future                        List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648                    (h)(5) of this section, and the
                                                  industry-funded monitoring programs.                      Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and                    arrangements to be used.
                                                     Response: The responses above to                                                                            *       *    *       *     *
                                                                                                          recordkeeping requirements,
                                                  Comment 3, Comment 4, and Comment                                                                                 (viii) Proof that its observers, whether
                                                                                                          Incorporation by reference.
                                                  9 address many of the points raised by                                                                         contracted or employed by the service
                                                  the commenter. NMFS does not agree                        Dated: June 17, 2015.
                                                                                                                                                                 provider, are compensated with salaries
                                                  with the commenter’s characterization                   Samuel D. Rauch III,                                   that meet or exceed the U.S. Department
                                                  of the potential cost savings with                      Deputy Assistant Administrator for                     of Labor (DOL) guidelines for observers.
                                                  electronic monitoring at this time. The                 Regulatory Programs, National Marine                   Observers shall be compensated as Fair
                                                  commenter promotes the potential for a                  Fisheries Service.
                                                                                                                                                                 Labor Standards Act (FLSA) non-
                                                  lower cost per sea-day with electronic                    For the reasons set out in the                       exempt employees. Observer providers
                                                  monitoring than with at-sea observers,                  preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is amended                   shall provide any other benefits and
                                                  but also advocates for 100-percent                      as follows:                                            personnel services in accordance with
                                                  electronic monitoring on every fishing                                                                         the terms of each observer’s contract or
                                                  trip. This is a substantial increase in                 PART 648—FISHERIES OF THE                              employment status.
                                                  coverage rate when compared to the                      NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES                                (ix) The names of its fully equipped,
                                                  current SBRM using at-sea observers.                                                                           NMFS/NEFOP certified, observers on
                                                  The affordability of electronic                         ■ 1. The authority citation for part 648               staff or a list of its training candidates
                                                  monitoring has yet to be determined.                    continues to read as follows:                          (with resumes) and a request for an
                                                  Electronic monitoring costs will be                         Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.                  appropriate NMFS/NEFOP Observer
                                                  determined largely by the purpose and                                                                          Training class. The NEFOP training has
                                                  scope of particular electronic                          ■ 2. In § 648.11, add paragraph
                                                                                                                                                                 a minimum class size of eight
                                                  monitoring coverage and the available                   (g)(5)(iii), and revise paragraphs (h)(1),
                                                                                                                                                                 individuals, which may be split among
                                                  technology to meet those needs. Even at                 (h)(3)(iv), (h)(3)(vi), (h)(3)(viii),
                                                                                                                                                                 multiple vendors requesting training.
                                                  a potentially lower cost per day, the                   (h)(3)(ix), (h)(4), (h)(5), (h)(7)
                                                                                                                                                                 Requests for training classes with fewer
                                                  increase in coverage to 100 percent of                  introductory text, (i)(1), (i)(2), (i)(3)(ii)
                                                                                                                                                                 than eight individuals will be delayed
                                                  trips would likely result in a program                  and (v), (i)(4), and (i)(5) to read as
                                                                                                                                                                 until further requests make up the full
                                                  that is significantly more expensive than               follows:
                                                                                                                                                                 training class size.
                                                  the SBRM is currently. This does not
                                                  take into account that electronic                       § 648.11 At-sea sea sampler/observer                   *       *    *       *     *
                                                                                                          coverage.                                                 (4) Application evaluation. (i) NMFS
                                                  monitoring is not yet considered robust
                                                  enough to replace observers for bycatch                 *       *    *    *     *                              shall review and evaluate each
                                                  monitoring in some gears types or for                      (g) * * *                                           application submitted under paragraph
                                                  identifying all bycatch to the species                     (5) * * *                                           (h)(3) of this section. Issuance of
                                                  level. In addition, some amount of at-sea                  (iii) Owners of scallop vessels shall               approval as an observer provider shall
                                                  observer coverage is likely to still be                 pay observer service providers for                     be based on completeness of the
                                                  required to collect biological samples,                 observer services within 45 days of the                application, and a determination by
                                                  which would further increase the costs.                 end of a fishing trip on which an                      NMFS of the applicant’s ability to
                                                  NMFS will continue to support                           observer deployed.                                     perform the duties and responsibilities
                                                  development of electronic monitoring as                 *       *    *    *     *                              of a fishery observer service provider, as
                                                  a potential tool where it is fitting and                   (h) Observer service provider approval              demonstrated in the application
                                                  appropriate.                                            and responsibilities—(1) General. An                   information. A decision to approve or
                                                                                                          entity seeking to provide observer                     deny an application shall be made by
                                                  Classification                                                                                                 NMFS within 15 business days of
                                                                                                          services must apply for and obtain
                                                     The Administrator, Greater Atlantic                  approval from NMFS following                           receipt of the application by NMFS.
                                                  Region, NMFS, determined that the                                                                                 (ii) If NMFS approves the application,
                                                                                                          submission of a complete application. A
                                                  SBRM Omnibus Amendment is                                                                                      the observer service provider’s name
                                                                                                          list of approved observer service
                                                  necessary for the conservation and                                                                             will be added to the list of approved
                                                                                                          providers shall be distributed to vessel
                                                  management of Greater Atlantic                                                                                 observer service providers found on the
                                                                                                          owners and shall be posted on the
                                                  fisheries and that it is consistent with                                                                       NMFS/NEFOP Web site specified in
                                                                                                          NMFS/NEFOP Web site at:
                                                  the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other                                                                             paragraph (h)(1) of this section, and in
                                                                                                          www.nefsc.noaa.gov/femad/fsb/.
                                                  applicable law.                                                                                                any outreach information to the
                                                     This final rule has been determined to               *       *    *    *     *                              industry. Approved observer service
                                                  be not significant for purposes of                         (3) * * *                                           providers shall be notified in writing
                                                  Executive Order 12866.                                     (iv) A statement, signed under penalty              and provided with any information
                                                     The Chief Counsel for Regulation of                  of perjury, from each owner or owners,                 pertinent to its participation in the
                                                  the Department of Commerce certified                    board members, and officers, if a                      fishery observer program.
                                                  to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the                corporation, describing any criminal                      (iii) An application shall be denied if
                                                  Small Business Administration during                    conviction(s), Federal contract(s) they                NMFS determines that the information
                                                  the proposed rule stage that this action                have had and the performance rating                    provided in the application is not
                                                  would not have a significant economic                   they received on the contracts, and                    complete or the evaluation criteria are
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES




                                                  impact on a substantial number of small                 previous decertification action(s) while               not met. NMFS shall notify the
                                                  entities. The factual basis for the                     working as an observer or observer                     applicant in writing of any deficiencies
                                                  certification was published in the                      service provider.                                      in the application or information
                                                  proposed rule and is not repeated here.                 *       *    *    *     *                              submitted in support of the application.
                                                  No comments were received regarding                        (vi) A description of the applicant’s               An applicant who receives a denial of
                                                  this certification. As a result, a                      ability to carry out the responsibilities              his or her application may present
                                                  regulatory flexibility analysis was not                 and duties of a fishery observer services              additional information to rectify the
                                                  required and none was prepared.                         provider as set out under paragraph                    deficiencies specified in the written


                                             VerDate Sep<11>2014   16:01 Jun 29, 2015   Jkt 235001   PO 00000   Frm 00057   Fmt 4700   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\30JNR1.SGM   30JNR1


                                                  37192              Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 125 / Tuesday, June 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

                                                  denial, provided such information is                    providers approved under paragraph (h)                 observer to NMFS within 4 business
                                                  submitted to NMFS within 30 days of                     of this section are required to report                 days of the trip landing.
                                                  the applicant’s receipt of the denial                   observer deployments to NMFS daily for                    (B) Safety refusals. The observer
                                                  notification from NMFS. In the absence                  the purpose of determining whether the                 service provider must report to NMFS
                                                  of additional information, and after 30                 predetermined coverage levels are being                any trip that has been refused due to
                                                  days from an applicant’s receipt of a                   achieved in the appropriate fishery.                   safety issues, e.g., failure to hold a valid
                                                  denial, an observer provider is required                   (iv) Observer deployment limitations.               USCG Commercial Fishing Vessel Safety
                                                  to resubmit an application containing                   (A) A candidate observer’s first four                  Examination Decal or to meet the safety
                                                  all of the information required under the               deployments and the resulting data                     requirements of the observer’s pre-trip
                                                  application process specified in                        shall be immediately edited and                        vessel safety checklist, within 24 hours
                                                  paragraph (h)(3) of this section to be re-              approved after each trip by NMFS/                      of the refusal.
                                                  considered for being added to the list of               NEFOP prior to any further                                (C) Biological samples. The observer
                                                  approved observer service providers.                    deployments by that observer. If data                  service provider must ensure that
                                                     (5) Responsibilities of observer service             quality is considered acceptable, the                  biological samples, including whole
                                                  providers. (i) An observer service                      observer would be certified.                           marine mammals, sea turtles, and sea
                                                  provider must provide observers                            (B) Unless alternative arrangements                 birds, are stored/handled properly and
                                                  certified by NMFS/NEFOP pursuant to                     are approved by NMFS, an observer                      transported to NMFS within 7 days of
                                                  paragraph (i) of this section for                       provider must not deploy any observer                  landing.
                                                  deployment in a fishery when contacted                  on the same vessel for more than two                      (D) Observer debriefing. The observer
                                                  and contracted by the owner, operator,                  consecutive multi-day trips, and not                   service provider must ensure that the
                                                  or vessel manager of a fishing vessel,                  more than twice in any given month for                 observer remains available to NMFS,
                                                  unless the observer service provider                    multi-day deployments.                                 either in-person or via phone, at NMFS’
                                                  refuses to deploy an observer on a                         (v) Communications with observers.                  discretion, including NMFS Office for
                                                  requesting vessel for any of the reasons                An observer service provider must have                 Law Enforcement, for debriefing for at
                                                  specified at paragraph (h)(5)(viii) of this             an employee responsible for observer                   least 2 weeks following any observed
                                                  section.                                                activities on call 24 hours a day to                   trip. If requested by NMFS, an observer
                                                     (ii) An observer service provider must               handle emergencies involving observers                 that is at sea during the 2-week period
                                                  provide to each of its observers:                       or problems concerning observer                        must contact NMFS upon his or her
                                                     (A) All necessary transportation,                    logistics, whenever observers are at sea,              return.
                                                  including arrangements and logistics, of                stationed shoreside, in transit, or in port               (E) Observer availability report. The
                                                  observers to the initial location of                    awaiting vessel assignment.                            observer service provider must report to
                                                  deployment, to all subsequent vessel                       (vi) Observer training requirements.                NMFS any occurrence of inability to
                                                  assignments, and to any debriefing                      The following information must be                      respond to an industry request for
                                                  locations, if necessary;                                submitted to NMFS/NEFOP at least 7                     observer coverage due to the lack of
                                                     (B) Lodging, per diem, and any other                 days prior to the beginning of the                     available observers by 5 p.m., Eastern
                                                  services necessary for observers                        proposed training class: A list of                     Time, of any day on which the provider
                                                  assigned to a fishing vessel or to attend               observer candidates; observer candidate                is unable to respond to an industry
                                                  an appropriate NMFS/NEFOP observer                      resumes; and a statement signed by the                 request for observer coverage.
                                                  training class;                                         candidate, under penalty of perjury, that                 (F) Other reports. The observer service
                                                     (C) The required observer equipment,                 discloses the candidate’s criminal                     provider must report possible observer
                                                  in accordance with equipment                            convictions, if any. All observer trainees             harassment, discrimination, concerns
                                                  requirements listed on the NMFS/                        must complete a basic cardiopulmonary                  about vessel safety or marine casualty,
                                                  NEFOP Web site specified in paragraph                   resuscitation/first aid course prior to the            or observer illness or injury; and any
                                                  (h)(1) of this section, prior to any                    end of a NMFS/NEFOP Observer                           information, allegations, or reports
                                                  deployment and/or prior to NMFS                         Training class. NMFS may reject a                      regarding observer conflict of interest or
                                                  observer certification training; and                    candidate for training if the candidate                breach of the standards of behavior, to
                                                     (D) Individually assigned                            does not meet the minimum                              NMFS/NEFOP within 24 hours of the
                                                  communication equipment, in working                     qualification requirements as outlined                 event or within 24 hours of learning of
                                                  order, such as a mobile phone, for all                  by NMFS/NEFOP minimum eligibility                      the event.
                                                  necessary communication. An observer                    standards for observers as described on                   (G) Observer status report. The
                                                  service provider may alternatively                      the NMFS/NEFOP Web site.                               observer service provider must provide
                                                  compensate observers for the use of the                    (vii) Reports—(A) Observer                          NMFS/NEFOP with an updated list of
                                                  observer’s personal mobile phone, or                    deployment reports. The observer                       contact information for all observers
                                                  other device, for communications made                   service provider must report to NMFS/                  that includes the observer identification
                                                  in support of, or necessary for, the                    NEFOP when, where, to whom, and to                     number, observer’s name, mailing
                                                  observer’s duties.                                      what fishery (including Open Area or                   address, email address, phone numbers,
                                                     (iii) Observer deployment logistics.                 Access Area for sea scallop trips) an                  homeports or fisheries/trip types
                                                  Each approved observer service                          observer has been deployed, within 24                  assigned, and must include whether or
                                                  provider must assign an available                       hours of the observer’s departure. The                 not the observer is ‘‘in service,’’
                                                  certified observer to a vessel upon                     observer service provider must ensure                  indicating when the observer has
                                                  request. Each approved observer service                 that the observer reports back to NMFS                 requested leave and/or is not currently
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES




                                                  provider must be accessible 24 hours                    its Observer Contract (OBSCON) data, as                working for an industry funded
                                                  per day, 7 days per week, to enable an                  described in the certified observer                    program.
                                                  owner, operator, or manager of a vessel                 training, within 24 hours of landing.                     (H) Vessel contract. The observer
                                                  to secure observer coverage when                        OBSCON data are to be submitted                        service provider must submit to NMFS/
                                                  requested. The telephone system must                    electronically or by other means                       NEFOP, if requested, a copy of each
                                                  be monitored a minimum of four times                    specified by NMFS. The observer                        type of signed and valid contract
                                                  daily to ensure rapid response to                       service provider shall provide the raw                 (including all attachments, appendices,
                                                  industry requests. Observer service                     (unedited) data collected by the                       addendums, and exhibits incorporated


                                             VerDate Sep<11>2014   16:01 Jun 29, 2015   Jkt 235001   PO 00000   Frm 00058   Fmt 4700   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\30JNR1.SGM   30JNR1


                                                                     Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 125 / Tuesday, June 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations                                          37193

                                                  into the contract) between the observer                 NMFS shall review information                          observer’s first four deployments and
                                                  provider and those entities requiring                   rebutting the pending removal and shall                the resulting data shall be immediately
                                                  observer services.                                      notify the observer service provider                   edited and approved after each trip by
                                                     (I) Observer contract. The observer                  within 15 days of receipt of the rebuttal              NMFS/NEFOP, prior to any further
                                                  service provider must submit to NMFS/                   whether or not the removal is                          deployments by that observer. If data
                                                  NEFOP, if requested, a copy of each                     warranted. If no response to a pending                 quality is considered acceptable, the
                                                  type of signed and valid contract                       removal is received by NMFS, the                       observer would be certified.
                                                  (including all attachments, appendices,                 observer service provider shall be                        (3) * * *
                                                  addendums, and exhibits incorporated                    automatically removed from the list of                    (ii) Be physically and mentally
                                                  into the contract) between the observer                 approved observer service providers.                   capable of carrying out the
                                                  provider and specific observers.                        The decision to remove the observer                    responsibilities of an observer on board
                                                     (J) Additional information. The                      service provider from the list, either                 fishing vessels, pursuant to standards
                                                  observer service provider must submit                   after reviewing a rebuttal, or if no                   established by NMFS. Such standards
                                                  to NMFS/NEFOP, if requested, copies of                  rebuttal is submitted, shall be the final              are available from NMFS/NEFOP Web
                                                  any information developed and/or used                   decision of NMFS and the Department                    site specified in paragraph (h)(1) of this
                                                  by the observer provider and distributed                of Commerce. Removal from the list of                  section and shall be provided to each
                                                  to vessels, such as informational                       approved observer service providers                    approved observer service provider;
                                                  pamphlets, payment notification,                        does not necessarily prevent such                      *       *    *     *    *
                                                  description of observer duties, etc.                    observer service provider from obtaining                  (v) Accurately record their sampling
                                                     (viii) Refusal to deploy an observer.                an approval in the future if a new                     data, write complete reports, and report
                                                  (A) An observer service provider may                    application is submitted that                          accurately any observations relevant to
                                                  refuse to deploy an observer on a                       demonstrates that the reasons for                      conservation of marine resources or
                                                  requesting scallop vessel if the observer               removal are remedied. Certified                        their environment.
                                                  service provider does not have an                       observers under contract with an                          (4) Probation and decertification.
                                                  available observer within 48 hours of                   observer service provider that has been                NMFS may review observer
                                                  receiving a request for an observer from                removed from the list of approved                      certifications and issue observer
                                                  a vessel.                                               service providers must complete their                  certification probation and/or
                                                     (B) An observer service provider may                 assigned duties for any fishing trips on               decertification as described in NMFS
                                                  refuse to deploy an observer on a                       which the observers are deployed at the                policy found on the NMFS/NEFOP Web
                                                  requesting fishing vessel if the observer               time the observer service provider is                  site specified in paragraph (h)(1) of this
                                                  service provider has determined that the                removed from the list of approved                      section.
                                                  requesting vessel is inadequate or                      observer service providers. An observer                   (5) Issuance of decertification. Upon
                                                  unsafe pursuant to the reasons                          service provider removed from the list                 determination that decertification is
                                                  described at § 600.746 of this chapter.                 of approved observer service providers                 warranted under paragraph (i)(4) of this
                                                     (C) The observer service provider may                is responsible for providing NMFS with                 section, NMFS shall issue a written
                                                  refuse to deploy an observer on a fishing               the information required in paragraph                  decision to decertify the observer to the
                                                  vessel that is otherwise eligible to carry              (h)(5)(vii) of this section following                  observer and approved observer service
                                                  an observer for any other reason,                       completion of the trip. NMFS may                       providers via certified mail at the
                                                  including failure to pay for previous                   consider, but is not limited to, the                   observer’s most current address
                                                  observer deployments, provided the                      following in determining if an observer                provided to NMFS. The decision shall
                                                  observer service provider has received                  service provider may remain on the list                identify whether a certification is
                                                  prior written confirmation from NMFS                    of approved observer service providers:                revoked and shall identify the specific
                                                  authorizing such refusal.                               *      *     *     *     *                             reasons for the action taken.
                                                  *      *     *     *     *                                 (i) Observer certification. (1) To be               Decertification is effective immediately
                                                     (7) Removal of observer service                      certified, employees or sub-contractors                as of the date of issuance, unless the
                                                  provider from the list of approved                      operating as observers for observer                    decertification official notes a
                                                  observer service providers. An observer                 service providers approved under                       compelling reason for maintaining
                                                  service provider that fails to meet the                 paragraph (h) of this section must meet                certification for a specified period and
                                                  requirements, conditions, and                           NMFS National Minimum Eligibility                      under specified conditions.
                                                  responsibilities specified in paragraphs                Standards for observers. NMFS National                 Decertification is the final decision of
                                                  (h)(5) and (6) of this section shall be                 Minimum Eligibility Standards are                      NMFS and the Department of Commerce
                                                  notified by NMFS, in writing, that it is                available at the National Observer                     and may not be appealed.
                                                  subject to removal from the list of                     Program Web site: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/                   *       *    *     *    *
                                                  approved observer service providers.                    op/pds/categories/science_and_                         ■ 3. Add § 648.18 to subpart A to read
                                                  Such notification shall specify the                     technology.html.                                       as follows:
                                                  reasons for the pending removal. An                        (2) Observer training. In order to be
                                                  observer service provider that has                      deployed on any fishing vessel, a                      § 648.18 Standardized bycatch reporting
                                                  received notification that it is subject to             candidate observer must have passed an                 methodology.
                                                  removal from the list of approved                       appropriate NMFS/NEFOP Observer                          NMFS shall comply with the
                                                  observer service providers may submit                   Training course. If a candidate fails                  Standardized Bycatch Reporting
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES




                                                  written information to rebut the reasons                training, the candidate shall be notified              Methodology (SBRM) provisions
                                                  for removal from the list. Such rebuttal                in writing on or before the last day of                established in the following fishery
                                                  must be submitted within 30 days of                     training. The notification will indicate               management plans by the Standardized
                                                  notification received by the observer                   the reasons the candidate failed the                   Bycatch Reporting Methodology: An
                                                  service provider that the observer                      training. Observer training shall include              Omnibus Amendment to the Fishery
                                                  service provider is subject to removal                  an observer training trip, as part of the              Management Plans of the Mid-Atlantic
                                                  and must be accompanied by written                      observer’s training, aboard a fishing                  and New England Regional Fishery
                                                  evidence rebutting the basis for removal.               vessel with a trainer. A candidate                     Management Councils, completed


                                             VerDate Sep<11>2014   16:01 Jun 29, 2015   Jkt 235001   PO 00000   Frm 00059   Fmt 4700   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\30JNR1.SGM   30JNR1


                                                  37194              Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 125 / Tuesday, June 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

                                                  March 2015, also known as the SBRM                      to comment on the proposed                             within this list that require significant
                                                  Omnibus Amendment, by the New                           adjustment(s) at the first meeting and                 departures from previously
                                                  England Fishery Management Council,                     prior to and at the second MAFMC                       contemplated measures or that are
                                                  Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management                         meeting. The MAFMC’s                                   otherwise introducing new concepts
                                                  Council, National Marine Fisheries                      recommendations on adjustments or                      may require amendment of the FMP
                                                  Service Greater Atlantic Regional                       additions to management measures                       instead of a framework adjustment.
                                                  Fisheries Office, and National Marine                   must come from one or more of the                      *     *     *      *    *
                                                  Fisheries Service Northeast Fisheries                   following categories: Adjustments                      ■ 6. In § 648.41, revise paragraph (a) to
                                                  Science Center: Atlantic Bluefish;                      within existing ABC control rule levels;               read as follows:
                                                  Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and                           adjustments to the existing MAFMC risk
                                                  Butterfish; Atlantic Sea Scallop;                       policy; introduction of new AMs,                       § 648.41   Framework specifications.
                                                  Atlantic Surfclam and Ocean Quahog;                     including sub-ACTs; minimum fish size;                    (a) Within season management action.
                                                  Atlantic Herring; Atlantic Salmon;                      maximum fish size; gear restrictions;                  The New England Fishery Management
                                                  Deep-Sea Red Crab; Monkfish; Northeast                  gear requirements or prohibitions;                     Council (NEFMC) may, at any time,
                                                  Multispecies; Northeast Skate Complex;                  permitting restrictions; recreational                  initiate action to implement, add to or
                                                  Spiny Dogfish; Summer Flounder, Scup,                   possession limit; recreational seasons;                adjust Atlantic salmon management
                                                  and Black Sea Bass; and Tilefish. The                   closed areas; commercial seasons;                      measures to:
                                                  Director of the Federal Register                        commercial trip limits; commercial                        (1) Allow for Atlantic salmon
                                                  approves this incorporation by reference                quota system, including commercial                     aquaculture projects in the EEZ,
                                                  in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and                  quota allocation procedure and possible                provided such an action is consistent
                                                  1 CFR part 51. You may obtain a copy                    quota set-asides to mitigate bycatch;                  with the goals and objectives of the
                                                  of the SBRM Omnibus Amendment                           recreational harvest limit; annual                     Atlantic Salmon FMP; and
                                                  from the Greater Atlantic Regional                      specification quota setting process; FMP                  (2) Make changes to the SBRM,
                                                  Fisheries Office                                        Monitoring Committee composition and                   including the CV-based performance
                                                  (www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov,                process; description and identification                standard, the means by which discard
                                                  978–281–9300). You may inspect a copy                   of EFH (and fishing gear management                    data are collected/obtained, fishery
                                                  at the Greater Atlantic Regional                        measures that impact EFH); description                 stratification, the process for prioritizing
                                                  Fisheries Office, 55 Great Republic                     and identification of habitat areas of                 observer sea-day allocations, reports,
                                                  Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930 or at the                   particular concern; overfishing                        and/or industry-funded observers or
                                                  National Archives and Records                           definition and related thresholds and                  observer set aside programs.
                                                  Administration (NARA). For                              targets; regional gear restrictions;                   *      *     *     *    *
                                                  information on the availability of this                 regional season restrictions (including
                                                  material at NARA, call 202–741–6030,                                                                           ■ 7. In § 648.55, revise paragraphs
                                                                                                          option to split seasons); restrictions on              (f)(39) and (40), and add paragraph
                                                  or go to: www.archives.gov/federal_                     vessel size (LOA and GRT) or shaft
                                                  register/code_of_federal_regulations/                                                                          (f)(41) to read as follows:
                                                                                                          horsepower; changes to the SBRM,
                                                  ibr_locations.html.                                     including the CV-based performance                     § 648.55 Framework adjustments to
                                                  ■ 4. In § 648.22, add paragraph (c)(13) to              standard, the means by which discard                   management measures.
                                                  read as follows:                                        data are collected/obtained, fishery                   *     *     *      *    *
                                                  § 648.22 Atlantic mackerel, squid, and                  stratification, the process for prioritizing             (f) * * *
                                                  butterfish specifications.                              observer sea-day allocations, reports,                   (39) Adjusting EFH closed area
                                                  *      *     *     *    *                               and/or industry-funded observers or                    management boundaries or other
                                                     (c) * * *                                            observer set aside programs; any other                 associated measures;
                                                     (13) Changes, as appropriate, to the                 management measures currently                            (40) Changes to the SBRM, including
                                                  SBRM, including the coefficient of                      included in the FMP; set aside quota for               the CV-based performance standard, the
                                                  variation (CV) based performance                        scientific research; regional                          means by which discard data are
                                                  standard, the means by which discard                    management; process for inseason                       collected/obtained, fishery stratification,
                                                  data are collected/obtained, fishery                    adjustment to the annual specification;                the process for prioritizing observer sea-
                                                  stratification, the process for prioritizing            mortality caps for river herring and shad              day allocations, reports, and/or
                                                  observer sea-day allocations, reports,                  species; time/area management for river                industry-funded observers or observer
                                                  and/or industry-funded observers or                     herring and shad species; and                          set-aside programs; and
                                                  observer set aside programs.                            provisions for river herring and shad                    (41) Any other management measures
                                                                                                          incidental catch avoidance program,                    currently included in the FMP.
                                                  *      *     *     *    *
                                                                                                          including adjustments to the                           *     *     *      *    *
                                                  ■ 5. In § 648.25, revise paragraph (a)(1)
                                                                                                          mechanism and process for tracking                     ■ 8. In § 648.79, revise paragraph (a)(1)
                                                  to read as follows:                                     fleet activity, reporting incidental catch             to read as follows:
                                                  § 648.25 Atlantic Mackerel, squid, and                  events, compiling data, and notifying
                                                  butterfish framework adjustments to                     the fleet of changes to the area(s); the               § 648.79 Surfclam and ocean quahog
                                                  management measures.                                    definition/duration of ‘test tows,’ if test            framework adjustments to management
                                                    (a) * * *                                             tows would be utilized to determine the                measures.
                                                    (1) Adjustment process. The MAFMC                     extent of river herring incidental catch                 (a) * * *
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES




                                                  shall develop and analyze appropriate                   in a particular area(s); the threshold for               (1) Adjustment process. The MAFMC
                                                  management actions over the span of at                  river herring incidental catch that                    shall develop and analyze appropriate
                                                  least two MAFMC meetings. The                           would trigger the need for vessels to be               management actions over the span of at
                                                  MAFMC must provide the public with                      alerted and move out of the area(s); the               least two MAFMC meetings. The
                                                  advance notice of the availability of the               distance that vessels would be required                MAFMC must provide the public with
                                                  recommendation(s), appropriate                          to move from the area(s); and the time                 advance notice of the availability of the
                                                  justification(s) and economic and                       that vessels would be required to remain               recommendation(s), appropriate
                                                  biological analyses, and the opportunity                out of the area(s). Measures contained                 justification(s) and economic and


                                             VerDate Sep<11>2014   16:01 Jun 29, 2015   Jkt 235001   PO 00000   Frm 00060   Fmt 4700   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\30JNR1.SGM   30JNR1


                                                                     Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 125 / Tuesday, June 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations                                            37195

                                                  biological analyses, and the opportunity                goals and objectives, which may include                Conservation and Management
                                                  to comment on the proposed                              a preferred option. The PDT must                       Stewardship Plan; adjustments to the
                                                  adjustment(s) at the first meeting, and                 demonstrate through analyses and                       Handgear A or B permits; gear
                                                  prior to and at the second MAFMC                        documentation that the options they                    requirements to improve selectivity,
                                                  meeting. The MAFMC’s                                    develop are expected to meet the FMP                   reduce bycatch, and/or reduce impacts
                                                  recommendations on adjustments or                       goals and objectives. The PDT may                      of the fishery on EFH; SAP
                                                  additions to management measures                        review the performance of different user               modifications; revisions to the ABC
                                                  must come from one or more of the                       groups or fleet sectors in developing                  control rule and status determination
                                                  following categories: Adjustments                       options. The range of options developed                criteria, including, but not limited to,
                                                  within existing ABC control rule levels;                by the PDT may include any of the                      changes in the target fishing mortality
                                                  adjustments to the existing MAFMC risk                  management measures in the FMP,                        rates, minimum biomass thresholds,
                                                  policy; introduction of new AMs,                        including, but not limited to: ACLs,                   numerical estimates of parameter
                                                  including sub-ACTs; the overfishing                     which must be based on the projected                   values, and the use of a proxy for
                                                  definition (both the threshold and target               fishing mortality levels required to meet              biomass may be made either through a
                                                  levels); description and identification of              the goals and objectives outlined in the               biennial adjustment or framework
                                                  EFH (and fishing gear management                        FMP for the 12 regulated species and                   adjustment; changes to the SBRM,
                                                  measures that impact EFH); habitat                      ocean pout if able to be determined;                   including the CV-based performance
                                                  areas of particular concern; set-aside                  identifying and distributing ACLs and                  standard, the means by which discard
                                                  quota for scientific research; VMS; OY                  other sub-components of the ACLs                       data are collected/obtained, fishery
                                                  range; suspension or adjustment of the                  among various segments of the fishery;                 stratification, the process for prioritizing
                                                  surfclam minimum size limit; and                        AMs; DAS changes; possession limits;                   observer sea-day allocations, reports,
                                                  changes to the SBRM, including the CV-                  gear restrictions; closed areas;                       and/or industry-funded observers or
                                                  based performance standard, the means                   permitting restrictions; minimum fish                  observer set aside programs; and any
                                                  by which discard data are collected/                    sizes; recreational fishing measures;                  other measures currently included in
                                                  obtained, fishery stratification, the                   describing and identifying EFH; fishing                the FMP.
                                                  process for prioritizing observer sea-day               gear management measures to protect                    *       *    *     *    *
                                                  allocations, reports, and/or industry-                  EFH; designating habitat areas of                         (b) * * *
                                                  funded observers or observer set aside                  particular concern within EFH; and                        (1) * * *
                                                  programs. Issues that require significant               changes to the SBRM, including the CV-                    (ii) The Whiting PDT, after reviewing
                                                  departures from previously                              based performance standard, the means                  the available information on the status
                                                  contemplated measures or that are                       by which discard data are collected/                   of the stock and the fishery, may
                                                  otherwise introducing new concepts                      obtained, fishery stratification, the                  recommend to the Council any
                                                  may require an amendment of the FMP                     process for prioritizing observer sea-day              measures necessary to assure that the
                                                  instead of a framework adjustment.                      allocations, reports, and/or industry-                 specifications will not be exceeded;
                                                  *     *       *      *      *                           funded observers or observer set aside                 changes to the SBRM, including the CV-
                                                  ■ 9. In § 648.90, revise paragraphs                     programs. In addition, the following                   based performance standard, the means
                                                  (a)(2)(i), (a)(2)(iii), (b)(1)(ii), and (c)(1)(i)       conditions and measures may be                         by which discard data are collected/
                                                  and (ii) to read as follows:                            adjusted through future framework                      obtained, fishery stratification, the
                                                                                                          adjustments: Revisions to DAS                          process for prioritizing observer sea-day
                                                  § 648.90 NE multispecies assessment,                    measures, including DAS allocations                    allocations, reports, and/or industry-
                                                  framework procedures and specifications,                (such as the distribution of DAS among                 funded observers or observer set aside
                                                  and flexible area action system.                        the four categories of DAS), future uses               programs; as well as changes to the
                                                  *      *    *     *     *                               for Category C DAS, and DAS baselines,                 appropriate specifications.
                                                    (a) * * *                                             adjustments for steaming time, etc.;                   *       *    *     *    *
                                                    (2) Biennial review. (i) The NE                       modifications to capacity measures,                       (c) * * *
                                                  multispecies PDT shall meet on or                       such as changes to the DAS transfer or                    (1) * * *
                                                  before September 30 every other year to                 DAS leasing measures; calculation of                      (i) After a management action has
                                                  perform a review of the fishery, using                  area-specific ACLs, area management                    been initiated, the Council shall develop
                                                  the most current scientific information                 boundaries, and adoption of area-                      and analyze appropriate management
                                                  available provided primarily from the                   specific management measures; sector                   actions over the span of at least two
                                                  NEFSC. Data provided by states,                         allocation requirements and                            Council meetings. The Council shall
                                                  ASMFC, the USCG, and other sources                      specifications, including the                          provide the public with advance notice
                                                  may also be considered by the PDT.                      establishment of a new sector, the                     of the availability of both the proposals
                                                  Based on this review, the PDT will                      disapproval of an existing sector, the                 and the analyses and opportunity to
                                                  develop ACLs for the upcoming fishing                   allowable percent of ACL available to a                comment on them prior to and at the
                                                  year(s) as described in paragraph (a)(4)                sector through a sector allocation, and                second Council meeting. The Council’s
                                                  of this section and develop options for                 the calculation of PSCs; sector                        recommendation on adjustments or
                                                  consideration by the Council if                         administration provisions, including at-               additions to management measures,
                                                  necessary, on any changes, adjustments,                 sea and dockside monitoring measures;                  other than to address gear conflicts,
                                                  or additions to DAS allocations, closed                 sector reporting requirements; state-                  must come from one or more of the
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES




                                                  areas, or other measures necessary to                   operated permit bank administrative                    following categories: DAS changes;
                                                  rebuild overfished stocks and achieve                   provisions; measures to implement the                  effort monitoring; data reporting;
                                                  the FMP goals and objectives, including                 U.S./Canada Resource Sharing                           possession limits; gear restrictions;
                                                  changes to the SBRM.                                    Understanding, including any specified                 closed areas; permitting restrictions;
                                                  *      *    *     *     *                               TACs (hard or target); changes to                      crew limits; minimum fish sizes;
                                                    (iii) Based on this review, the PDT                   administrative measures; additional                    onboard observers; minimum hook size
                                                  shall recommend ACLs and develop                        uses for Regular B DAS; reporting                      and hook style; the use of crucifer in the
                                                  options necessary to achieve the FMP                    requirements; the GOM Inshore                          hook-gear fishery; sector requirements;


                                             VerDate Sep<11>2014   16:01 Jun 29, 2015   Jkt 235001   PO 00000   Frm 00061   Fmt 4700   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\30JNR1.SGM   30JNR1


                                                  37196              Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 125 / Tuesday, June 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

                                                  recreational fishing measures; area                        (ii) The range of options developed by              must come from one or more of the
                                                  closures and other appropriate measures                 the Councils may include any of the                    following categories: Adjustments
                                                  to mitigate marine mammal                               management measures in the Monkfish                    within existing ABC control rule levels;
                                                  entanglements and interactions;                         FMP, including, but not limited to:                    adjustments to the existing MAFMC risk
                                                  description and identification of EFH;                  ACTs; closed seasons or closed areas;                  policy; introduction of new AMs,
                                                  fishing gear management measures to                     minimum size limits; mesh size limits;                 including sub-ACTs; minimum fish size;
                                                  protect EFH; designation of habitat areas               net limits; liver-to-monkfish landings                 maximum fish size; gear restrictions;
                                                  of particular concern within EFH;                       ratios; annual monkfish DAS allocations                gear requirements or prohibitions;
                                                  changes to the SBRM, including the CV-                  and monitoring; trip or possession                     permitting restrictions; recreational
                                                  based performance standard, the means                   limits; blocks of time out of the fishery;             possession limit; recreational seasons;
                                                  by which discard data are collected/                    gear restrictions; transferability of                  closed areas; commercial seasons;
                                                  obtained, fishery stratification, the                   permits and permit rights or                           commercial trip limits; commercial
                                                  process for prioritizing observer sea-day               administration of vessel upgrades,                     quota system including commercial
                                                  allocations, reports, and/or industry-                  vessel replacement, or permit                          quota allocation procedure and possible
                                                  funded observers or observer set aside                  assignment; measures to minimize the                   quota set asides to mitigate bycatch;
                                                  programs; and any other management                      impact of the monkfish fishery on                      recreational harvest limit; specification
                                                  measures currently included in the                      protected species; gear requirements or                quota setting process; FMP Monitoring
                                                  FMP.                                                    restrictions that minimize bycatch or                  Committee composition and process;
                                                     (ii) The Council’s recommendation on                 bycatch mortality; transferable DAS                    description and identification of
                                                  adjustments or additions to management                  programs; changes to the SBRM,                         essential fish habitat (and fishing gear
                                                  measures pertaining to small-mesh NE                    including the CV-based performance                     management measures that impact
                                                  multispecies, other than to address gear                standard, the means by which discard                   EFH); description and identification of
                                                  conflicts, must come from one or more                   data are collected/obtained, fishery                   habitat areas of particular concern;
                                                  of the following categories: Quotas and                 stratification, the process for prioritizing           regional gear restrictions; regional
                                                  appropriate seasonal adjustments for                    observer sea-day allocations, reports,                 season restrictions (including option to
                                                  vessels fishing in experimental or                      and/or industry-funded observers or                    split seasons); restrictions on vessel size
                                                  exempted fisheries that use small mesh                  observer set aside programs; changes to                (LOA and GRT) or shaft horsepower;
                                                  in combination with a separator trawl/                  the Monkfish Research Set-Aside                        operator permits; changes to the SBRM,
                                                  grate (if applicable); modifications to                 Program; and other frameworkable                       including the CV-based performance
                                                  separator grate (if applicable) and mesh                measures included in §§ 648.55 and                     standard, the means by which discard
                                                  configurations for fishing for small-                   648.90.                                                data are collected/obtained, fishery
                                                  mesh NE multispecies; adjustments to                                                                           stratification, the process for prioritizing
                                                  whiting stock boundaries for                            *       *    *     *    *
                                                                                                                                                                 observer sea-day allocations, reports,
                                                  management purposes; adjustments for                    ■ 11. In § 648.102, add paragraph (a)(10)              and/or industry-funded observers or
                                                  fisheries exempted from minimum mesh                    to read as follows:                                    observer set aside programs; any other
                                                  requirements to fish for small-mesh NE                  § 648.102    Summer flounder specifications.           commercial or recreational management
                                                  multispecies (if applicable); season                                                                           measures; any other management
                                                  adjustments; declarations; participation                   (a) * * *
                                                                                                                                                                 measures currently included in the
                                                  requirements for any of the Gulf of                        (10) Changes, as appropriate, to the
                                                                                                                                                                 FMP; and set aside quota for scientific
                                                  Maine/Georges Bank small-mesh                           SBRM, including the CV-based
                                                                                                                                                                 research. Issues that require significant
                                                  multispecies exemption areas; OFL and                   performance standard, the means by
                                                                                                                                                                 departures from previously
                                                  ABC values; ACL, TAL, or TAL                            which discard data are collected/                      contemplated measures or that are
                                                  allocations, including the proportions                  obtained, fishery stratification, the                  otherwise introducing new concepts
                                                  used to allocate by season or area; small-              process for prioritizing observer sea-day              may require an amendment of the FMP
                                                  mesh multispecies possession limits,                    allocations, reports, and/or industry-                 instead of a framework adjustment.
                                                  including in-season AM possession                       funded observers or observer set aside
                                                                                                          programs.                                              *      *     *     *     *
                                                  limits; changes to reporting                                                                                   ■ 13. In § 648.122, add paragraph (a)(13)
                                                  requirements and methods to monitor                     *      *     *     *    *
                                                                                                                                                                 to read as follows:
                                                  the fishery; and biological reference                   ■ 12. In § 648.110, revise paragraph
                                                  points, including selected reference                    (a)(1) to read as follows:                             § 648.122   Scup specifications.
                                                  time series, survey strata used to                                                                                (a) * * *
                                                  calculate biomass, and the selected                     § 648.110 Summer flounder framework                       (13) Changes, as appropriate, to the
                                                  survey for status determination; and                    adjustments to management measures.
                                                                                                                                                                 SBRM, including the CV-based
                                                  changes to the SBRM, including the CV-                    (a) * * *                                            performance standard, the means by
                                                  based performance standard, the means                     (1) Adjustment process. The MAFMC                    which discard data are collected/
                                                  by which discard data are collected/                    shall develop and analyze appropriate                  obtained, fishery stratification, the
                                                  obtained, fishery stratification, the                   management actions over the span of at                 process for prioritizing observer sea-day
                                                  process for prioritizing observer sea-day               least two MAFMC meetings. The                          allocations, reports, and/or industry-
                                                  allocations, reports, and/or industry-                  MAFMC must provide the public with                     funded observers or observer set aside
                                                  funded observers or observer set aside                  advance notice of the availability of the              programs.
                                                  programs.                                               recommendation(s), appropriate                         *      *     *     *    *
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES




                                                  *       *     *    *      *                             justification(s) and economic and
                                                                                                                                                                 ■ 14. In § 648.130, revise paragraph
                                                                                                          biological analyses, and the opportunity
                                                  ■ 10. In § 648.96, revise paragraph                                                                            (a)(1) to read as follows:
                                                                                                          to comment on the proposed
                                                  (a)(3)(ii) to read as follows:
                                                                                                          adjustment(s) at the first meeting and                 § 648.130 Scup framework adjustments to
                                                  § 648.96 FMP review, specification, and                 prior to and at the second MAFMC                       management measures.
                                                  framework adjustment process.                           meeting. The MAFMC’s                                     (a) * * *
                                                     (a) * * *                                            recommendations on adjustments or                        (1) Adjustment process. The MAFMC
                                                     (3) * * *                                            additions to management measures                       shall develop and analyze appropriate


                                             VerDate Sep<11>2014   16:01 Jun 29, 2015   Jkt 235001   PO 00000   Frm 00062   Fmt 4700   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\30JNR1.SGM   30JNR1


                                                                     Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 125 / Tuesday, June 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations                                            37197

                                                  management actions over the span of at                  funded observers or observer set aside                 ■ 18. In § 648.200, revise the
                                                  least two MAFMC meetings. The                           programs.                                              introductory text of paragraph (b) to
                                                  MAFMC must provide the public with                      *     *     *    *     *                               read as follows:
                                                  advance notice of the availability of the               ■ 16. In § 648.162, add paragraph (a)(9)
                                                  recommendation(s), appropriate                                                                                 § 648.200   Specifications.
                                                                                                          to read as follows:
                                                  justification(s) and economic and                                                                              *      *    *     *     *
                                                  biological analyses, and the opportunity                § 648.162    Bluefish specifications.                     (b) Guidelines. As the basis for its
                                                  to comment on the proposed                                 (a) * * *                                           recommendations under paragraph (a)
                                                  adjustment(s) at the first meeting and                     (9) Changes, as appropriate, to the                 of this section, the PDT shall review
                                                  prior to and at the second MAFMC                        SBRM, including the CV-based                           available data pertaining to: Commercial
                                                  meeting. The MAFMC’s                                    performance standard, the means by                     and recreational catch data; current
                                                  recommendations on adjustments or                       which discard data are collected/                      estimates of fishing mortality; discards;
                                                  additions to management measures                        obtained, fishery stratification, the                  stock status; recent estimates of
                                                  must come from one or more of the                       process for prioritizing observer sea-day              recruitment; virtual population analysis
                                                  following categories: Adjustments                       allocations, reports, and/or industry-                 results and other estimates of stock size;
                                                  within existing ABC control rules;                      funded observers or observer set aside                 sea sampling and trawl survey data or,
                                                  adjustments to the existing MAFMC risk                  programs; and                                          if sea sampling data are unavailable,
                                                  policy; introduction of new AMs,                                                                               length frequency information from trawl
                                                                                                          *      *     *     *    *
                                                  including sub-ACTs; minimum fish size;                                                                         surveys; impact of other fisheries on
                                                                                                          ■ 17. In § 648.167, revise paragraph
                                                  maximum fish size; gear restrictions;                                                                          herring mortality; and any other
                                                                                                          (a)(1) to read as follows:                             relevant information. The specifications
                                                  gear restricted areas; gear requirements
                                                  or prohibitions; permitting restrictions;               § 648.167 Bluefish framework adjustment                recommended pursuant to paragraph (a)
                                                  recreational possession limits;                         to management measures.                                of this section must be consistent with
                                                  recreational seasons; closed areas;                        (a) * * *                                           the following:
                                                  commercial seasons; commercial trip                        (1) Adjustment process. After a                     *      *    *     *     *
                                                  limits; commercial quota system                         management action has been initiated,                  ■ 19. In § 648.206, add paragraph (b)(29)
                                                  including commercial quota allocation                   the MAFMC shall develop and analyze                    to read as follows:
                                                  procedure and possible quota set asides                 appropriate management actions over
                                                  to mitigate bycatch; recreational harvest               the span of at least two MAFMC                         § 648.206   Framework provisions.
                                                  limits; annual specification quota                      meetings. The MAFMC shall provide                      *      *    *    *      *
                                                  setting process; FMP Monitoring                         the public with advance notice of the                     (b) * * *
                                                  Committee composition and process;                      availability of both the proposals and                    (29) Changes, as appropriate, to the
                                                  description and identification of EFH                   the analysis and the opportunity to                    SBRM, including the CV-based
                                                  (and fishing gear management measures                   comment on them prior to and at the                    performance standard, the means by
                                                  that impact EFH); description and                       second MAFMC meeting. The MAFMC’s                      which discard data are collected/
                                                  identification of habitat areas of                      recommendation on adjustments or                       obtained, fishery stratification, the
                                                  particular concern; regional gear                       additions to management measures                       process for prioritizing observer sea-day
                                                  restrictions; regional season restrictions              must come from one or more of the                      allocations, reports, and/or industry-
                                                  (including option to split seasons);                    following categories: Adjustments                      funded observers or observer set aside
                                                  restrictions on vessel size (LOA and                    within existing ABC control rule levels;               programs;
                                                  GRT) or shaft horsepower; operator                      adjustments to the existing MAFMC risk                 *      *    *    *      *
                                                  permits; changes to the SBRM,                           policy; introduction of new AMs,                       ■ 20. In § 648.232, add paragraph (a)(6)
                                                  including the CV-based performance                      including sub-ACTs; minimum fish size;                 to read as follows:
                                                  standard, the means by which discard                    maximum fish size; gear restrictions;
                                                  data are collected/obtained, fishery                    gear requirements or prohibitions;                     § 648.232   Spiny dogfish specifications.
                                                  stratification, the process for prioritizing            permitting restrictions; recreational                     (a) * * *
                                                  observer sea-day allocations, reports,                  possession limit; recreational season;                    (6) Changes, as appropriate, to the
                                                  and/or industry-funded observers or                     closed areas; commercial season;                       SBRM, including the CV-based
                                                  observer set aside programs; any other                  description and identification of EFH;                 performance standard, the means by
                                                  commercial or recreational management                   fishing gear management measures to                    which discard data are collected/
                                                  measures; any other management                          protect EFH; designation of habitat areas              obtained, fishery stratification, the
                                                  measures currently included in the                      of particular concern within EFH;                      process for prioritizing observer sea-day
                                                  FMP; and set aside quota for scientific                 changes to the SBRM, including the CV-                 allocations, reports, and/or industry-
                                                  research.                                               based performance standard, the means                  funded observers or observer set aside
                                                  *      *     *     *    *                               by which discard data are collected/                   programs;
                                                                                                          obtained, fishery stratification, the                  *      *     *     *    *
                                                  ■ 15. In § 648.142, add paragraph (a)(12)               process for prioritizing observer sea-day
                                                  to read as follows:                                                                                            ■ 21. In § 648.239, revise paragraph
                                                                                                          allocations, reports, and/or industry-
                                                                                                                                                                 (a)(1) to read as follows:
                                                  § 648.142   Black sea bass specifications.              funded observers or observer set aside
                                                                                                          programs; and any other management                     § 648.239 Spiny dogfish framework
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES




                                                     (a) * * *                                            measures currently included in the                     adjustments to management measures.
                                                     (12) Changes, as appropriate, to the                 FMP. Measures that require significant                   (a) * * *
                                                  SBRM, including the CV-based                            departures from previously                               (1) Adjustment process. After the
                                                  performance standard, the means by                      contemplated measures or that are                      Councils initiate a management action,
                                                  which discard data are collected/                       otherwise introducing new concepts                     they shall develop and analyze
                                                  obtained, fishery stratification, the                   may require an amendment of the FMP                    appropriate management actions over
                                                  process for prioritizing observer sea-day               instead of a framework adjustment.                     the span of at least two Council
                                                  allocations, reports, and/or industry-                  *      *    *     *     *                              meetings. The Councils shall provide


                                             VerDate Sep<11>2014   16:01 Jun 29, 2015   Jkt 235001   PO 00000   Frm 00063   Fmt 4700   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\30JNR1.SGM   30JNR1


                                                  37198              Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 125 / Tuesday, June 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

                                                  the public with advance notice of the                      (1) The Red Crab PDT shall meet at                  recommendations. Documentation and
                                                  availability of both the proposals and                  least once annually during the                         analyses for the framework adjustment
                                                  the analysis for comment prior to, and                  intervening years between Stock                        shall be available at least 2 weeks before
                                                  at, the second Council meeting. The                     Assessment and Fishery Evaluation                      the final meeting.
                                                  Councils’ recommendation on                             (SAFE) Reports, described in paragraph                 *     *     *     *     *
                                                  adjustments or additions to management                  (b) of this section, to review the status              ■ 24. In § 648.292, revise paragraph (a)
                                                  measures must come from one or more                     of the stock and the fishery. Based on                 to read as follows:
                                                  of the following categories: Adjustments                such review, the PDT shall provide a
                                                  within existing ABC control rule levels;                report to the Council on any changes or                § 648.292   Tilefish specifications.
                                                  adjustments to the existing MAFMC risk                  new information about the red crab                     *      *    *     *     *
                                                  policy; introduction of new AMs,                        stock and/or fishery, and it shall                        (a) Annual specification process. The
                                                  including sub-ACTs; minimum fish size;                  recommend whether the specifications                   Tilefish Monitoring Committee shall
                                                  maximum fish size; gear requirements,                   for the upcoming year(s) need to be                    review the ABC recommendation of the
                                                  restrictions, or prohibitions (including,               modified. At a minimum, this review                    SSC, tilefish landings and discards
                                                  but not limited to, mesh size restrictions              shall include a review of at least the                 information, and any other relevant
                                                  and net limits); regional gear                          following data, if available: Commercial               available data to determine if the ACL,
                                                  restrictions; permitting restrictions, and              catch data; current estimates of fishing               ACT, or total allowable landings (TAL)
                                                  reporting requirements; recreational                    mortality and catch-per-unit-effort                    requires modification to respond to any
                                                  fishery measures (including possession                  (CPUE); discards; stock status; recent                 changes to the stock’s biological
                                                  and size limits and season and area                     estimates of recruitment; virtual                      reference points or to ensure that the
                                                  restrictions); commercial season and                    population analysis results and other                  rebuilding schedule is maintained. The
                                                  area restrictions; commercial trip or                   estimates of stock size; sea sampling,                 Monitoring Committee will consider
                                                  possession limits; fin weight to spiny                  port sampling, and survey data or, if sea              whether any additional management
                                                  dogfish landing weight restrictions;                    sampling data are unavailable, length                  measures or revisions to existing
                                                  onboard observer requirements;                          frequency information from port                        measures are necessary to ensure that
                                                  commercial quota system (including                      sampling and/or surveys; impact of                     the TAL will not be exceeded, including
                                                  commercial quota allocation procedures                  other fisheries on the mortality of red                changes, as appropriate, to the SBRM.
                                                  and possible quota set-asides to mitigate               crabs; and any other relevant                          Based on that review, the Monitoring
                                                  bycatch, conduct scientific research, or                information.                                           Committee will recommend ACL, ACT,
                                                  for other purposes); recreational harvest               *      *     *     *     *                             and TAL to the Tilefish Committee of
                                                  limit; annual quota specification                       ■ 23. In § 648.261, revise paragraph                   the MAFMC. Based on these
                                                  process; FMP Monitoring Committee                       (a)(1) to read as follows:                             recommendations and any public
                                                  composition and process; description                                                                           comment received, the Tilefish
                                                  and identification of essential fish                    § 648.261    Framework adjustment process.             Committee shall recommend to the
                                                  habitat; description and identification of                 (a) * * *                                           MAFMC the appropriate ACL, ACT,
                                                  habitat areas of particular concern;                       (1) In response to an annual review of              TAL, and other management measures
                                                  overfishing definition and related                      the status of the fishery or the resource              for a single fishing year or up to 3 years.
                                                  thresholds and targets; regional season                 by the Red Crab PDT, or at any other                   The MAFMC shall review these
                                                  restrictions (including option to split                 time, the Council may recommend                        recommendations and any public
                                                  seasons); restrictions on vessel size                   adjustments to any of the measures                     comments received, and recommend to
                                                  (length and GRT) or shaft horsepower;                   proposed by the Red Crab FMP,                          the Regional Administrator, at least 120
                                                  target quotas; measures to mitigate                     including the SBRM. The Red Crab                       days prior to the beginning of the next
                                                  marine mammal entanglements and                         Oversight Committee may request that                   fishing year, the appropriate ACL, ACT,
                                                  interactions; regional management;                      the Council initiate a framework                       TAL, the percentage of TAL allocated to
                                                  changes to the SBRM, including the CV-                  adjustment. Framework adjustments                      research quota, and any management
                                                  based performance standard, the means                   shall require one initial meeting (the                 measures to ensure that the TAL will
                                                  by which discard data are collected/                    agenda must include notification of the                not be exceeded, for the next fishing
                                                  obtained, fishery stratification, the                   impending proposal for a framework                     year, or up to 3 fishing years. The
                                                  process for prioritizing observer sea-day               adjustment) and one final Council                      MAFMC’s recommendations must
                                                  allocations, reports, and/or industry-                  meeting. After a management action has                 include supporting documentation, as
                                                  funded observers or observer set aside                  been initiated, the Council shall develop              appropriate, concerning the
                                                  programs; any other management                          and analyze appropriate management                     environmental and economic impacts of
                                                  measures currently included in the                      actions within the scope identified                    the recommendations. The Regional
                                                  Spiny Dogfish FMP; and measures to                      below. The Council may refer the                       Administrator shall review these
                                                  regulate aquaculture projects. Measures                 proposed adjustments to the Red Crab                   recommendations, and after such
                                                  that require significant departures from                Committee for further deliberation and                 review, NMFS will publish a proposed
                                                  previously contemplated measures or                     review. Upon receiving the                             rule in the Federal Register specifying
                                                  that are otherwise introducing new                      recommendations of the Oversight                       the annual ACL, ACT, TAL and any
                                                  concepts may require an amendment of                    Committee, the Council shall publish                   management measures to ensure that the
                                                  the FMP instead of a framework                          notice of its intent to take action and                TAL will not be exceeded for the
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES




                                                  adjustment.                                             provide the public with any relevant                   upcoming fishing year or years. After
                                                  *     *     *     *     *                               analyses and opportunity to comment                    considering public comments, NMFS
                                                                                                          on any possible actions. After receiving               will publish a final rule in the Federal
                                                  ■ 22. In § 648.260, revise paragraph                    public comment, the Council must take                  Register to implement the ACL, ACT,
                                                  (a)(1) to read as follows:                              action (to approve, modify, disapprove,                TAL and any management measures.
                                                                                                          or table) on the recommendation at the                 The previous year’s specifications will
                                                  § 648.260   Specifications.
                                                                                                          Council meeting following the meeting                  remain effective unless revised through
                                                      (a) * * *                                           at which it first received the                         the specification process and/or the


                                             VerDate Sep<11>2014   16:01 Jun 29, 2015   Jkt 235001   PO 00000   Frm 00064   Fmt 4700   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\30JNR1.SGM   30JNR1


                                                                     Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 125 / Tuesday, June 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations                                                37199

                                                  research quota process described in                     ■ 26. In § 648.320, revise paragraphs                  ■ 27. In § 648.321, revise paragraphs
                                                  paragraph (e) of this section. NMFS will                (a)(5)(ii) and (iii), and add paragraph                (b)(22) and (23), and add paragraph
                                                  issue notification in the Federal                       (a)(5)(iv) to read as follows:                         (b)(24) to read as follows:
                                                  Register if the previous year’s
                                                                                                          § 648.320 Skate FMP review and                         § 648.321   Framework adjustment process.
                                                  specifications will not be changed.                     monitoring.                                            *      *    *    *      *
                                                  *     *     *     *     *                                  (a) * * *                                              (b) * * *
                                                  ■ 25. In § 648.299, add paragraph                          (5) * * *
                                                                                                             (ii) In-season possession limit triggers               (22) Reduction of the baseline 25-
                                                  (a)(1)(xviii) to read as follows:                                                                              percent ACL–ACT buffer to less than 25
                                                                                                          for the wing and/or bait fisheries;
                                                  § 648.299 Tilefish framework                               (iii) Required adjustments to in-                   percent;
                                                  specifications.                                         season possession limit trigger                           (23) Changes to catch monitoring
                                                                                                          percentages or the ACL–ACT buffer,                     procedures; and
                                                     (a) * * *
                                                                                                          based on the accountability measures                      (24) Changes, as appropriate, to the
                                                     (1) * * *                                            specified at § 648.323; and                            SBRM, including the CV-based
                                                     (xviii) Changes, as appropriate, to the                 (iv) Changes, as appropriate, to the                performance standard, the means by
                                                  SBRM, including the CV-based                            SBRM, including the CV-based                           which discard data are collected/
                                                  performance standard, the means by                      performance standard, the means by                     obtained, fishery stratification, the
                                                  which discard data are collected/                       which discard data are collected/                      process for prioritizing observer sea-day
                                                  obtained, fishery stratification, the                   obtained, fishery stratification, the                  allocations, reports, and/or industry-
                                                  process for prioritizing observer sea-day               process for prioritizing observer sea-day              funded observers or observer set aside
                                                  allocations, reports, and/or industry-                  allocations, reports, and/or industry-                 programs.
                                                  funded observers or observer set aside                  funded observers or observer set aside                 *      *    *    *      *
                                                  programs;                                               programs.                                              [FR Doc. 2015–15619 Filed 6–29–15; 8:45 am]
                                                  *      *     *   *      *                               *       *    *     *    *                              BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES




                                             VerDate Sep<11>2014   16:01 Jun 29, 2015   Jkt 235001   PO 00000   Frm 00065   Fmt 4700   Sfmt 9990   E:\FR\FM\30JNR1.SGM   30JNR1



Document Created: 2018-02-22 11:17:24
Document Modified: 2018-02-22 11:17:24
CategoryRegulatory Information
CollectionFederal Register
sudoc ClassAE 2.7:
GS 4.107:
AE 2.106:
PublisherOffice of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration
SectionRules and Regulations
ActionFinal rule.
DatesThis rule is effective July 30, 2015. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of July 30, 2015.
ContactDouglas Potts, Fishery Policy Analyst, 978-281-9341.
FR Citation80 FR 37182 
RIN Number0648-BE50
CFR AssociatedFisheries; Fishing; Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements and Incorporation by Reference

2024 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR