Federal Register Vol. 80, No.45,

On December 17, 2014, DOE published a NOPR in the Federal Register (79 FR 75076) in which it proposed regulations under section 934 of EISA to establish a retrospective risk pooling program whereby, in the event of certain nuclear incidents, nuclear suppliers would pay for any contribution by the United States government to the international supplementary fund created by the CSC. The NOPR provided that written public comments were to be received by DOE no later than March 17, 2015. By letter dated January 28, 2015, DOE received a request from the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) for an extension of the public comment period to May 19, 2015, stating that the complexity of the NOPR requires extensive analysis on a number of issues such as the proposed reporting requirements, the potential impact of the two alternative methods of calculating the risk premium payment to a particular nuclear supplier and the nuclear industry as a whole, and clarification of key terms in the proposed rule.

On February 20, 2015, DOE held a public workshop on the proposed rulemaking (80 FR 4227). In advance of the public workshop, DOE solicited from the public questions or suggestions for topics to be addressed at the workshop in order to structure the discussion and enhance participation (80 FR 4228). DOE received extensive questions and topic suggestions from the Contractors International Group on Nuclear Liability (CIGNL) and NEI. The day-long workshop was attended by representatives of various nuclear industry organizations and other entities. The participants at the workshop raised a number of questions and expressed concerns regarding, among other things, the level of information and data available to DOE on the cost and burden of reporting requirements under the proposed rule, the nature and quantity of nuclear exports and the nuclear suppliers that export, and the allocation of risk and premium payments across and among nuclear suppliers. Thereafter, DOE received written requests from other participants at the public workshop echoing the NEI request for an extension of time for public comment given the complexity of the issues raised in the proposed rule and further described at the public meeting. All these entities requested an extension of the comment period to May 19, 2015, to allow sufficient time to review the proposed rule and formulate comments to the extent possible given available information.

DOE has considered the written extension requests noted above, along with the comments and information provided prior to and at the public meeting, and determined that the comment period on the NOPR should be extended to April 17, 2015, which provides, in total, a 120 day comment period.

DOE is especially interested in potential modifications to the proposals set forth in the NOPR, in light of the issues discussed at the workshop. These issues include: (1) The extent, if any, to which transactions prior to the effective date of the rule should be considered in the allocation formula; (2) the justification for capping the allocation assigned to a single entity; (3) the possibility of different caps for different types of suppliers; (4) the criteria for classifying a supplier as a small entity exempt from the allocation formula; (5) goods and services that pose no or de minimis risk of triggering the international supplementary fund; (6) alternative methodologies for evaluating risk, including examples of existing risk allocation mechanisms in the nuclear industry; and (7) potential modification to simplify, minimize and/or clarify the burden on industry.

In addition, DOE intends to conduct additional data and information gathering in response to and in consideration of statements in the written comments and at the public workshop. These statements suggest certain additional information should be obtained by DOE and is necessary for the public to comment on the NOPR. In response to these statements, DOE is requesting any entity that believes additional information is needed to provide detailed comments as to the specific information it believes is needed.

DOE is enumerating several general questions to assist DOE in its additional data gathering effort. The general questions for which DOE seeks comment are: (1) What data and information should be gathered on U.S. nuclear suppliers and their exports (for example, what entity should be considered the exporter (especially in situations where a supplier employs an entity to facilitate the export), should quantity, value and/or another factor be used to measure exports, and what time period should be used); (2) what data and information should be gathered on nuclear suppliers to inform reporting requirements (for example, what are the recordkeeping methods employed in the nuclear industry and what is currently reported to other government agencies); and (3) what data and information should be gathered on the allocation of risk across and among nuclear suppliers and nuclear supplier groups. Comments concerning additional information to be gathered will facilitate DOE's effort to obtain additional data and information to inform the proposed rulemaking and should be provided to DOE by April 17, 2015. DOE intends to make the additional data and information it obtains available for public review and comment, the date and timing of which will be announced in a subsequent Federal Register notice.

DOE will consider any comments received by midnight of April 17, 2015, and deems any comments received by that time to be timely submitted. To the extent commenters provide confidential business information, pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person submitting information he or she believes to be confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via email, postal mail, or hand delivery/courier two well-marked copies: One copy of the document marked “confidential” including all the information believed to be confidential, and one copy of the document marked “non-confidential” with the information believed to be confidential deleted. Submit these documents via email or on a CD, if feasible. DOE will make its own determination about the confidential status of the information and treat it according to its determination. Factors of interest to DOE when evaluating requests to treat submitted information as confidential include: (1) A description of the items; (2) whether and why such items are customarily treated as confidential within the industry; (3) whether the information is generally known by or available from other sources; (4) whether the information has previously been made available to others without obligation concerning its confidentiality; (5) an explanation of the competitive injury to the submitting person which would result from public disclosure; (6) when such information might lose its confidential character due to the passage of time; and (7) why disclosure of the information would be contrary to the public interest.

Comments Invited

Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.

Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA-2014-0969; Airspace Docket No. 14-ASO-20) and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management System (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the Internet athttp://www.regulations.gov.

Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2014-0969; Airspace Docket No. 14-ASO-20.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded from and comments submitted through http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays. An informal docket may also be examined between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays at the office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, room 350, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337.

Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRM's should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking, (202) 267-9677, to request a copy of Advisory circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking distribution System, which describes the application procedure.

This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.9Y, airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014. FAA Order 7400.9Y is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this proposed rule. FAA Order 7400.9Y lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

The FAA is considering an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to remove Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Franklin Wilkins Airport, Lexington, TN. The airport has been abandoned, therefore, the airspace is no longer necessary.

Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9Y, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore, (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This proposed rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This proposed regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would remove Class E airspace at Franklin Wilkins Airport, Lexington, TN.

This proposal would be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

Background

On January 8, 2015, the DOT and the FAA published an NPRM entitled “Slot Management and Transparency for LaGuardia Airport, John F. Kennedy International Airport, and Newark Liberty International Airport” (80 FR 1274). Comments regarding the proposal were to be received on or before April 8, 2015.

By letters posted to the public docket, Airlines for America and the International Air Transport Association, as well as the Airports Council International-North America, American Association of Airport Executives, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (Port Authority), and the Regional Plan Association, have requested that the comment period for the NPRM be extended for an additional 60 days up to and including June 8, 2015. In support of the extension request, the petitioners noted that the NPRM was lengthy and technical in nature, and included approximately 40 questions for comment, some of which require the public to analyze the impact of the provisions on operations at the affected airports and submit supporting data and analysis of the anticipated impacts.

While the DOT and the FAA concur with the petitioners' requests for an extension of the comment period for the NPRM, we are not persuaded that an additional 60 days is necessary to provide comment on this proposal. The DOT and the FAA find that providing an additional 30 days is sufficient for these petitioners to analyze the NPRM and provide meaningful comment.

Absent unusual circumstances, we do not anticipate any further extension of the comment period for this rulemaking.

The petitioners also requested that the FAA provide certain data and analysis referenced in the NPRM and the regulatory impact analysis (RIA) accompanying the rule. Specifically, the petitioners requested that the FAA provide all models, data and analysis, including the MITRE queuing models and the University of Maryland (UMD) Delay Model, as well as the raw data used in the model to forecast the impact of the changes as a result of the proposed use-or-lose requirement.

As described in the NPRM, MITRE Center for Advanced Aviation System Development (CAASD) Modeling and Analysis conducted a series of operational analyses and modeling for the FAA. In response to the petitioners' requests, the following documents have been placed in the docket for this rulemaking:

• Overview of MITRE Queuing Delay Model;

• Modeling reflecting Summer 2008 Orders Limiting Scheduled Operations at JFK and EWR;

• Additional Scheduled Operations Analysis for JFK and EWR;

• Airport Runway Capacity Analyses for JFK, LGA, and EWR;

• Operational Performance Analyses for JFK, LGA, and EWR; and

• Historical Unscheduled Traffic Counts at JFK, LGA, and EWR.

The FAA has also placed the UMD Delay Model and supporting data, as used in the RIA, in the docket for this rulemaking.

Additionally, the Port Authority requested slot utilization records including slot holder, operator, and terms of any slot lease and trade agreements in a form such as a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet or Microsoft Access database. The FAA does not track or maintain slot information in the form and manner as requested. The FAA also does not have information on the terms of slot leases or trade agreements, as the current Orders do not require carriers to submit terms to the FAA. Nonetheless, additional information to address this request has been placed in the docket, including information to help the public understand this proposal as well as information relied upon by the agency in developing the NPRM. This additional information includes:

• Slot allocation reports for summer and winter seasons from 2009-2012 (January and July) for JFK, LGA, and EWR.

• Uneven slot transfers at JFK, LGA, and EWR from 2009-2012 reflecting slots that were transferred between carriers on other than a one-for-one basis at the same airport. Transfers between carriers under unified market control, such as mainline and regional partners, are not included in the uneven transfer lists.

• Slot allocation reports for Mondays in August 2009 to reflect the analysis of scheduled and actual operations compared to allocated slots as discussed in the RIA.

• Scheduled flight information from FAA's Innovata data base for Mondays in August 2009. Slot usage information is submitted to the FAA in various formats by carriers to report their actual operations using an allocated slot. Under current practice, the FAA uses this information along with supporting FAA air traffic control and operational data to determine if the minimum usage requirement has been met by a particular operator. The FAA uses information on actual and planned flights, rather than carrier slot usage reports, for operational and historical trend analyses at slot controlled airports.1 Scheduled demand was compared to allocated slots, as discussed in the RIA. Information on published schedules for other dates is available from commercial and other sources outside the FAA.

By letter posted to the public docket on February 17, 2015, the National Air Transportation Association requested that the DOT and the FAA hold a public meeting to allow affected stakeholders to ask clarifying questions and discuss the NPRM. The DOT and the FAA have carefully considered this request.

In light of the comment period extension and additional information provided for review, analysis, and comment, the DOT and the FAA will not hold a public meeting at this time. We encourage all interested persons to submit detailed comments on the NPRM to the docket. All comments submitted to the docket will be considered by the agency in developing a final rule. The submission of comments to the public docket provides the most transparent means for all interested parties to participate at this stage in the rulemaking process.

In accordance with § 11.47(c) of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, the DOT and the FAA have reviewed the petitions for an extension of the comment period for the proposal. The petitioners have shown a substantive interest in the proposed rule and good cause for extending the comment period.

Accordingly, the comment period for the NPRM is extended until May 8, 2015.

The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. The agency also invites comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should submit only one time.

The FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, the DOT and the FAA will consider all comments received on or before the closing date for comments. We will also consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. The agency may change this proposal in light of the comments it receives.

Proprietary or Confidential Business Information: Do not file proprietary or confidential business information in the docket. Such information must be sent or delivered directly to the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document, and marked as proprietary or confidential. If submitting information on a disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM, and identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is proprietary or confidential.

Under 14 CFR 11.35(b), if the FAA is aware of proprietary information filed with a comment, the agency does not place it in the docket. It is held in a separate file to which the public does not have access, and the FAA places a note in the docket that it has received it. If the FAA receives a request to examine or copy this information, it treats it as any other request under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). The FAA processes such a request under the DOT procedures found in 49 CFR part 7.

An electronic copy of rulemaking documents may be obtained from the Internet by—

1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov);

2. Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies or

3. Accessing the Government Publishing Office's Web page at http://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/.

Copies may also be obtained by sending a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680. Commenters must identify the docket or notice number of this rulemaking.

All documents the FAA considered in developing this proposed rule, including economic analyses and technical reports, may be accessed from the Internet through the Federal eRulemaking Portal referenced in item (1) above.

Comments Invited

Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.

Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA-2015-0252; Airspace Docket No. 15-AEA-1) and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management System (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the Internet athttp://www.regulations.gov.

Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2015-0252; Airspace Docket No. 14-AEA-1.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded from and comments submitted through http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays. An informal docket may also be examined between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays at the office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, Room 350, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337. Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRM's should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking, (202) 267-9677, to request a copy of Advisory circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking distribution System, which describes the application procedure.

This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.9Y, airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014. FAA Order 7400.9Y is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this proposed rule. FAA Order 7400.9Y lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

The FAA is considering an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Hanover County Municipal Airport, Ashland, VA. Airspace reconfiguration to within a 7-mile radius of the airport is necessary to support new Standard Instrument Approach Procedures developed at Hanover County Municipal Airport, and for continued safety and management of IFR operations at the airport. The geographic coordinates of the airport would be adjusted to coincide with the FAAs aeronautical database.

Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9Y, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore, (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This proposed rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part, A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This proposed regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would amend Class E airspace at Hanover County Municipal Airport, Ashland, VA.

This proposal would be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

Comments Invited

Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.

Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA-2014-0970; Airspace Docket No. 14-ASO-18) and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management System (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the Internet athttp://www.regulations.gov.

Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2014-0970; Airspace Docket No. 14-ASO-18.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded from and comments submitted through http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays. An informal docket may also be examined between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays at the office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, Room 350, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337.

Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRM's should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking, (202) 267-9677, to request a copy of Advisory circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure.

This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014. FAA Order 7400.9Y is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this proposed rule. FAA Order 7400.9Y lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

The FAA is considering an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Weedon Field Airport, Eufaula, AL. Airspace reconfiguration to within a 7.3-mile radius of the airport is necessary due to the decommissioning of the Eufaula VORTAC and cancellation of the VOR approach, and for continued safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.

Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9Y, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore, (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This proposed rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part, A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This proposed regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would amend Class E airspace at Weedon Field Airport, Eufaula, AL.

This proposal would be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2013-0834; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-045-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD.

Airbus issued A330 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 4—Aging Systems Maintenance, Revision 04, dated August 27, 2013, and Airbus A330 ALS Part 4—Aging Systems Maintenance (ASM), Variation 4.1 and Variation 4.2, both dated July 23, 2014. This service information describes preventative maintenance requirements and associated airworthiness limitations applicable to aircraft systems susceptible to aging effects. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. This service information is reasonably available; see ADDRESSES for ways to access this service information.

On February 22, 2007, we issued AD 2007-05-12, Amendment 39-14973 (72 FR 10057, March 7, 2007), for certain Airbus Model A330, A340-200, and A340-300 series airplanes. AD 2007-05-12 requires inspecting to determine the part number of certain spoiler servo controls (SSCs) and replacing any affected SSC with a new SSC. AD 2007-05-12 resulted from a determination of a new load duty cycle defined by the manufacturer. We issued AD 2007-05-12 to prevent fatigue cracking of certain SSCs, which could result in hydraulic leakage and consequent loss of SSC function and loss of the associated hydraulic system. These conditions could affect all three hydraulic systems, which could result in reduced controllability of the airplane.

On August 26, 2009, we issued AD 2009-18-20, Amendment 39-16017 (74 FR 46313, September 9, 2009), for certain Airbus Model A330-300, A340-200, and A340-300 series airplanes. AD 2009-18-20 requires identification and modification of certain SSCs. AD 2009-18-20 resulted from a report of a failure of a SSC whose maintenance cover had ruptured due to pressure pulse fatigue. We issued AD 2009-18-20 to prevent the loss of a hydraulic system due to leakage; loss of three hydraulic systems could result in reduced controllability of the airplane.

On June 30, 2010, we issued AD 2010-15-02, Amendment 39-16368 (75 FR 42589, July 22, 2010), for certain Airbus Model A330-200 and -300 series airplanes, and A340-200, -300, -500, and -600 series airplanes. AD 2010-15-02 requires repetitive detailed visual inspections for corrosion and wear detection of the input gear boxes (IPGBs) and down drive shafts (DDSs) on the flap tracks on both wings, and corrective actions, as applicable. AD 2010-15-02 resulted from reports of corrosion and damage on the DDSs and IPGBs on the flap tracks. We issued AD 2010-15-02 to detect and correct corrosion and wear due to absence of grease in the spline interfaces which could cause DDS disconnection and result in a free movable flap surface, potentially leading to aircraft asymmetry or even flap detachment, and reduce the ability of the flightcrew to maintain the safe flight and landing of the airplane.

We issued an NPRM to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Airbus Model A330 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on November 7, 2013 (78 FR 66861).

The NPRM proposed to supersede AD 2003-14-11, Amendment 39-13230 (68 FR 41521, July 14, 2003); AD 2004-11-08, Amendment 39-13654 (69 FR 31874, June 8, 2004); AD 2004-13-25, Amendment 39-13707 (69 FR 41394, July 9, 2004); AD 2004-18-14, Amendment 39-13793 (69 FR 55326, September 14, 2004); AD 2008-06-07, Amendment 39-15419 (73 FR 13103, March 12, 2008; corrected April 15, 2008 (73 FR 20367)); and AD 2012-04-07, Amendment 39-16963 (77 FR 12989, March 5, 2012) to require actions intended to address the aging effects of aircraft systems. Such aging effects could change the characteristics of those systems, which, in isolation or in combination with one or more other specific failures or events, could result in failure of certain life limited parts, which could reduce the structural integrity of the airplane or reduce the controllability of the airplane.

Since we issued the NPRM (78 FR 66861, November 7, 2013), we received Airbus A330 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 4—Aging Systems Maintenance, Revision 04, dated August 27, 2013, and Airbus A330 ALS Part 4—Aging Systems Maintenance (ASM), Variation 4.1 and Variation 4.2, both dated July 23, 2014, which contain more restrictive maintenance requirements. We determined that more restrictive maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations are necessary and that Airbus Model A330-323 airplanes need to be added to the applicability of this AD in order to address the unsafe condition.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, also issued new EASA AD 2013-0268, dated November 7, 2013 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition on certain Airbus Model A330 series airplanes. EASA AD 2013-0268 supersedes and retains the requirements of four EASA ADs and requires accomplishment of the actions specified in Airbus A330 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 4—Aging Systems Maintenance, Revision 04, dated August 27, 2013. The MCAI states:

We have issued AD 2014-23-17, Amendment 18033 (79 FR 71304, December 2, 2014) for Airbus Model A340-211, -212, -213, -311, -312, -313, -541, and -642 airplanes. AD 2014-23-17 terminates the requirements of the following ADs for Airbus Model A340-211, -212, -213, -311, -312, -313, -541, and -642 airplanes.

• AD 2003-14-11, Amendment 39-13230 (68 FR 41521, July 14, 2003);

• AD 2004-11-08, Amendment 39-13654 (69 FR 31874, June 8, 2004);

• AD 2004-13-25, Amendment 39-13707 (69 FR 41394, July 9, 2004);

• AD 2004-18-14, Amendment 39-13793 (69 FR 55326, September 14, 2004);

• AD 2007-05-12, Amendment 39-14973 (72 FR 10057, March 7, 2007);

• AD 2008-06-07, Amendment 39-15419 (73 FR 13103, March 12, 2008; corrected April 15, 2008 (73 FR 20367));

• AD 2009-18-20, Amendment 39-16017 (74 FR 46313, September 9, 2009);

• AD 2010-15-02, Amendment 39-16368 (75 FR 42589, July 22, 2010); and

• AD 2012-04-07, Amendment 39-16963 (77 FR 12989, March 5, 2012).

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this proposed AD. We have considered the comment received on the NPRM (78 FR 66861, November 7, 2013) and the FAA's response to each comment.

Delta Airlines (Delta) requested that we add Airbus Model A330-323 airplanes to paragraph (c), “Applicability,” of the NPRM (78 FR 66861, November 7, 2013).

We agree. Airbus Model A330-323 airplanes were erroneously omitted from the applicability. We have revised the applicability of this proposed AD to add these airplanes.

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of these same type designs.

This proposed AD would retain none of the requirements of the following ADs:

• AD 2007-05-12, Amendment 39-14973 (72 FR 10057, March 7, 2007);

• AD 2009-18-20, Amendment 39-16017 (74 FR 46313, September 9, 2009); and

• AD 2010-15-02, Amendment 39-16368 (75 FR 42589, July 22, 2010).

This proposed AD would require implementation of certain maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations and adding Airbus Model A330-323 airplanes to the applicability. Certain changes described above expand the scope of the NPRM (78 FR 66861, November 7, 2013). As a result, we have determined that it is necessary to reopen the comment period to provide additional opportunity for the public to comment on this SNPRM.

This SNPRM proposes to incorporate Airbus A330 ALS Part 4—Aging Systems Maintenance, Revision 04, dated August 27, 2013, including the compliance times for the actions. However, the compliance times for certain initial actions are different from those specified in Airbus A330 ALS Part 4—Aging Systems Maintenance, Revision 04, dated August 27, 2013, because the actions and associated compliance times are required by AD 2009-18-20, Amendment 39-16017 (74 FR 46313, September 9, 2009). Therefore, the initial compliance time for these actions is relative to the effective date of the applicable superseded AD, as specified in paragraphs (h)(5), (h)(6), and (h)(7) of this SNPRM.

The MCAI specifies that if there are findings from the ALS inspection tasks, corrective actions must be accomplished in accordance with Airbus maintenance documentation. However, this AD does not include that requirement. Operators of U.S.-registered airplanes are required by general airworthiness and operational regulations to perform maintenance using methods that are acceptable to the FAA. We consider those methods to be adequate to address any corrective actions necessitated by the findings of ALS inspections required by this AD.

We estimate that this SNPRM affects 79 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate that it would take about 2 work-hours per product to comply with the new basic requirements of this SNPRM. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost $0 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this SNPRM on U.S. operators to be $13,430, or $170 per product.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

I. Background

In the Federal Register of December 18, 2014, FDA published a proposed rule to amend its labeling regulations for human prescription drugs and biological products to require that the prescribing information intended for health care professionals that is on or within the package from which the product is dispensed be distributed electronically and not in paper form, except as provided by the proposed rule. The proposed rule is intended to facilitate the distribution of updated prescribing information as new information becomes available and as changes in prescribing information are made. FDA is proposing the change to help ensure that the most current prescribing information will be available and readily accessible to health care professionals at the time of clinical decision making and dispensing. FDA provided a 90-day comment period (i.e., until March 18, 2015) for the proposed rule.

The Agency has received a request for a 60-day extension of the comment period for the proposed rule. The request conveyed concern that the current 90-day comment period does not allow sufficient time for entities and individuals who will be most affected by a final rule to examine and to comment upon the proposed rule. The request suggested that FDA would benefit by granting stakeholders sufficient time to develop their comments and to address as many relevant issues as possible.

FDA has considered the request and is extending the comment period for the proposed rule for 60 days, until May 18, 2015. The Agency believes that a 60-day extension allows adequate time for interested persons to submit comments without significantly delaying rulemaking on this important issue.

Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding the proposed rule to http://www.regulations.gov or written comments to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES). It is only necessary to send one set of comments. Identify comments with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, and will be posted to the docket at http://www.regulations.gov.

We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided.

If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online at http://www.regulations.gov, or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. If you submit a comment online, it will be considered received by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit the comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be considered as having been received by the Coast Guard when it is received at the Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.

To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number USCG-2015-0071 in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on “Submit a Comment” on the line associated with this rulemaking.

If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 81/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period and may change the rule based on your comments.

To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number USCG-2015-0071 in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays.

Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

We do not plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for one, using one of the methods specified under ADDRESSES. Please explain why you believe a public meeting would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.

The Coast Guard is proposing to establish this temporary moving safety zone on the waters of the Tampa Bay in Tampa, Florida during the 24 Mile Tampa Bay Marathon Swim. The race is scheduled to take place from 4 a.m. to 9 p.m. on April 25, 2015. This proposed rule is necessary to protect the safety of the participants, participant vessels, and the general public on the navigable waters of the United States during the event.

The legal basis for the proposed rule is the Coast Guard's authority to establish safety zones: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

The purpose of the proposed rule is to provide for the safety of life on navigable waters of the United States during the 24 Mile Tampa Bay Marathon Swim.

This proposed rule is to establish a temporary moving safety zone that will encompass certain waters of Tampa Bay in Tampa, Florida. The proposed safety zone will be enforced from 4 a.m. to 9 p.m. on April 25, 2015. The safety zone will establish a moving protective area around all swimmers involved in the race. Persons and vessels, except those participating in the event, will be prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg or a designated representative.

Persons and vessels may request authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the enforcement areas by contacting the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg by telephone at (727) 824-7506, or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16. If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the enforcement areas is granted by the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg or a designated representative.

We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes or executive orders.

This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders.

The economic impact of this proposed rule is not significant for the following reasons: (1) The temporary moving safety zone would be enforced for 17 hours; (2) although persons and vessels are prohibited to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the enforcement areas without authorization from the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg or a designated representative, they may operate in the surrounding area during the enforcement period; (3) persons and vessels may still enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the enforcement areas during the enforcement period if authorized by the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg or a designated representative; and (4) the Coast Guard would provide advance notification of the safety zone to the local maritime community by Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners and/or on-scene designated representatives.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered the impact of this proposed rule on small entities. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

This proposed rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.).

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places or vessels.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

This proposed rule would not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.

This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.

This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

This proposed rule is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. A preliminary environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

Table of Acronyms DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking A. Public Participation and Request for Comments

We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided.

If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online at http://www.regulations.gov, or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. If you submit a comment online, it will be considered received by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit the comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be considered as having been received by the Coast Guard when it is received at the Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.

To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number USCG-2015-0093 in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on “Submit a Comment” on the line associated with this rulemaking.

If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 81/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period and may change the rule based on your comments.

To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number USCG-2015-0093 in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays.

Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

We do not plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for one, using one of the methods specified under ADDRESSES. Please explain why you believe a public meeting would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.

The Coast Guard is proposing to establish this temporary moving safety zone on the waters of the Tampa Bay in Tampa, Florida during the Swim Around Lido Key. The race is scheduled to take place from 8 a.m. to 2 p.m. on April 12, 2015. This proposed rule is necessary to protect the safety of the participants, participant vessels, and the general public on the navigable waters of the United States during the event.

The legal basis for the proposed rule is the Coast Guard's authority to establish safety zones: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

The purpose of the proposed rule is to provide for the safety of life on navigable waters of the United States during the Swim Around Lido Key.

This proposed rule is to establish a temporary moving safety zone that will encompass certain waters of Tampa Bay in Tampa, Florida. The proposed safety zone will be enforced from 8 a.m. to 2 p.m. on April 12, 2015. The safety zone will establish a moving protective area around all swimmers involved in the race. Persons and vessels, except those participating in the event, will be prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg or a designated representative.

Persons and vessels may request authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the enforcement areas by contacting the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg by telephone at (727) 824-7506, or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16. If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the enforcement areas is granted by the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg or a designated representative.

We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes or executive orders.

This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders.

The economic impact of this proposed rule is not significant for the following reasons: (1) The temporary moving safety zone would be enforced for 6 hours; (2) although persons and vessels are prohibited to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the enforcement areas without authorization from the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg or a designated representative, they may operate in the surrounding area during the enforcement period; (3) persons and vessels may still enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the enforcement areas during the enforcement period if authorized by the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg or a designated representative; and (4) the Coast Guard would provide advance notification of the safety zone to the local maritime community by Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners and/or on-scene designated representatives.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered the impact of this proposed rule on small entities. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

This proposed rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.).

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places or vessels.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

This proposed rule would not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.

This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.

This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

This proposed rule is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. A preliminary environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

Invitation to Comment: We invite you to submit comments regarding this proposed waiver and extension. During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public comments about this proposed waiver and extension of the project period in room 4057, PCP, 550 12th Street SW., Washington, DC, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, Monday through Friday of each week, except Federal holidays.

Assistance to Individuals with Disabilities in Reviewing the Rulemaking Record: On request, we will provide an appropriate accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability who needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the public rulemaking record for this notice. If you want to schedule an appointment for this type of aid, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

On May 3, 2010, the Department of Education (Department) published in the Federal Register (75 FR 23254) a notice inviting applications (2010 NIA) for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2010 for up to 10 CPRCs. The CPRCs were funded under the Parent Training and Information (PTI) Program, authorized under sections 672 and 673 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).

The purpose of CPRCs is to provide underserved parents of children with disabilities in targeted communities—including low-income parents, parents of limited English proficient children, and parents with disabilities—with the training and information they need to enable them to participate cooperatively and effectively in helping their children with disabilities to—

(1) Meet developmental and functional goals, as well as challenging academic achievement standards that have been established for all children; and

(2) Be prepared to lead the most productive, independent adult lives possible.

The CPRCs provide training and information to parents of infants, toddlers, and children, from birth through age 26, with the full range of disabilities described in section 602(3) of IDEA by: (a) Responding to individual requests for information and support from parents of children with disabilities, including parents of children who may be inappropriately identified in their targeted communities; (b) providing training to parents of children with disabilities; (c) supporting parents of children with disabilities, as needed, such as helping them to prepare for individualized education program or individualized family service plan meetings; and (d) maintaining a Web site and social media presence, as appropriate, to inform parents in their targeted communities of appropriate resources.

Based on the selection criteria published in the 2010 NIA, the Department made awards for a period of 60 months to 10 organizations, nine of which have received FY 2014 continuation funding: Fiesta Educativa in California; Parent to Parent of Miami, Inc. in Florida; Agenda for Children/Pyramid Parent Training in Louisiana; Urban PRIDE in Massachusetts; SPEAKS Education, Inc. in Michigan; Education for Parents of Indian Children with Special Needs (EPICS) in New Mexico; Palau Parents Empowered in Palau; Philadelphia HUNE, Inc. in Pennsylvania; and Disabilities Information Coalition in Texas.

The 2010 CPRC cohort's current project period is scheduled to end on September 30, 2015. We do not believe that it would be in the public interest to run a competition for new CPRCs this year because the Department is in the process of changing the competition schedule for the PTI Program to make better use of Department resources. Under the proposed CPRC competition schedule, instead of holding three competitions over five years, each for 10 CPRCs, we would hold one competition for 30 CPRCs for a project period of up to five years. We propose to fund 30 CPRCs in FY 2016. We also have concluded that it would be contrary to the public interest to provide services to fewer underserved families in order to change the Department's competition schedule.

For these reasons, the Secretary proposes to waive the requirements in 34 CFR 75.250, which prohibit project periods exceeding five years, as well as the requirements in 34 CFR 75.261(a) and (c)(2), which allow the extension of a project period only if the extension does not involve the obligation of additional Federal funds. The waiver would allow the Department to issue FY 2015 continuation awards of $100,000 to each of the nine centers in the FY 2010 cohort.

Any activities carried out during the year of this continuation award would have to be consistent with, or a logical extension of, the scope, goals, and objectives of the grantee's application as approved in the FY 2010 CPRC competition.

If the proposed waiver and extension of the project period are announced in a final notice in the Federal Register, the requirements applicable to continuation awards for this competition set forth in the 2010 NIA and the requirements in 34 CFR 75.253 would apply to any continuation awards sought by the current CPRC grantees. We will base our decisions regarding continuation awards on the program narratives, budgets, budget narratives, and program performance reports submitted by the current grantees, and the requirements in 34 CFR 75.253.

The Department certifies that the proposed waiver and extension of the project period would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The only entities that would be affected by the proposed waiver and extension of the project period are the current grantees receiving Federal funds and any other potential applicants.

The Secretary certifies that the proposed waiver and extension would not have a significant economic impact on these entities because the extension of an existing project period imposes minimal compliance costs, and the activities required to support the additional year of funding would not impose additional regulatory burdens or require unnecessary Federal supervision.

This notice of proposed waiver and extension of the project period does not contain any information collection requirements.

This program is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the objectives of the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive order relies on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination and review of proposed Federal financial assistance. This document provides early notification of our specific plans and actions for this program.

Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free Internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System at: www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register, in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.

You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at: www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is committed to a regulatory strategy that effectively achieves the Agency's mission of protecting the environment and the health, welfare, and safety of Americans while also supporting economic growth, job creation, competitiveness, and innovation.

Recognizing the importance of reducing unnecessary red tape—especially for America's small businesses—with Executive Orders 13563 and 13610 President Obama launched a historic review of existing rules to eliminate, streamline or update those that no longer make sense in their current form. This effort is on track to produce completed actions that will reduce nearly $20 billion in regulatory costs in the near term.

As part of this review, in August 2011 the agency issued its Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews of Existing Regulations (http://www.epa.gov/regdarrt/). This Plan was developed after extensive public outreach that sought input on an agency plan for retrospective review, as well as on possible reforms to modify, streamline, expand or repeal existing regulations. That outreach included 20 public meetings, town halls, and Webinars with over 600 participants. Since 2011, the EPA has maintained an open comment docket for public feedback on the existing Plan for Periodic Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations and the subsequent progress reports. To date, we have completed 21 of our original 35 retrospective reviews. We added five new reviews in July 2014.

The EPA views this review process as an ongoing exercise and is seeking further public input to ensure our regulations continue to maximize net social benefit. The focus of this new request for input is on how the agency can promote regulatory modernization through business-process streamlining facilitated by improved technology. We specifically solicit comments on the following questions:

Which regulations, including economically significant rules, could be transitioned from paper to electronic reporting?

How can the EPA reduce duplicative reporting requirements in existing regulations that may overlap other federal requirements?

How can the EPA streamline or consolidate reporting requirements to reduce burden?

Which regulations could benefit from the use of existing shared services (such as the Substance Registry System) or new shared services?

Should the EPA create a joint registry of regulated facilities with states and tribes to streamline electronic reporting to multiple programs and maximize burden reduction?

Which regulations could be improved through the use of advance monitoring techniques or the development of mobile applications to facilitate environmental protection?

Which regulations could be amended to reduce the frequency of reporting while maintaining effective programs?

Is the same information being collected in multiple places, either across different regulations, or across different levels of government (Federal, State, Tribal, and local)?

We request that commenters be as specific as possible, include any supporting data or other information, and provide a citation when referencing a specific regulation. In addition, in drafting comments, bear in mind that the EPA must uphold both its legal obligations under governing statutes and its mission to protect human health and the environment; and that the EPA's retrospective review will be tailored to reflect its resources, rulemaking schedule, and workload.

Additionally, the EPA published a notice on January 26, 2015 seeking comment on the development of an online portal to serve as a consolidated entry point for providing information, tools and streamlined interactions with the EPA by the public and regulated entities (80 FR 3962). Commenters may wish to review this notice and consider how such a portal could be used while considering regulations that the EPA should include in its review.

The EPA is accepting comments until April 8, 2015. Although the agency will not respond to individual comments, the EPA values and will give careful consideration to all input that it receives. Please see http://www.epa.gov/regdarrt/retrospective/history.html for additional information and updates.

For further information, please see the information provided in the direct final action, with the same title, that is located in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this Federal Register publication. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

I. Background

On August 23, 2010 the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) submitted a revision to the Allegheny County portion of the Pennsylvania State Implementation Plan. This SIP submission contains revisions to ACHD's regulations under Article XXI section 2102.10, entitled “Installation Permit Application and Administration Fees”; and section 2105.50, entitled “Open Burning and Administration Fees.”

The revisions to sections 2102.10 and 2105.50 under Article XXI consist of: (1) Deleting the fixed monetary amounts for permit fees provided for in both sections; (2) adding language in both sections stating that the amount of the given fee shall be set by the Board of Health, and approved by Allegheny County Council; and 3) adding language in section 2102.10 establishing fees by factoring in the degree of technical and regulatory difficulty in establishing fees for each category of installation permit. These categories include: (1) Any source requiring a Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit; (2) an installation permit for a source for which ACHD is required to establish a maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standard for such source; (3) any source requiring an installation permit and subject to section 2102.06 involving new major sources and major modifications locating in or impacting a non-attainment area; (4) any source requiring an installation permit and subject to existing standards, such as: the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) or the MACT standard; (5) any source requiring an installation permit but not subject to any of the previous requirements; and (6) for all applications to use general installation permits.

EPA review of this material submitted on August 30, 2010 determined that the rule changes have gone through the appropriate state procedures and that the revised regulations satisfy the requirements laid out in the CAA at section 110(a)(2)(L)(i) and (ii) which requires SIPs to include fees sufficient to cover the reasonable costs of reviewing and acting upon any application for a permit required by the CAA, and (if the owner or operator receives a permit for such source) the reasonable costs of implementing and enforcing the terms and conditions of any such permit. Therefore EPA is proposing to approve this PADEP SIP revision containing revisions to the installation permit application and administration fees and open burning and administration fees requirements under ACHD Rules and Regulations, Article XXI.

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:

• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);

• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);

• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);

• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);

• does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

• is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and

• does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, EPA's proposal to approve changes to ACHD regulations pertaining to establishing installation permit application and administration fees does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

Background on the IATTC

The United States is a member of the IATTC, which was established under the 1949 Convention for the Establishment of an Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission. The full text of the 1949 Convention is available at: http://www.iattc.org/PDFFiles/IATTC_convention_1949.pdf.

The IATTC facilitates scientific research into, as well as conservation and management of, highly migratory species of fish in the IATTC Convention Area (defined as the waters of the eastern Pacific Ocean (EPO)). Since 1998, conservation resolutions adopted by the IATTC have further defined the Convention Area as the area bounded by the coast of the Americas, the 50° N. and 50° S. parallels, and the 150° W. meridian. The IATTC has maintained a scientific research and fishery monitoring program for many years, and regularly assesses the status of tuna and billfish stocks in the EPO to determine appropriate catch limits and other measures deemed necessary to prevent overexploitation of these stocks and to promote sustainable fisheries. The IATTC currently consists of 21 member nations and four cooperating non-member nations.

As a Contracting Party to the 1949 Convention and a member of the IATTC, the United States is legally bound to implement IATTC resolutions. The Tuna Conventions Act (16 U.S.C. 951-962) directs the Secretary of Commerce, after approval by the Secretary of State, to promulgate such regulations as may be necessary to implement resolutions adopted by the IATTC. The Secretary's authority to promulgate such regulations has been delegated to NMFS.

Recognizing the need to reduce fishing mortality of Pacific bluefin tuna (Thunnus orientalis), the IATTC has adopted catch limits for Pacific bluefin tuna in the Convention Area since 2012. In 2011, NMFS determined overfishing was occurring on Pacific bluefin tuna (76 FR 28422, May 17, 2011), which is considered a single Pacific-wide stock. Based on the results of a 2012 stock assessment conducted by the International Scientific Committee for Tuna and Tuna-like Species in the North Pacific Ocean (ISC), NMFS determined Pacific bluefin tuna was not only experiencing overfishing, but was also overfished (78 FR 41033, July 9, 2013). NMFS implemented the previous resolutions (Resolutions C-12-09 and C-13-02) to establish catch limits for the United States via rulemaking in 2013 (78 FR 33240, June 4, 2013) and 2014 (79 FR 28452, May 16, 2014). At its resumed 87th Meeting in October 2014, the IATTC adopted Resolution C-14-06, “Measures for the Conservation and Management of Bluefin Tuna in the Eastern Pacific Ocean, 2015-2016.” The resolution, and subject of this rulemaking, was approved by the Secretary of State thereby prompting implementation by NMFS. Resolution C-14-06 reaffirms “. . . that it is necessary to adopt . . . measures to reduce the fishing mortality of Pacific bluefin tuna . . . to contribute to the rebuilding of the stock” and follows the IATTC scientific staff recommendations for a 20 to 45 percent reduction in catch.

In 2014, the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC), which has purview over the management of highly migratory fish stocks in the western and central Pacific Ocean, also adopted a conservation and management measure for Pacific bluefin tuna, to decrease the level of fishing mortality (CMM 2014-04). Future conservation measures adopted by the IATTC and WCPFC for Pacific bluefin tuna are expected to be based, in part, on information and advice from the ISC, which intends to complete an updated stock assessment in 2016.

The main objective of Resolution C-14-06 is to reduce overfishing and to conserve and rebuild the Pacific bluefin tuna stock by setting limits on the commercial catch of Pacific bluefin tuna in the Convention Area for 2015 and 2016. C-14-06 establishes a catch limit for 2015 and 2016 combined of 600 metric tons (mt) for commercial vessels of each member or cooperating non-member (collectively known as CPCs), except Mexico, with a historical record of Pacific bluefin tuna catch from the EPO (such as the United States). For the United States, as well as any other CPC with a historical record of Pacific bluefin tuna catch in the EPO, the catch limit for both years combined would be 600 mt and is not to exceed 425 mt in a single year. Additionally, if U.S. commercial Pacific bluefin tuna catch in the Convention Area exceeds 300 mt in 2015, then the 2016 U.S. catch limit may not exceed 200 mt, which could result in a total combined catch for both years that is less than 600 mt.

Resolution C-14-06 differs from prior IATTC resolutions on the conservation and management of Pacific bluefin tuna. As with prior resolutions, the current resolution establishes a Commission-wide catch limit applicable to all CPCs collectively and throughout the Convention Area; however, the individual CPC catch limits (as described above) count toward the Commission-wide limit. Under previous resolutions, the individual CPC limits were separate from the Commission-wide limit; specifically, the United States had the opportunity to catch the individual CPC limit as a minimum while also having access to the Commission-wide limit. Under Resolution C-14-06, the United States may not fish more than the individual CPC catch limit, as described above. Furthermore, since 2012, the annual CPC limit has been 500 mt. Under C-14-06, the individual CPC limit would be approximately 600 mt over 2 years, as described above.

At its November 2014 meeting, the Pacific Fishery Management Council recommended that two trip limits be included in the rule to implement the annual catch limits in accordance with the resolution: (1) An initial 20 mt trip limit until catch is within 50 mt of the annual catch limit, and (2) a 2 mt trip limit that would be imposed when the cumulative catch for the year is within 50 mt of the annual catch limit. The trip limits are intended to enhance the effectiveness of inseason management such that the fishery is more likely to have access to the maximum catch limit for 2015 and 2016 (i.e., 600 mt). The monitoring of trip limits will assist managers and industry with staying informed on current catch levels as well as to ensure that the fishery is not closed prematurely. Furthermore, the trip limits may help alleviate derby-style fishing pressure and the potential for excess supply of Pacific bluefin tuna over short periods of time. This excess supply could drive down prices, while depriving consumers of Pacific bluefin tuna at other times. The 2 mt trip limit would be intended to prevent large-scale targeting of Pacific bluefin tuna, while allowing the retention of Pacific bluefin tuna that is harvested incidentally by fishermen targeting other species. This would reduce the likelihood of wasteful discards in non-directed fisheries (e.g., from drift gillnet, hook-and-line), which typically land less than 2 mt per trip.

Annual and trip catch limits have been used in past management of this fishery. In 2014, NMFS closed the commercial fishery to U.S. vessels in 2014 (79 FR 53631, September 10, 2014) to avoid exceeding the annual catch limit of 500 mt; preliminary landings data, which is used to estimate catch, indicated catch was 454 mt. However, updated landings data revealed that U.S. catch was 403.5 mt; therefore, NMFS re-opened the fishery with a 1 mt trip limit with the intent to reduce the likelihood of wasteful discards in non-directed fisheries (e.g., from drift gillnet, hook-and-line) (79 FR 68133, November 14, 2014).

While Pacific bluefin tuna catch by U.S. commercial vessels fishing in the Convention Area exceeded 1,000 mt per year in the early 1990s, annual catches have remained below 500 mt for more than a decade. The U.S. commercial catch of Pacific bluefin tuna in the Convention Area for the years 1999 to 2014 can be found in Table 1 below. The average annual Pacific bluefin tuna landed catch by U.S. commercial vessels fishing in the Convention Area from 2010 to 2014 represents only two percent of the average annual landings for all fleets fishing in the Convention Area during that period (for information on Pacific bluefin tuna harvests in the Convention Area through 2013, see: http://isc.ac.affrc.go.jp/pdf/ISC14pdf/ISC14_Plenary_Report_draft%20cleared%20140721-2_2Sept14_sms_forpostingonweb.pdf; for preliminary information on Pacific bluefin tuna harvest in the Convention Area in 2014, see http://www.iattc.org/MonthlyReports/2014/201410MonthlyRpt.pdf).

This proposed rule would establish annual and trip catch limits for U.S. commercial vessels that catch Pacific bluefin tuna in the Convention Area for 2015 and 2016 (Table 2). A trip limit is proposed to be defined as the total allowable amount of a species by weight of fish that may be retained on board, transshipped, or landed during a single fishing trip by a vessel that harvests tuna or tuna-like species. In 2015, an annual catch limit for the entire U.S. fleet of 425 mt with an initial trip limit of 20 mt per vessel would be imposed. When NMFS anticipates that total catch for the fleet has reached 375 mt, NMFS will announce that a 2 mt trip limit for each vessel will be in effect until the total catch for the year reaches 425 mt. In 2016, the annual catch limit will be announced in a Federal Register notice and calculated to correspond with the limits established in the resolution (i.e., not to exceed 425 mt in a year and if catch exceeds 300 mt in 2015, then catch will be limited to 200 mt in 2016). The 2016 annual catch limit will be calculated as the remainder from 2015 (i.e., how much of 425 mt was not caught) added to 175 mt, except as follows: (1) If 175 mt or less is caught in 2015, then the 2016 annual catch limit is 425 mt; (2) if greater than 300 mt and up to 400 mt are caught in 2015, then the annual catch limit in 2016 will be 200 mt; or (3) if greater than 425 mt is caught in 2015, then the annual catch limit in 2016 will be further reduced by the amount in excess of 425 mt (i.e., the remainder of the 600 mt limit for 2015-2016). The fishery in 2016 will also be subject to an initial 20 mt trip limit until catch is within 50 mt of the 2016 annual catch limit, after which a 2 mt trip limit will be imposed.

When NMFS determines that the annual catch limit is expected to be reached in 2015 or 2016 (based on landings receipts, data submitted in logbooks, and other available fishery information), NMFS will prohibit commercial fishing for, or retention of, Pacific bluefin tuna for the remainder of the calendar year. NMFS would publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing that the targeting, retaining, transshipping or landing for Pacific bluefin tuna will be prohibited on a specified effective date through the end of that calendar year. Upon that effective date, a commercial fishing vessel of the United States may not be used to target, retain on board, transship, or land Pacific bluefin tuna captured in the Convention Area during the period specified in the announcement, with the exception that any Pacific bluefin tuna already on board a fishing vessel on the effective date may be retained on board, transshipped, and/or landed, to the extent authorized by applicable laws and regulations, provided that they are landed within 14 days after the effective date.

NMFS would provide updates on Pacific bluefin tuna catches in the Convention Area to the public via the IATTC listserv and the West Coast Region Web site: http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/fisheries/migratory_species/bluefin_tuna_harvest_status.html. Additionally, NMFS would report preliminary estimates of Pacific bluefin tuna catch between monthly intervals if and when catches approach the limits to help participants in the U.S. commercial fishery plan for the possibility of the annual catch limit being reached. NMFS will notify industry when catch approaches 250 mt in 2015.

In 2015, NMFS would publish up to two Federal Register notices after the final rule is issued, imposing inseason management measures. First, NMFS would publish a notice when the commercial 2 mt trip limit is imposed (i.e., catch is expected to reach 375 mt). Second, NMFS would publish a notice closing the entire commercial fishery completely when NMFS determines that the annual catch limit is expected to be met.

In 2016, NMFS would publish up to three notices in the Federal Register. The first notice would announce the 2016 annual catch limit. A second notice would announce the 2 mt trip limit, when NMFS determines that the commercial catch is expected to be within 50 mt of the annual catch limit. NMFS would publish a third notice in the Federal Register when NMFS determines that the annual catch limit is expected to be reached.

The NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the Tuna Conventions Act and other applicable laws.

This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

Additionally, although there are no new collection-of-information requirements associated with this action that are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act, existing collection-of-information requirements associated with the Fishery Management Plan for U.S. West Coast Fisheries for Highly Migratory Species (HMS FMP) still apply. These requirements have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget under Control Number 0648-0204. Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, and no person shall be subject to penalty for failure to comply with, a collection-of-information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection-of-information displays a currently valid OMB control number.

Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The rationale for the certification is provided in the following paragraphs:

On June 12, 2014, the Small Business Administration (SBA) issued an interim final rule revising the small business size standards for several industries effective July 14, 2014 (79 FR 33467). The rule increased the size standard for Finfish Fishing from $19.0 million to $20.5 million, Shellfish Fishing from $5.0 million to $5.5 million, and Other Marine Fishing from $7.0 million to $7.5 million. NMFS conducted its analysis for this action in light of the new size standards. The small entities that would be affected by the proposed action are the small coastal purse seine vessels that harvest Pacific bluefin tuna.

This proposed rule, in accordance with IATTC Resolution C-14-06 and following advice from the Pacific Fishery Management Council, will implement annual and trip catch limits for U.S. commercial vessels that harvest Pacific bluefin tuna in the Convention Area for 2015 and 2016. U.S. commercial catch of Pacific bluefin tuna from the Convention Area is primarily made in waters off of California largely by the coastal pelagic small purse seine fleet that opportunistically targets Pacific bluefin tuna and by other fleets that incidentally catch Pacific bluefin tuna (e.g., California large-mesh drift gillnet, surface hook-and-line, west coast longline, and Hawaii's pelagic fisheries). Resolution C-14-06 sets a catch limit of 600 mt for both years combined and is not to exceed 425 mt in a single year. If the U.S. commercial Pacific bluefin tuna catch in the Convention Area exceeds 300 mt in 2015, the U.S. catch may not exceed 200 mt in 2016. In each year, based on the Pacific Fishery Management Council's recommendation, NMFS is proposing a trip limit of 20 mt until catch is within 50 mt of the annual catch limit and a 2 mt trip limit when catch is within 50 mt of the annual catch limit.

The two trip limits are expected to benefit the fishery. They are intended to enhance the effectiveness of inseason management such that the fishery will have access to the full catch limit for 2015 and 2016, combined. Further, the trip limit may help alleviate derby-style fishing pressure and the potential for excess supply of Pacific bluefin tuna, which could drive down market prices. Additionally, the 2 mt trip limit is intended to reduce the likelihood of wasteful discards in non-directed fisheries (e.g., from drift gillnet and hook-and-line). NMFS will publish a notice in the Federal Register to notify stakeholders when the 2 mt trip limit will be imposed.

The small entities to which the proposed action would apply are all U.S. commercial fishing vessels that may target (e.g., coastal pelagic purse seine vessels) or incidentally catch Pacific bluefin tuna in the Convention Area (e.g., drift gillnet); however, not all are affected by the proposed action. Annually, from 2009 to 2013, the number of small coastal pelagic purse seine vessels that landed Pacific bluefin tuna in the Convention Area ranged from zero to six. In 2009, eight purse seine vessels fishing in the Convention Area landed HMS in California, but only six of them were involved in landing about 410 mt of Pacific bluefin tuna in west coast ports worth about $427,000. In 2010 and 2013, the coastal purse seine fishery did not land Pacific bluefin tuna. In 2011 and 2012, less than three vessels targeted Pacific bluefin tuna; therefore, their landings and revenue are confidential. Purse seine vessels have caught an average of 26 mt per trip from 2009 through 2013; therefore, the 20 mt trip limit may result in an economic loss. From 2004 through 2013, purse seiners have caught an average of 42 mt of Pacific bluefin tuna per vessel annually (an average only of the years in which there were Pacific bluefin tuna landings by purse seine vessels). Vessels are expected to cease fishing for Pacific bluefin tuna when they reach the trip limit and possibly divert effort to other fisheries, such as coastal pelagic species (e.g., market squid, sardine) or make more frequent trips targeting Pacific bluefin tuna. In contrast, vessels with other gear-types landing incidentally-caught Pacific bluefin tuna have not landed more than 2 mt; therefore, these vessels are unlikely to be affected by the proposed trip limits. Vessels with incidental landings of Pacific bluefin tuna in 2013 include twelve drift gillnet vessels, nine surface hook-and-line vessels, three longline vessels, and three bait boats.

Since 2000, the average annual revenue per vessel from all finfish fishing activities for the U.S. purse seine fleet and other fleets that have landed Pacific bluefin tuna has been less than $20.5 million, whether considering an individual vessel or per vessel average. Since 2004, in years Pacific bluefin tuna was landed, purse seine vessels that caught Pacific bluefin tuna had an average annual income of about $1.9 million per vessel (based on all species landed). The revenue derived from Pacific bluefin tuna is only a small fraction (2.62% annually from 2004-2013) of the overall revenue, as small coastal pelagic purse seine vessels typically harvest other species, including Pacific sardine, Pacific mackerel, squid, and anchovy. Implementation of the annual catch limits for 2015 and 2016 in this proposed action is not expected to result in changes in current fishery operations, as the annualized catch limit is above recent annual average catches of Pacific bluefin tuna by all fleets. The proposed action is expected to result in an annual loss of approximately 12 mt (value of $12,000) of Pacific bluefin tuna by purse seine vessels during 2015 and 2016; the ex-vessel value of Pacific bluefin tuna in this fishery is $1.03/kilogram. This amount is negligible relative to the fleet's annual revenue resulting from other species. Accordingly, vessels' income is not expected to be altered significantly as a result of this rule.

The absence of the proposed action would allow U.S. fisheries to target Pacific bluefin tuna without restriction (except for existing permit requirements, such as a Pacific Highly Migratory Species Permit under the HMS FMP). The 2014 annual catch limit of 500 mt expired on December 31, 2014 (79 FR 28448, May 16, 2014). Not implementing the limits in Resolution C-14-06 that are intended to reduce fishing mortality could contribute to continued overfishing or overfished conditions for the stock (78 FR 41033, July 9, 2013). Alternatively, the implementation of Resolution C-14-06 will contribute to the sharing of sustainable benefits from Pacific bluefin tuna fishery resources among the IATTC member and cooperating non-member countries.

Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the SBA's June 20, 2013 and June 14, 2014 final rules (78 FR 37398 and 79 FR 33647, respectively), this certification was developed for this action using the SBA's revised size standards. NMFS considers all entities subject to this action to be small entities as defined by both the former, lower size standards and the revised size standards. Because each affected vessel is a small business, this proposed action is considered to equally affect all of these small entities in the same manner. Based on the disproportionality and profitability analysis above, the proposed action, if adopted, will not have adverse or disproportional economic impact on these small business entities. Therefore, the proposed action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As a result, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required, and was not prepared for this proposed rule.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 300 is proposed to be amended as follows:

Amendment 13 to the Northeast (NE) Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (FMP) (69 FR 22906, April 27, 2004) established a process for forming sectors within the NE multispecies (groundfish) fishery, and Amendment 16 to the FMP (74 FR 18262, April 9, 2010), followed by Framework Adjustment 45 to the FMP (76 FR 23042, April 25, 2011) and Framework 48 to the FMP (78 FR 26118; May 3, 2013), expanded and revised sector management.

The FMP defines a sector as “[a] group of persons (three or more persons, none of whom have an ownership interest in the other two persons in the sector) holding limited access vessel permits who have voluntarily entered into a contract and agree to certain fishing restrictions for a specified period of time, and which has been granted a TAC(s) [sic] in order to achieve objectives consistent with applicable FMP goals and objectives.” Sectors are self-selecting, meaning each sector can choose its members.

The NE multispecies sector management system allocates a portion of the NE multispecies stocks to each sector. These annual sector allocations are known as annual catch entitlements (ACE). These allocations are a portion of a stock's annual catch limit (ACL) available to commercial NE multispecies vessels, based on the collective fishing history of a sector's members. Currently, sectors may receive allocations of most large-mesh NE multispecies stocks with the exception of Atlantic halibut, windowpane flounder, Atlantic wolffish, and ocean pout. A sector determines how to harvest its ACEs and may decide to consolidate operations to fewer vessels.

Because sectors elect to receive an allocation under a quota-based system, the FMP grants sector vessels several “universal” exemptions from the FMP's effort controls. These universal exemptions apply to: Trip limits on allocated stocks; the Georges Bank (GB) Seasonal Closure Area; NE multispecies days-at-sea (DAS) restrictions; the requirement to use a 6.5-inch (16.5-cm) mesh codend when fishing with selective gear on GB; portions of the Gulf of Maine (GOM) Rolling Closure Areas (or as modified by Framework 53); and the at-sea monitoring (ASM) coverage rate for sector vessels fishing on a monkfish DAS in the Southern New England (SNE) Broad Stock Area (BSA) with extra-large mesh gillnets. The FMP prohibits sectors from requesting exemptions from permitting restrictions, gear restrictions designed to minimize habitat impacts, and reporting requirements.

We received operations plans and preliminary contracts for fishing years 2015 and 2016 from 17 sectors. The operations plans are similar to previously approved versions, but propose operations spanning 2 fishing years, and include additional exemption requests and proposals for industry-funded ASM plans. This is the first year that 2-year operations plans have been submitted by the sectors, as allowed in the Amendment 16 final rule. Two-year sector operations plans will help streamline the process for sector managers and reduce administrative burdens for both sectors and NMFS. Six sectors that have operated in past years did not submit operations plans or contracts. Four of these sectors now operate as state-operated permit banks as described below.

We have made a preliminary determination that the proposed 17 sector operations plans and contracts, and 19 of the 22 regulatory exemptions, in whole or partially, are consistent with the FMP's goals and objectives, and meet sector requirements outlined in the regulations at § 648.87. We summarize many of the sector requirements in this proposed rule and request comments on the proposed operations plans, the accompanying environmental assessment (EA), and our proposal to wholly or partially grant 19 of the 22 regulatory exemptions requested by the sectors, but deny the rest. Copies of the operations plans and contracts, and the EA, are available at http://www.regulations.gov and from NMFS (see ADDRESSES). One of the 17 sectors, Northeast Fishery Sector (NEFS) 4, proposes to operate as a private lease-only sector.

The six sectors that chose not to submit operations plans and contracts for fishing years 2015 and 2016 are the Tri-State Sector, the GB Hook Sector, and four state-operated permit bank sectors as follows: The State of Maine Permit Bank Sector, the State of New Hampshire Permit Bank Sector, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Permit Bank Sector, and the State of Rhode Island Permit Bank Sector. The final rule implementing Amendment 17 to the FMP allows a state-operated permit bank to receive an allocation without needing to comply with the administrative and procedural requirements for sectors (77 FR 16942, March 23, 2012). These permit banks are required to submit a list of participating permits to us by a date specified in the permit bank's Memorandum of Agreement, typically April 1.

Sectors typically submit membership information to us on December 1 prior to the start of the fishing year, which begins each year on May 1. Due to a delay in distributing a letter describing each vessel's potential contribution to a sector's quota for fishing year 2015, we extended the deadline to join a sector until February 18, 2014. Based on sector enrollment trends from the past 5 fishing years, we expect sector participation in fishing year 2015 will be similar. Thus, we are using fishing year 2014 rosters as a proxy for fishing year 2015 sector membership and calculating the fishing year 2015 projected allocations in this proposed rule. In addition to the membership delay, all permits that change ownership after December 1, 2014, retain the ability to join a sector through April 30, 2015. All permits enrolled in a sector, and the vessels associated with those permits, have until April 30, 2015, to withdraw from a sector and fish in the common pool for fishing year 2015. For fishing year 2016, we will set similar roster deadlines, notify permit holders of the fishing year 2016 deadlines, and allow permit holders to change sectors separate from the annual approval process. We will publish final sector ACEs and common pool sub-ACL totals, based upon final rosters, as soon as possible after the start of fishing year 2015, and again after the start of fishing year 2016.

The allocations proposed in this rule are based on the fishing year 2015 specifications recommended by the New England Fishery Management Council in Framework 53. These allocations are not final, and are subject to the approval of Framework 53. We expect a rule proposing the Framework 53 management measures to publish in March 2015.

We calculate the sector's allocation for each stock by summing its members' potential sector contributions (PSC) for a stock, as shown in Table 1. The information presented in Table 1 is the total percentage of each commercial sub-ACL each sector would receive for fishing year 2015, based on their fishing year 2014 rosters. Tables 2 and 3 show the allocations each sector would be allocated for fishing year 2015, based on their fishing year 2014 rosters. At the start of the fishing year, after sector enrollment is finalized, we provide the final allocations, to the nearest pound, to the individual sectors, and we use those final allocations to monitor sector catch. While the common pool does not receive a specific allocation, the common pool sub-ACLs have been included in each of these tables for comparison.

We do not assign an individual permit separate PSCs for the Eastern GB cod or Eastern GB haddock; instead, we assign a permit a PSC for the GB cod stock and GB haddock stock. Each sector's GB cod and GB haddock allocations are then divided into an Eastern ACE and a Western ACE, based on each sector's percentage of the GB cod and GB haddock ACLs. For example, if a sector is allocated 4 percent of the GB cod ACL and 6 percent of the GB haddock ACL, the sector is allocated 4 percent of the commercial Eastern U.S./Canada Area GB cod total allowable catch (TAC) and 6 percent of the commercial Eastern U.S./Canada Area GB haddock TAC as its Eastern GB cod and haddock ACEs. These amounts are then subtracted from the sector's overall GB cod and haddock allocations to determine its Western GB cod and haddock ACEs. A sector may only harvest its Eastern GB cod ACEs in the Eastern U.S./Canada Area. However, Framework 51 implemented a mechanism that allows sectors to “convert” their Eastern GB haddock allocation into Western GB haddock allocation (79 FR 22421; April 22, 2014) and fish that converted ACE in Western GB.

At the start of fishing year 2015, we will withhold 20 percent of each sector's fishing year 2015 allocation until we finalize fishing year 2014 catch information. Further, we will allow sectors to transfer fishing year 2014 ACE for 2 weeks of the fishing year following the completion of year-end catch accounting to reduce or eliminate any fishing year 2014 overages. If necessary, we will reduce any sector's fishing year 2015 allocation to account for a remaining overage in fishing year 2014. We will follow the same process for fishing year 2016. We will notify the Council and sector managers of this deadline in writing and will announce this decision on our Web site at: http://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/.

As stated previously, we received 17 sector operations plans and contracts by the September 2, 2014, deadline for fishing years 2015 and 2016. In order to approve a sector's operations plan for fishing years 2015 and 2016, that sector must have been compliant with reporting requirements from all previous years, including the year-end reporting requirements found at § 648.87(b)(1)(vi)(C). Approved operations plans, provided on our Web site as a single document for each sector, not only contain the rules under which each sector would fish, but also provide the legal contract that binds each member to the sector for the length of the sector's operations plan. Each sector's operations plan, and sector members, must comply with the regulations governing sectors, found at § 648.87. In addition, each sector must conduct fishing activities as detailed in its approved operations plan.

Any permit holder with a limited access NE multispecies permit that was valid as of May 1, 2008, is eligible to participate in a sector, including an inactive permit currently held in confirmation of permit history. If a permit holder officially enrolls a permit in a sector and the fishing year begins, then that permit must remain in the sector for the entire fishing year, and cannot fish in the NE multispecies fishery outside of the sector (i.e., in the common pool) during the fishing year. Participating vessels are required to comply with all pertinent Federal fishing regulations, except as specifically exempted in the letter of authorization (LOA) issued by the Regional Administrator, which details any approved exemptions from regulations. If, during a fishing year, or between fishing years 2015 and 2016, a sector requests an exemption that we have already approved, or proposes a change to administrative provisions, we may amend the sector operations plans. Should any amendments require modifications to LOAs, we would include these changes in updated LOAs and provide these to the appropriate sector members.

As in previous years, we retain the right to revoke exemptions in-season for the following reasons: If we determine that the exemption jeopardizes management measures, objectives, or rebuilding efforts; if the exemption results in unforeseen negative impacts on other managed fish stocks, habitat, or protected resources; if the exemption causes enforcement concerns; if catch from trips utilizing the exemption cannot properly be monitored; or if a sector is not meeting certain requirements. If it becomes necessary to revoke the exemption, we will do so through a process consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act.

Each sector is required to ensure that it does not exceed its ACE during the fishing year. Sector vessels are required to retain all legal-sized allocated NE multispecies stocks, unless a sector is granted an exemption allowing its member vessels to discard legal-sized unmarketable fish at sea. Catch (defined as landings and discards) of all allocated NE multispecies stocks by a sector's vessels count against the sector's allocation. Catch from a sector trip (e.g., not fishing under provisions of a NE multispecies exempted fishery or with exempted gear) targeting dogfish, monkfish, skate, and lobster (with non-trap gear) would be deducted from the sector's ACE because these trips use gear capable of catching groundfish. Catch from a trip in an exempted fishery does not count against a sector's allocation because the catch is assigned to a separate ACL sub-component.

For fishing years 2010 and 2011, there was no requirement for an industry-funded ASM program, and we were able to fund an ASM program with a target ASM coverage rate of 30 percent of all trips. In addition, we provided 8-percent observer coverage through the Northeast Fishery Observer Program (NEFOP), which helps to support the Standardized Bycatch Reporting Methodology (SBRM) and stock assessments. This resulted in an overall target coverage rate of 38 percent, between ASM and NEFOP, for fishing years 2010 and 2011. Beginning in fishing year 2012, we have conducted an annual analysis to determine the total coverage that would be necessary to achieve the same level of precision as attained by the 38-percent total coverage target used for fishing years 2010 and 2011. Since fishing year 2012, industry has been required to pay for their costs of ASM coverage, while we continued to fund NEFOP. However, we were able to fund the industry's portion of ASM costs and NEFOP coverage in fishing years 2012 through 2014. Table 4 shows the annual target coverage rates.

Due to funding changes that would be required by the proposed SBRM amendment, we expect that sector vessels will be responsible for paying at-sea costs associated with the ASM program before the end of the 2015 fishing year. Thus, sectors will be responsible for designing, implementing, and funding an ASM program in fishing years 2015 and 2016 that will provide a level of ASM coverage specified by NMFS. Amendment 16 regulations require NMFS to specify a level of ASM coverage that is sufficient to meet the same coefficient of variation (CV) specified in the SBRM, and to accurately monitor sector operations. Framework 48 clarified the level of ASM coverage necessary to meet these goals. Regarding meeting the SBRM CV level, Framework 48 determined that it should be made at the overall stock level, which is consistent with the level NMFS determined was necessary in fishing year 2013. Framework 48 also amended the goals of the sector monitoring program to include achieving an accuracy level sufficient to minimize effects of potential monitoring bias.

Taking the provisions of Framework 48 into account, and interpreting the ASM monitoring provision in the context of Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements and National Standards, we have determined that the appropriate level of ASM coverage should be set at the level that meets the CV requirement specified in the SBRM and minimizes the cost burden to sectors and NMFS to the extent practicable, while still providing a reliable estimate of overall catch by sectors needed for monitoring ACEs and ACLs. Based on this standard, NMFS has determined that the appropriate target coverage rate for fishing year 2015 is 24 percent. We expect ASM coverage to be 20 percent and NEFOP coverage to be 4 percent, covering a total of 24 percent of all sector trips, with the exception of trips using a few specific exemptions, as described later in this rule. We will use discards derived from these observed and monitored trips to calculate discards for unobserved sector trips. We have published a more detailed summary of the supporting information, explanation and justification for this decision at: http://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/ro/fso/reports/Sectors/ASM/FY2015_Multispecies_Sector_ASM_Requirements_Summary.pdf.

The draft operations plans submitted in September 2014 included industry-funded ASM plans for fishing year 2015. Therefore, we are proposing to approve the sector's ASM programs as described in their operations plans. We gave sectors the option to design their own programs in compliance with regulations, or opt for the program that we have previously utilized in previous fishing years. ASM programs proposed by the sectors are described in detail later in this proposed rule. The proposed operations plans each contain an ASM program sufficient to ensure ASM coverage for fishing years 2015 and 2016, including once sectors assume responsibility for funding their ASM program, at the required levels stated in this rule. Given the potential for changes in the ASM program funding for sectors, NMFS will verify that all approved sectors continue to comply with all ASM requirements, including contracting with approved providers in a timely fashion.

We are currently looking at how industry funding of the ASM program will affect our data collection systems, especially the PTNS system, and have begun working on an implementation plan to help ensure a seamless transition when the industry assumes responsibility for at-sea costs in 2015. To ensure that the ASM programs continue to provide sufficient coverage, the Regional Administrator is authorized to adjust operational standards such as vessel selection protocols as needed, consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act. We will continue to keep the sector managers informed about any changes or updates to the situation.

Our ability to fund our portion of costs for ASM coverage above SBRM coverage levels for the entire 2015 and 2016 fishing years is not precisely known at this time due to budget uncertainties. Currently, funding for our portion of ASM costs will expire before the end of the 2015 fishing year. If we have insufficient funding available for our portion of coverage costs beyond that time, we may need to consider other measures, including emergency action, to allow sectors to continue fishing while still ensuring that we can adequately monitor sector catch for management purposes. We expect this funding issue to be resolved before this rule is effective, but are seeking comments on possible measures to help adequately monitor catch limits.

Sectors are required to monitor their allocations and catch, and submit weekly catch reports to us. If a sector reaches an ACE threshold (specified in the operations plan), the sector must provide sector allocation usage reports on a daily basis. Once a sector's allocation for a particular stock is caught, that sector is required to cease all fishing operations in that stock area until it acquires more ACE. ACE may be transferred between sectors, but transfers to or from common pool vessels is prohibited. Within 60 days of when we complete year-end catch accounting, each sector is required to submit an annual report detailing the sector's catch (landings and discards), enforcement actions, and pertinent information necessary to evaluate the biological, economic, and social impacts of each sector.

Each sector contract provides procedures to enforce the sector operations plan, explains sector monitoring and reporting requirements, presents a schedule of penalties for sector plan violations, and provides sector managers with the authority to issue stop fishing orders to sector members who violate provisions of the operations plan and contract. A sector and sector members can be held jointly and severally liable for ACE overages, discarding legal-sized fish, and/or misreporting catch (landings or discards). Each sector operations plan submitted for fishing years 2015 and 2016 states that the sector would withhold an initial reserve from the sector's ACE sub-allocation to each individual member to prevent the sector from exceeding its ACE. Each sector contract details the method for initial ACE sub-allocation to sector members. For fishing years 2015 and 2016, each sector has proposed that each sector member could harvest an amount of fish equal to the amount each individual member's permit contributed to the sector.

Sectors requested 22 exemptions from the NE multispecies regulations through their fishing years 2015 and 2016 operations plans. We evaluate each exemption to determine whether it allows for effective administration of and compliance with the operations plan and sector allocation, and that it is consistent with the goals and objectives of the FMP. We propose to grant the following for fishing years 2015 and 2016: 16 exemptions that were previously granted; 1 exemption that was previously granted, but has been modified; 1 exemption that we propose to partially grant; and 1 new exemption. We propose to deny three exemption requests for fishing years 2015 and 2016.

For fishing year 2014, sectors had requested an exemption that would allow access to year-round closed areas. This request may be considered in a separate action pending results from an ongoing Exempted Fishing Permit (EFP) (see Exemptions That May Be Considered in a Separate Action).

A discussion of all 22 exemption requests appears below; we request public comment on the proposed sector operations plans and our proposal to grant 19 requested exemptions, in whole or partially, and deny 3 requested exemptions, as well as the EA prepared for this action.

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

For fishing year 2014, sectors requested and we granted an exemption that would allow vessels to possess and use small-mesh and large-mesh trawl gear on a single trip, within portions of the SNE regulated mesh areas (RMA). Sectors proposed that vessels using this exemption to fish with smaller mesh would fish in two discrete areas that have been shown to have minimal amounts of regulated species and ocean pout. See the 2014 Sector Final Rule (79 FR 23278; April 28, 2014) for a complete description of the previously granted exemption.

For fishing years 2015 and 2016, sectors requested a similar exemption, but with a revised northern border of the eastern Small-Mesh Exemption Area 2, shifted 15 minutes north. This expansion will allow for greater opportunities for sector vessels to target small-mesh species. The coordinates and maps for these two areas are shown in Figure 1.

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

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

As was approved in fishing year 2014, one of three trawl gear modifications would be required when using small mesh: Drop-chain sweep with a minimum of 12 inches (30.48 cm) in length; a large-mesh belly panel with a minimum of 32-inch (81.28-cm) mesh size; or an excluder grate secured forward of the codend with an outlet hole forward of the grate with bar spacing of no more than 1.97 inches (5.00 cm) wide. These gear modifications, when fished properly, have been shown to reduce the catch of legal and sub-legal groundfish stocks. Requiring these modifications is intended to also reduce the incentive for a sector vessel to target groundfish with small mesh.

A vessel using this exemption is required to meet the same NEFOP and ASM coverage as standard groundfish trips (i.e., a total of 24 percent in fishing year 2015). The vessel would be required to declare their intent to use small mesh to target non-regulated species by submitting a trip start hail through its vessel monitoring system (VMS) unit prior to departure, which would be used for monitoring and enforcement purposes. Trips declaring this exemption must stow their small-mesh gear and use their large-mesh gear first, and once finished with the large mesh, would have to submit a Multispecies Catch Report via VMS with all catch on board at that time. Once the Catch Report was sent, the vessel could then deploy small mesh with the required modifications in the specific areas (see map above), outside of the Nantucket Lightship Closed Area, at which point, the large mesh could not be redeployed. Any legal-sized allocated groundfish stocks caught during these small-mesh hauls must be landed and the associated landed weight (dealer or vessel trip report (VTR)) would be deducted from the sector's ACE.

As in fishing year 2014, we are concerned about vessels potentially catching groundfish, including bycatch of juvenile fish, in the requested exemption area with small-mesh nets. The expansion of the Small-Mesh Exemption Area 2 by 15 minutes north could increase this potential, because more groundfish are found in the expansion area. The three gear modifications proposed for this exemption could mitigate catch of regulated species when properly installed, but none have been shown to completely eliminate the catch of regulated species.

If approved, we will closely monitor the catch from these exempted trips. If it is determined that this exemption is having a negative impact on groundfish stocks, we would consider revoking this exemption during the fishing year.

The FMP limits the number of gillnets a Day gillnet vessel may fish in the groundfish RMAs to prevent an uncontrolled increase in the number of nets being fished, thus undermining applicable DAS effort controls. The limits are specific to the type of gillnet within each RMA: 100 gillnets (of which no more than 50 can be roundfish gillnets) in the GOM RMA (§ 648.80(a)(3)(iv)); 50 gillnets in the GB RMA (§ 648.80(a)(4)(iv)); and 75 gillnets in the Mid-Atlantic (MA) RMA (§ 648.80(b)(2)(iv)). We previously approved this exemption in fishing years 2010, 2011, and 2012 to allow sector vessels to fish up to 150 nets (any combination of flatfish or roundfish nets) in any RMA to provide greater operational flexibility to sector vessels in deploying gillnet gear. Sectors argued that the gillnet limits were designed to control fishing effort and are no longer necessary because a sector's ACE limits overall fishing mortality.

Previous effort analysis of all sector vessels using gillnet gear indicated an increase in gear used in the RMA which could lead to an increase in interactions with protected species. While a sector's ACE is designed to limit a stock's fishing mortality, fishing effort may affect other species. This increased effort could ultimately lead to a rise in interactions with protected species; however, we do not expect this to be the case, because a take reduction plan has been implemented to reduce bycatch in the fisheries affecting these species.

For fishing year 2013, based on the comments received and the concern for spawning GOM cod, we restricted the use of this exemption to better protect spawning cod. Therefore, a vessel fishing in the GOM RMA was able to use this exemption seasonally, but was restricted to the 100-net gillnet limit in blocks 124 and 125 in May, and in blocks 132 and 133 in June. A vessel fishing in the GB RMA, SNE RMA, MA RMA, and the GOM outside of these times and areas did not have this additional restriction. We granted this exemption with the same GOM seasonal restrictions for fishing year 2014.

The November 2014 interim action implemented to protect GOM cod (79 FR 67362; November 13, 2014) revoked this exemption for all of the GOM for the remainder of fishing year 2014, given concerns relating to mortality of GOM cod caused by continuous fishing by gillnets left in the water and the potential to disrupt spawning when cod are caught. For these same concerns, we are proposing to partially grant the exemption for fishing years 2015 and 2016 when fishing in all RMAs except the GOM, and to deny the exemption for the GOM. Therefore, vessels fishing in the GOM under the Day boat gillnet category would be restricted to no more than 100 nets, only 50 of which may be roundfish nets.

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

For fishing years 2012 and 2013, the exemption required 100-percent monitoring with either an ASM or observer on every trip, primarily because of concerns over a greater retention of sub-legal groundfish, as well as non-allocated species and bycatch. In fishing year 2012, we found that allowing trips that are randomly selected for federally funded NEFOP or ASM coverage provided an incentive to take an exemption trip when selected for coverage, thereby reducing the number of observers/monitors available to cover standard sector trips (i.e., trips not utilizing this exemption). If fewer observers/monitors deploy on standard sector trips, then the exemption undermines both the ability to meet required coverage levels and the reliability of discard rates calculated for unobserved standard sector trips. Therefore, in fishing year 2013, we required sectors to pay for 100 percent of the at-sea cost for a monitor on all redfish exemption trips, which resulted in sectors not taking a redfish trip that fishing year.

For fishing year 2014, we granted an exemption that allowed vessels to use a 6-inch (15.2-cm) or larger mesh codend to target redfish when fishing in the Redfish Exemption Area. The vessels participating in the redfish fishery in fishing year 2014 were subject to the same NEFOP and ASM target coverage as standard groundfish trips (26 percent). Vessels could fish with the regulated mesh nets (6.5-inch [16.5-cm] codends or larger) and with the 6.0-inch (15.2-cm) mesh codends on the same trip; however, for all trips (by sector, by month) declaring this exemption, we monitored landings for the entire trip to determine if the vessel had met the 80-percent redfish catch threshold and the 5-percent discard threshold.

Following approval of the exemption in fishing year 2014, sectors indicated that an 80-percent redfish catch threshold, based on REDNET data collected using a 4.5-inch (11.4-cm) mesh codend, is not appropriate for all mesh sizes (i.e., as mesh size increases, the efficiency of catching redfish decreases). Additionally, given the average landed value of redfish, they indicated that they do not consider it economically viable to have an offload comprised of 80 percent redfish. Therefore, as of January 2015, few have been taken under this exemption, because, according to sectors, they cannot effectively or profitably target redfish to meet the 80-percent threshold.

For fishing years 2015 and 2016, we propose granting the sectors' request to use a 5.5-inch (14.0-cm) mesh codend when fishing in the redfish exemption. A vessel would have the option to fish the first portion of a trip with current legal codend mesh size (6.5 inches; 16.5 cm), and then switch to a codend no smaller than 5.5 inches (14.0 cm) for the redfish portion of their trip. Allowing sectors to legally target groundfish on the first portion of the trip would provide flexibility and would address the sector's concern regarding profitability. In addition, the sectors have requested a 50-percent catch threshold, which would only apply to the second half of the trip. The sectors argue that this threshold is more appropriate for a 5.5-inch (14.0-cm) codend, as data from Component 3 of the REDNET report (Pol and He 2013) indicates that as the codend mesh size increases from 4.5 inches (11.4 cm) to 5.5 inches (14.0 cm), selectivity decreases, making it more difficult for vessels to catch only redfish. However, the lower 50-percent threshold would allow greater catch of other regulated groundfish species with small mesh, which could result in higher discards or targeting of groundfish with small mesh. We are proposing to address this by implementing reporting requirements to facilitate monitoring and enforcement. If we detect vessels targeting non-redfish socks, particularly stocks of concern, the RA retains the right to rescind approval of the exemption. We request comment on this issue. The 5-percent discard threshold for all groundfish, including redfish, would still apply on the redfish portion of observed trips.

Due to concern for GOM cod, we have modified the redfish exemption area (Figure 2) from 2014 (see Figure 2).

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

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

Vessels must declare their trip in the pre-trip notification system (PTNS) under standard requirements, but there are no additional monitoring requirements above the target coverage for the groundfish fishery. Prior to leaving the dock, any vessel that intends to use the redfish exemption on a trip must declare so through the VMS trip start hail by checking the box next to “Redfish Trip” under sector exemptions. This notification must be made if the vessel intends to use a 5.5-inch (14.0-cm) codend or larger to target redfish on any portion of the trip.

Any vessel declaring this exemption must submit catch reports via VMS each day for the entire trip. For the first portion of the trip, a vessel may fish using a 6.0-inch (15.2-cm) mesh codend with selective gear in the GB BSA (current mesh flexibility allowed from Council exemption est. in 2010) or 6.5-inch (16.5-cm) mesh codend in any BSA, including the GOM. Any sub-legal codend must be stowed below deck for this entire portion of the trip. Catch thresholds do not apply to this portion of the trip.

When a vessel switches its codend to target redfish, it must first transit to the Redfish Exemption Area. Once the vessel is in the Redfish Exemption Area, it must declare via VMS that it is switching to the 5.5-inch (14.0-cm) mesh codend (or larger) and will be conducting the remainder of its fishing activity exclusively in the Redfish Exemption Area. The vessel can then retrieve the 5.5-inch (14.0-cm) mesh codend from below deck and begin using it. All fishing activity for the remainder of the trip must occur in the Redfish Exemption area. For this portion of the trip, at least 50 percent of the total allocated groundfish kept must be redfish, and on observed trips, no more than 5 percent of all groundfish, including redfish, may be discarded. These thresholds will be used by NMFS to determine if this sector exemption should be revoked. The vessel must also submit a final catch report and a Trip End Hail via VMS at the end of the trip to facilitate dockside enforcement.

There are enforcment concerns associated with the additional flexibility this exemption provides. Specifically, enforcing different mesh size restrictions on different portions of a single fishing trip could be challenging at sea, and there is the potential for vessels to misreport the mesh size used to catch groundfish to avoid having the exemption revoked for exceeding the threshold.

Additionally, we are concerned about vessels catching groundfish, including their bycatch of juvenile fish, which could potentially cause them to exceed the discard threshold of 5 percent, in the Redfish Exemption Area when fishing with codend mesh sized nets smaller than the GOM regulated mesh size of 6.5 inches (16.5 cm). The 50-percent catch threshold is meant to reflect the likely proportion of redfish catch while using a 5.5-inch (14.0-cm) mesh codend, based on the results of Component 3 of REDNET. We are concerned, however, that it could allow sectors to target groundfish when fishing with a smaller codend and could increase discards that would likely go unreported, which could undermine the protections of the 5-percent bycatch threshold. Therefore, we are specifically seeking comment on this exemption, regarding the enforcement concerns, the reporting concerns, and the appropriateness of the threshold.

If the redfish exemption is approved, we intend to monitor use of the exemption carefully. For example, should it be determined that vessels are not using the exemption when assigned an observer or ASM, and only using it when unobserved, we would have concerns about monitoring the exemption. Additionally, if a vessel does not submit daily catch reports or the required declaration when switching to the redfish portion of the trip, we may not be able to adequately monitor the exemption. The RA retains authority to rescind approval of this exemption, if it is needed. All vessels in a sector may be held jointly and severally liable for misreporting by a single vessel in a sector.

We propose to deny the GOM sink gillnet mesh exemption request due to concern for GOM cod. We did not analyze this exemption in the EA because no new information was available to change the analyses previously published in past EAs.

The GOM Sink Gillnet Mesh Exemption was approved for fishing years 2010 through 2012. This exemption allowed sector vessels to use 6-inch (15.2-cm) mesh gillnets in the GOM to target GOM haddock seasonally. However, due to concerns regarding the stock status of GOM haddock and the potential increase in interactions with protected species, the exemption was denied for fishing year 2013 (78 FR 25591, May 2, 2013) and fishing year 2014.

On November 12, 2014, at the request of the New England Fishery Management Council and in response a stock assessment conducted by the Northeast Fisheries Science Center, we published an emergency action that increased the GOM haddock ACL for fishing year 2014 (79 FR 67090). This action nearly doubled each sector's ACE for GOM haddock. Because sectors anticipated that GOM haddock would not be a concern for fishing year 2014, they again requested this exemption for fishing years 2015 and 2016.

While the stock status of GOM haddock has improved, biomass has not increased to the level it was in fishing year 2010, when this exemption was first approved. In addition, we are concerned about the effects of this exemption on GOM cod. The November 2014 interim action implemented to protect GOM cod revoked an exemption that resulted in decreasing the amount of gillnet gear in the GOM, given concerns relating to mortality of GOM cod caused by continuous fishing by gillnets left in the water and the potential to disrupt spawning when cod are caught. We are similarly concerned that using nets smaller than the minimum size may impact GOM cod mortality. For these same concerns, we are proposing to deny the GOM Haddock Sink Gillnet Mesh exemption for fishing years 2015 and 2016.

Beginning in fishing year 2011, we approved an exemption from the requirement to keep the VMS units powered while tied to the dock or on a mooring. In fishing year 2012, the NOAA Office of Law Enforcement (OLE) recognized a lack of compliance. The exemption was only applicable for vessels that did not otherwise possess Federal fishing permits for other FMPs that required a VMS unit, and vessels were required to follow certain protocols, such as sending a powerdown code before turning off the VMS unit. Misuse of the exemption decreases our confidence in our ability to adequately monitor the fishery. During fishing year 2013, we worked with sector managers to identify the sector members who were out of compliance with the exemption. However, in this time, compliance did not improve. Therefore, for fishing years 2015 and 2016, we propose to not approve this exemption due to lack of compliance.

The exemption request to use a 6.0-inch (15.2-cm) mesh codend nets, with a threshold of no lower than 80 percent redfish of the total groundfish catch on hauls using the redfish exemption, for fishing years 2015 and 2016, is identical to the exemption for fishing year 2014. A second redfish exemption request, described above (exemption #19), is proposed for approval. Therefore, we are proposing to deny this exemption request.

In fishing year 2013, we disapproved an exemption that would have allowed sector vessels restricted access to portions of CAs I and II, provided each trip carried an industry-funded ASM. When we proposed allowing sector access to these areas, we announced that we did not have funding to pay for monitoring the additional trips for exemptions requiring a 100-percent coverage level. Industry members indicated that it was too expensive to participate in the exemption, given the requirement to pay for a monitor on every trip. This, in combination with extensive comment opposing access to these areas to protect depleted stocks and our concern about the impacts on depleted stocks such as GB cod and GB yellowtail flounder, resulted in disapproval. For a detailed description of the exemption request and justifications for disapproval, see the final rule (78 FR 41772, December 16, 2013).

For fishing year 2014, we remained unable to fund monitoring costs for exemptions requiring a 100-percent coverage level. In addition, we had some concerns about funding and administering the shore-side portion of any monitoring program for an exemption that requires additional ASM, such as the exemption to access CAs I and II. However, we authorized two EFPs to gather catch data from CAs I and II, one in coordination with the Northeast Fisheries Science Center, the other with members of the industry. Results from these EFPs could better inform us, the industry, and the public, regarding the economic efficacy of accessing these CAs, while providing information specific to bycatch of depleted stocks. Trips taken under these EFPs are attempting to address the following questions: (1) Could enough fish be caught to adequately offset the industry's additional expense of having an ASM on board, and (2) could catch of groundfish stocks of concern be addressed?

The two authorized EFPs have allowed access to participating vessels into the same portions of CAs I and II that were originally proposed for access to sectors. Vessels using the EFPs are required to use specialized trawl gear to reduce impacts on flounder species, are restricted seasonally to avoid spawning fish, and must adhere to an agreement between the lobster and groundfish fishery in CA II to avoid gear conflicts. One of the two approved EFPs is still ongoing. Upon review of the EFP results, we will consider potential access to these areas through a separate action.

On November 13, 2014, at the request of the New England Fishery Management Council and in response a stock assessment conducted by the Northeast Fisheries Science Center, we published an interim action implemented to protect GOM cod. In this action, one fishing year 2014 exemption (limits on the number of gillnets on Day gillnet vessels, exemption #18) was revoked when fishing in the GOM because of its potential to affect GOM cod; the exemption as it applied in GB, SNE, and MA remains in place. As described above, we are proposing to not grant the exemption for the limits on gillnets for Day gillnet vessels in the GOM, but grant it in the other RMAs. Additionally, we have proposed to modify the previously approved redfish exemption area (as described in exemption #19) due to concern for GOM cod. There are several other exemptions proposed in the GOM that also could potentially affect GOM cod. These exemptions include:

(1) 120-day block out of the fishery required for Day gillnet vessels;

(2) 20-day spawning block out of the fishery required for all vessels;

(3) Prohibition on a vessel hauling another vessel's gillnet gear;

(5) Limits on the number of hooks that may be fished; and

(10) Prohibition on a vessel hauling another vessel's hook gear.

While we request comment on all exemptions in fishing years 2015 and 2016, we specifically request the public to comment on exemptions in the GOM that could affect the GOM cod stock and its ability to rebuild.

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

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

For fishing years 2015 and 2016, each sector is required to develop and fund an ASM program that must be reviewed and approved by NMFS. In the event that a proposed ASM program could not be approved, all sectors were asked to include an option to use the current NMFS-designed ASM program as a back-up. Sustainable Harvest Sectors 1 and 3, GB Cod Fixed Gear Sector, Northeast Coastal Communities Sector, and Maine Coast Community Sector have proposed to use the ASM program that we developed and used for fishing years 2010-2014. We propose this program for these sectors because we believe the existing program to be consistent with goals and objectives of monitoring, and with regulatory requirements. As requested, the remaining 12 sectors stated that they would use the NMFS-designed ASM program in the event that we did not approve their individual ASM program for fishing years 2015 and 2016. NEFS 4 has not included provisions for an ASM program because the sector operates as a private permit bank and explicitly prohibits fishing.

We propose to approve the ASM programs proposed by the NEFS 1-13 (excluding NEFS 4). These programs state that they will: Contract with a NMFS-approved ASM provider; meet the specified coverage level; and utilize the PTNS for random selection of monitored trips and notification to providers. In addition, these proposed ASM programs detail protocols for waivers, incident reporting, and safety requirements. We believe that the proposed programs are consistent with goals and objectives of monitoring, and with regulatory requirements.

Although the current regulations require a sector to fund its costs for its ASM program beginning in fishing year 2013, we funded industry's ASM costs in fishing years 2013 and 2014. It is unclear if the Agency will have money to fund industry's ASM costs, in whole or in part, for fishing year 2015. Additional information on funding and implementation of ASM for fishing year 2015 will be provided at a future date.

To comply with NEPA, a Programmatic EA was prepared encompassing all 17 operations plans, analyzing the impacts expected from the continued operation of the sectors over the next six years. The sector EA is tiered from the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) prepared for Amendment 16. The EA examines the biological, economic, and social impacts unique to each sector's proposed operations, including requested exemptions, and provides a cumulative effect analysis that addresses the combined impact of the direct and indirect effects of approving all proposed sector operations plans. The summary findings of the EA conclude that each sector would produce similar effects that have non-significant impacts. Visit http://www.regulations.gov to view the EA prepared for the 17 sectors that this rule proposes to approve.

We decided to do a programmatic assessment beginning in fishing year 2015 because the past four years of sector operations have been relatively homogeneous, and the EA covering the management regime has changed little since inception of the program. We believe future sector operations would likely operate similarly, and the impacts associated with their activities would also likely be similar in nature to past years. However, we understand that it is impossible to fully anticipate the future, and that new requests for sector exemptions may arise that could have impacts outside the scope of this programmatic document. In this case, a supplementary EA may be necessary to analyze future sector operations.

The Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requires advance notice of rulemaking and opportunity for public comment. The Council required additional time to develop measures to address GOM cod as part of Framework 53, which delayed our ability to present this to the public. We are therefore providing a 15-day comment period for this rule. A longer comment period would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest because we must publish a final rule prior to the start of fishing year 2015 on May 1, 2015, to enable sectors to fish at the start of the fishing year. A vessel enrolled in a sector may not fish in fishing year 2015 unless its operations plan is approved. If the final rule is not published prior to May 1, the permits enrolled in sectors must either stop fishing until their operations plan is approved or elect to fish in the common pool for the entirety of fishing year 2015. Both of these options would have very negative impacts for the permits enrolled in the sectors. Delaying the implementation beyond May 1, 2015, would result in an unnecessary economic loss to the sector members because vessels would be prevented from fishing in a month when sector vessels landed approximately 10 percent of several allocations, including GB cod east and GB winter flounder. Finally, without a seamless transition between fishing years 2014 and 2015, a delay would require sector vessels to remove gear that complies with an exemption, and redeploy the gear once the final rule is effective. Talking these additional trips would require additional fuel and staffing when catch may not be landed.

Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the NE Multispecies FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.

This proposed action is exempt from the procedures of Executive Order 12866 because this action contains no implementing regulations.

The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA) that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

As outlined in the preamble to this proposed rule, the purpose of this action is the implementation of fishing years 2015 and 2016 sector operations plans and associated regulatory exemptions. In an effort to rebuild the NE multispecies complex, other actions have reduced the allocations of several stocks managed by the NE Multispecies FMP, and the economic impacts of those allocations have been analyzed in accordance with their respective actions. This action, if finalized, would provide flexible fisheries management options to reduce the potential social and economic hardships resulting from those allocation reductions.

The regulated entities most likely to be affected by the proposed action are the 102 groundfish-dependent ownership entities that own permits currently enrolled in sectors, all of which are considered small under the SBA's definition of a small finfishing business.

Under the proposed rule, sector operations plans for fishing years 2015 and 2016 would be approved, allowing sector participants to use the universal sector exemptions granted under Amendment 16. In addition to the universal sector exemptions granted under the approval of individual sector operations plans, sector participants have requested relaxation of 22 other gear, area, administrative, and seasonal restrictions. This rule proposes to grant 19 of the 22 requested exemptions. Because all of the regulated entities are considered small businesses per the SBA guidelines, there are no disproportionate impacts for participating in sectors and using the universal exemptions and additional exemptions requested by individual sectors.

All of the requested sector-specific exemptions in this proposed rule are expected to have a positive economic impact on participants, as they further increase the flexibility of fishermen to land their allocation at their discretion. By choosing when and how to land their allocations, sector participants have the potential to reduce marginal costs, increase revenues, and ultimately increase profitability. Again, it is expected that fishermen will only use sector-specific exemptions that they believe will maximize utility, and that long-term stock impacts from the collective exemptions will be minimal and will be outweighed by benefits from operational flexibility.

This rule would not impose significant negative economic impacts on any of the sector participants. No small entities would be placed at a competitive disadvantage to large entities, and the regulations would not reduce the profit for any small entities. Therefore, this rule would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. As a result, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required and none has been prepared.

Atlantic sharks are managed under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), and the authority to issue regulations has been delegated from the Secretary to the Assistant Administrator (AA) for Fisheries, NOAA. On October 2, 2006, NMFS published in the Federal Register (71 FR 58058) final regulations, effective November 1, 2006, implementing the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP, which details management measures for Atlantic HMS fisheries. The implementing regulations for the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments are at 50 CFR part 635.

On January 20, 2015, NMFS published a proposed rule (80 FR 2648) for Draft Amendment 6 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP. Management measures in the proposed rulemaking are designed to respond to the problems facing Atlantic commercial shark fisheries, such as landings that exceed the commercial quotas, declining numbers of fishing permits since limited access was implemented, increasingly complex regulations, derby fishing conditions due to small quotas and short seasons, increasing numbers of regulatory discards, and declining market prices. The primary goal of Amendment 6 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP is to implement management measures for the Atlantic shark fisheries that will achieve the objectives of increasing management flexibility to adapt to the changing needs of the Atlantic shark fisheries, and achieve optimum yield while rebuilding overfished shark stocks and ending overfishing. Specifically, the rule proposes to: Adjust the large coastal sharks (LCS) retention limit for shark directed Limited Access Permit holders; create sub-regional quotas in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico regions for LCS and small coastal sharks (SCS); modify the LCS and SCS quota linkages; establish total allowable catches and adjust quotas for non-blacknose SCS in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico regions based on the results of the 2013 stock assessments for Atlantic sharpnose and bonnethead sharks; and modify upgrading restrictions for shark permit holders.

On February 25, 2015, NMFS announced via listserv notice, an announcement on the HMS Management Division's Web page, and phone calls to known interested parties that the public hearing that was scheduled in Manteo, NC, on February 26, 2015, would be rescheduled due to inclement weather conditions expected for Manteo and surrounding areas at that time. The public hearing in Manteo, NC, has been rescheduled for March 18, 2015, to provide the opportunity for public comment on potential management measures (see ADDRESSES and DATES).

The public is reminded that NMFS expects participants at the public hearings to conduct themselves appropriately. At the beginning of each public hearing, a representative of NMFS will explain the ground rules (e.g., alcohol is prohibited from the hearing room; attendees will be called to give their comments in the order in which they registered to speak; each attendee will have an equal amount of time to speak; and attendees should not interrupt one another). The NMFS representative will attempt to structure the meeting so that all attending members of the public will be able to comment, if they so choose, regardless of the controversial nature of the subject(s). Attendees are expected to respect the ground rules, and, if they do not, they may be asked to leave the hearing.

Table of Contents 1. Summary of Proposed Measures 2. Status Determination Criteria 3. Fishing Year 2015 Shared U.S./Canada Quotas 4. Fishing Years 2015-2017 Catch Limits 5. Gulf of Maine Cod Protection Measures 6. Default Catch Limits 7. Sector Carryover 8. Fishing Year 2015 Annual Measures Under Regional Administrator Authority 9. Possible Fishing Year 2015 Northern Windowpane Flounder Accountability Measure 10. Regulatory Corrections Under Regional Administrator Authority 1. Summary of Proposed Measures

This action would implement the management measures in Framework Adjustment 53 (Framework 53) to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (FMP). The Council deemed the proposed regulations consistent with, and necessary to implement, Framework 53, in a February 25, 2015, letter from Council Chairman E.F. “Terry” Stockwell to Regional Administrator John Bullard. Framework 53 proposes to:

• Revise the status determination criteria for several groundfish stocks;

• Set fishing years 2015-2017 catch limits for several groundfish stocks;

• Set fishing year 2015 shared U.S./Canada quotas for transboundary Georges Bank (GB) stocks;

• Revise management measures for Gulf of Maine (GOM) cod to provide additional protection for the stock;

• Establish a mechanism to set default catch limits in the event a future management action is delayed; and

• Modify the provision that allows groundfish sectors to carryover unused quota in response to a recent court ruling.

This action also proposes a number of other measures that are not part of Framework 53, but that may be considered and implemented under our authority specified in the FMP. We are proposing these measures in conjunction with the Framework 53 proposed measures for expediency purposes, and because these measures are related to the catch limits proposed as part of Framework 53. The additional measures proposed in this action are listed below.

• Management measures for the common pool fishery—this action proposes fishing year 2015 trip limits for the common pool fishery. We have the authority to set management measures for the common pool fishery that will help ensure the fishery achieves, but does not exceed, its catch limits.

• Possible accountability measure for northern windowpane flounder—this action announces the possibility that an accountability measure for northern windowpane flounder could be implemented for fishing year 2015 if the fishing year 2014 catch limit for this stock is exceeded. We are announcing this to provide as much notice as possible to groundfish vessels that would be affected by these measures, if implemented, in 2015.

• Other regulatory corrections—we propose several revisions to the regulations to correct references, remove unnecessary text, and make other minor edits. Each proposed correction is described in the section “10. Regulatory Corrections Under Regional Administrator Authority.”

The Northeast Fisheries Science Center conducted stock assessments in 2014 for GOM cod, GOM haddock, GOM winter flounder, GB yellowtail flounder, GB winter flounder, and pollock. In response to these assessments, this action proposes to revise status determination criteria, as necessary, and provide updated numerical estimates of these criteria, in order to incorporate the results of the most recent stock assessments. Table 1 provides the updated numerical estimates of the status determination criteria, and Table 2 summarizes changes in stock status based on the new stock assessments conducted in 2014.

Updated stock status information is provided in this rule for all of the stocks that had a new assessment in 2014. However, only the status determination criteria for GB yellowtail flounder is proposed to change relative to the status determination criteria currently specified in the FMP. As described in more detail below, status determination relative to reference points is no longer possible for GB yellowtail flounder, and is proposed to be unknown.

GB yellowtail flounder is jointly managed with Canada, and the Transboundary Resources Assessment Committee (TRAC) conducts an annual assessment of this stock. In recent years, there has been a strong retrospective pattern in the approved assessment model for GB yellowtail flounder. This retrospective pattern causes the model to overestimate stock biomass and underestimate fishing mortality. Recent stock assessments for GB yellowtail flounder have been unable to determine the cause of the retrospective pattern. Additionally, attempts to address the retrospective pattern in the existing assessment model were only temporarily successful, and the magnitude of the retrospective pattern has increased in recent years.

In July 2013, a World Conference on Stock Assessment Methods, hosted by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, explored alternative assessment models for GB yellowtail flounder that may address the retrospective pattern. However, the workshop was not able to provide any alternative modeling solutions. Instead, the workshop concluded that the poor performance of the assessment model was likely due to issues in the underlying data. As a result, the TRAC conducted a diagnostic benchmark assessment in April 2014. This diagnostic benchmark was intended to further explore possible causes of the model's poor performance through examination of all of the available data sources, as well as to develop a method for providing catch advice that does not rely on an analytical assessment model (i.e., an empirical approach).

During the subsequent annual TRAC assessment in June 2014, the TRAC agreed to no longer use the assessment model for GB yellowtail flounder to evaluate stock status or provide catch advice. This decision was based on the poor performance of the assessment model in recent years, conclusions from the April 2014 diagnostic benchmark, as well as inconsistencies in the underlying data. As a replacement for the assessment model, the TRAC agreed to use the empirical approach developed at the diagnostic benchmark as the basis for providing management advice. This empirical approach does not provide historical estimates of biomass, fishing mortality rates, or recruitment estimates. As a result, the TRAC concluded that status determination relative to reference points is not possible because reference points cannot be defined. Additional details on recent GB yellowtail flounder assessments, including the 2014 diagnostic benchmark, can be found at: http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/saw/trac/.

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

Eastern GB cod, eastern GB haddock, and GB yellowtail flounder are jointly managed with Canada under the U.S./Canada Resource Sharing Understanding. Each year, the Transboundary Management Guidance Committee (TMGC), which is a government-industry committee made up of representatives from the United States and Canada, recommends a shared quota for each stock based on the most recent stock information and the TMGC's harvest strategy. The TMGC's harvest strategy for setting catch levels is to maintain a low to neutral risk (less than 50 percent) of exceeding the fishing mortality limit for each stock. The harvest strategy also specifies that when stock conditions are poor, fishing mortality should be further reduced to promote stock rebuilding. The shared quotas are allocated between the United States and Canada based on a formula that considers historical catch (10-percent weighting) and the current resource distribution (90-percent weighting).

For GB yellowtail flounder, the SSC also recommends an acceptable biological catch (ABC) for the stock, which is typically used to inform the U.S. TMGC's discussions with Canada for the annual shared quota. Although the stock is jointly managed with Canada, and the TMGC recommends annual shared quotas, the United States may not set catch limits that would exceed the SSC's recommendation. The SSC does not recommend ABCs for eastern GB cod and haddock because they are management units of the total GB cod and haddock stocks. The SSC recommends overall ABCs for the total GB cod and haddock stocks. The shared U.S./Canada quota for eastern GB cod and haddock is accounted for in these overall ABCs, and must be consistent with the SSC's recommendation for the total GB stocks.

The TRAC conducted assessments for the three transboundary stocks in June 2014, and detailed summaries of these assessments can be found at: http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/saw/trac/. The TMGC met in September 2014 to recommend shared quotas for 2015 based on the updated assessments, and the Council adopted the TMGC's recommendations in Framework 53. The proposed 2015 shared U.S./Canada quotas, and each country's allocation, are listed in Table 3.

The proposed 2015 U.S. quotas for eastern GB cod and GB yellowtail flounder would be a 20-percent and 25-percent reduction, respectively, compared to 2014. These reductions are due to both recent biomass declines and small reductions in the amount of the shared quota that is allocated to the United States. The proposed U.S. quota for eastern GB haddock would be a 70-percent increase compared to 2014, which is a result of both increased stock biomass and an increase in the amount allocated to the United States. For a more detailed discussion of the TMGC's 2015 catch advice, see the TMGC's guidance document at: http://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/sustainable/species/multispecies/index.html. Additionally, the proposed 2015 catch limit for GB yellowtail flounder is discussed in more detail in the section “4. Fishing Years 2015-2017 Catch Limits.”

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

The catch limits proposed in this action can be found in Tables 4 through 11. A brief summary of how these catch limits were developed is provided below. More details on the proposed catch limits for each groundfish stock can be found in Appendix III to the Framework 53 Environmental Assessment (see ADDRESSES for information on how to get this document).

Framework 53 proposes to adopt fishing years 2015-2017 catch limits for GOM cod, GOM haddock, GOM winter flounder, GB winter flounder, GB yellowtail flounder (2015-2016 only), and pollock based on the 2014 assessments for these stocks. In addition, this action proposes to update the 2015 catch limits for GB cod and haddock based on the proposed U.S./Canada quotas for the portions of these stocks managed jointly with Canada. For all other stocks, the overall catch limits included in this rule are the same as those previously adopted in Framework 50 and Framework 51, although small changes have been made to the distribution of these catch limits to the various components of the fishery.

For a number of stocks, the catch limits proposed in this action are substantially lower than the catch limits set for the 2014 fishing year. Compared to 2014, the proposed catch limits would be a 75-percent reduction for GOM cod, a 53-percent reduction for GOM winter flounder, and a 44-percent for GB winter flounder. The proposed GOM haddock catch limit would be a 114-percent increase compared to 2014, and the proposed pollock catch limit would be relatively similar to 2014. The GOM haddock and pollock catch limits could provide additional fishing opportunities for groundfish vessels to help mitigate some of the economic impacts of the catch limit reductions proposed for other key groundfish stocks. However, the proposed reductions are expected to be very restrictive for groundfish vessels, particularly small inshore vessels, which could minimize these benefits.

There are no catch limits proposed for fishing years 2016 or 2017 for most groundfish stocks. Stock assessment updates for all groundfish stocks are scheduled for September 2015, and, based on these assessment updates, catch limits will be set in a future action for fishing years 2016-2018. Given the timing of the stock assessments, the management action for the 2016 fishing year is not expected to be completed by the start of the fishing year. As a result, this action proposes default catch limits that would be implemented on May 1, 2016, to help prevent disruption to the fishery (see the section “6. Default Catch Limits”).

The overfishing limit (OFL) serves as the maximum amount of fish that can be caught in a year without resulting in overfishing. The OFL for each stock is calculated using the estimated stock size and FMSY (i.e., the fishing mortality rate that, if applied over the long term, would result in maximum sustainable yield). The OFL does not account for scientific uncertainty, so the SSC typically recommends an ABC that is lower than the OFL in order to account for this uncertainty. Usually, the greater the amount of scientific uncertainty, the lower the ABC is set compared to the OFL. For GB cod, haddock, and yellowtail flounder, the total ABC is then reduced by the amount of the Canadian quota (see Table 3 for the Canadian share of these stocks). Additionally, although GB winter flounder and Atlantic halibut are not jointly managed with Canada, there is some Canadian catch of these stocks. Because the total ABC must account for all sources of fishing mortality, expected Canadian catch of GB winter flounder (114 mt) and halibut (19 mt) is deducted from the total ABC. The U.S. ABC is the amount available to the U.S. fishery after accounting for Canadian catch.

A stock assessment update for GOM cod was completed in 2014. This assessment was an update of the existing 2012 benchmark assessment, which approved two assessment models for GOM cod. One assessment model (base case model) assumes that natural mortality is 0.2. The second assessment model (Mramp model) assumes that natural mortality has increased from 0.2 to 0.4 in recent years, although the 2012 benchmark assessment did not conclude that natural mortality would remain at 0.4 indefinitely. As a result, biological reference points for GOM cod are based on a natural mortality assumption of 0.2. Under both assessment models, GOM cod is overfished and overfishing is occurring. There was a retrospective pattern in both the 2012 benchmark assessment and the 2014 assessment update, although it was not large enough to warrant making any specific adjustment to address this bias. The 2014 assessment results indicated that the 2012 benchmark overestimated spawning stock biomass and underestimated fishing mortality. Detailed summaries of the 2012 benchmark assessment and the 2014 assessment update are available from the Northeast Fisheries Science Center at: http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/saw/reports.html and http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/crd/crd1414/, respectively.

Based on the two stock assessment models, there are three different catch projections that were considered for providing catch advice:

1. Natural mortality is 0.2 (base case model);

2. Natural mortality increased to 0.4, but returns to 0.2 in 2014 (Mramp model); and

3. Natural mortality increased to 0.4, and will remain 0.4 for the remainder of the rebuilding program for GOM cod (2024) (Mramp model).

The first two catch projections indicate that rebuilding is possible under catch limits that are consistent with the fishing mortality rate required to rebuild the stock by the rebuilding end date of 2024 (Frebuild). However, the remaining projection from the Mramp model suggests that rebuilding to the current biological reference points is not possible if natural mortality remains at 0.4. Natural mortality would have to return to 0.2 by 2016 in order for the stock to rebuild by 2024. There are some inconsistencies between this catch projection, which assumes natural mortality remains at 0.4, and the existing reference points, which are based on a natural mortality rate of 0.2. There are also several sources of uncertainties around the natural mortality rate that are important to note when evaluating the available catch projections. All of these uncertainties were discussed in detail in the available reports from the stock assessment, the Council's Groundfish Plan Development Team, and the SSC, but a brief summary is provided below.

First, there are uncertainties around whether the natural mortality rate has actually increased to 0.4. Both the 2012 benchmark assessment and the SSC's peer review of the 2014 assessment update noted that no definitive or conclusive evidence has been presented to support the assumption that natural mortality has increased. One motivation for applying an increased natural mortality rate was to try to reduce the retrospective pattern in the assessment model. The 2012 benchmark assessment also concluded that, because the retrospective pattern was worse in the assessment model that assumed a natural mortality of 0.2, the increased natural mortality rate of 0.4 could be partially disguising unaccounted fishing mortality. Despite these uncertainties, no peer review body has concluded that either natural mortality scenario is more plausible than the other. As a result, both assessment models were advanced for providing management advice.

Second, if natural mortality has increased to 0.4, there is uncertainty around when, and if, it would return to 0.2. The 2012 benchmark assessment concluded that if natural mortality has increased in recent years, it is unlikely to be a permanent change. However, in subsequent SSC meetings, some SSC members noted that it is unlikely the natural mortality rate would suddenly return to the lower rate, particularly coincident with the end of the assessment time series.

Because the 2012 benchmark assessment did not conclude that natural mortality would remain at 0.4 indefinitely, the biological reference points currently specified in the FMP assume a natural mortality rate of 0.2. However, given the uncertainties around the natural mortality rate, the SSC has had considerable discussion about the implications of an increased natural mortality rate on the biological reference points for GOM cod. The SSC debated whether the biomass target (BMSY) should be lowered under a scenario where natural mortality has increased, and, if so, whether the maximum fishing mortality threshold (FMSY) should be increased. Ultimately, the SSC was not able to reach agreement on the appropriate response for estimating BMSY and FMSY under a scenario when natural mortality has increased. In addition, although the SSC discussed the various scenarios and implications for biological reference points, it concluded that any deviation from the biological reference points established at the 2012 benchmark assessment would not be appropriate outside of the benchmark assessment process.

The SSC recommended an OFL of 514 mt for fishing years 2015-2017, which was calculated by averaging the 2015 catches at FMSY from the three catch projections. The SSC recommended a 3-year constant OFL to help offset some of the uncertainties in the catch projections. Thus, for 2016 and 2017, the recommended OFL is increasingly further below the catch at FMSY that is indicated from the catch projections. In support of its OFL recommendation, the SSC also noted that it used the results from each of the catch projections because all of the various natural mortality scenarios were plausible.

The SSC initially recommended a provisional ABC of 200 mt for fishing years 2015-2017. This recommendation was based on the Frebuild approach that is specified by the default ABC control rule. An ABC of 200 mt was the midpoint between the Frebuild catch for the scenario in which natural mortality is 0.2 and the scenario in which natural mortality increases, but returns to 0.2. This provisional ABC recommendation did not include the Frebuild catch for the projection that assumes natural mortality remains at 0.4, and that suggests rebuilding is not possible. This catch projection was not included in the ABC alternatives that the Groundfish Plan Development Team initially presented to the SSC because it was not considered to be consistent with the existing biological reference points, which assume a natural mortality rate of 0.2.

During the development of the provisional ABC recommendation of 200 mt, there was considerable discussion on the rebuilding potential for GOM cod. Although two of the catch projections indicate that rebuilding could occur, both the Groundfish Plan Development Team and the SSC noted concerns for the prospects of rebuilding GOM cod within the 10 year timeframe. The projections that indicate rebuilding can occur by 2024 require steady, sustained stock growth (approximately 40 percent growth each year). However, both technical bodies noted that these growth rates have rarely been observed, and that it seems unlikely this growth would occur.

The default ABC control rule specifies that, if a stock cannot rebuild in the specified rebuilding period, even with no fishing, the ABC should be based on incidental bycatch, including a reduction in the bycatch rate. Thus, given the available catch projections, uncertainties around the natural mortality rate, and past performance of catch projections, the SSC considered incidental bycatch information to help develop its final ABC recommendation. Based on analysis presented by the Groundfish Plan Development Team, the SSC determined that the overall incidental catch of GOM cod was approximately 500-600 mt under the current operating conditions of the fishery.

After consideration of incidental bycatch information, and given the noted uncertainties, the SSC recommended an ABC of 386 mt, which was calculated by taking 75 percent of the OFL. The SSC noted that its ABC recommendation was well below the OFL. Updated catch projections indicate that, if catch equals the proposed ABC of 386 mt in 2015, the probability of overfishing would range from 6 percent to 33 percent. Additionally, the SSC's recommendation is above the ABC associated with Frebuild, but below the average of the ABCs at 75 percent of FMSY for the three catch projections (405 mt). The SSC noted that an ABC of 386 mt would not compromise the ability of the stock to rebuild, and that catch projections still indicate a biomass increase under this scenario.

To help offset some of the uncertainty in catch projections, the SSC recommended a constant catch for the next 3 years. However, the SSC noted that the September 2015 stock assessment update for GOM cod will provide the opportunity to update its recommendation for the 2016 fishing year. Although not repeated in its report for this action, during the development of catch limits for 2013-2015, the SSC did note that presenting two models for GOM cod helped to better understand the nature and extent of scientific uncertainty. As discussed in this rule, presenting two assessment models does introduce difficulties in developing catch advice. However, overall, the SSC's final recommendation was an attempt to balance the various catch projections, natural mortality scenarios, and uncertainties in the assessment information with the various provisions of the control rule. Further, although the proposed ABC is not based on an Frebuild approach, the FMP and National Standard 1 give deference to the SSC to recommend ABCs that are departures from the established control rules. In such situations, the SSC must use the best scientific information available and provide amble justification on why the control rule is not the best approach for the particular circumstances.

We have several concerns for the proposed ABC that are highlighted below. We are requesting specific comment on these concerns, particularly on how the proposed ABC would sufficiently offset the noted uncertainties and effectively control fishing mortality.

Due to several sources of uncertainty, groundfish catch projections tend to be overly optimistic and routinely overestimate stock growth and underestimate fishing mortality. As a result, for a number of groundfish stocks, even catches that were substantially lower than the projected catch resulted in fishing mortality rates that did not meet the intended targets. A number of PDT reports and assessment documents note this past performance, and that this performance should be taken into account when setting ABCs.

The 2014 assessment results for GOM cod indicate that, in each year of the previous rebuilding plan (2004-2013), fishing mortality exceeded the target rate. Thus, past performance indicates that projected catch does not result in the desired fishing mortality and stock growth does not occur as expected. Additionally, there was a retrospective error in the assessment model for both the 2012 benchmark assessment and the 2014 assessment update. If this retrospective pattern continues, then the catch projections could be overly optimistic and their starting assumptions (e.g., current stock biomass) could be wrong. When considering performance of the initial rebuilding program for GOM cod and catch projections, effectively controlling fishing mortality is essential for rebuilding efforts.

The SSC noted that an ABC of 386 mt is still well below the OFL to account for uncertainty. However, the buffer between the recommended OFL and ABC (25 percent) is relatively similar to the buffer that would occur under a typical scenario using 75 percent of FMSY. In addition, the recommended ABC of 386 mt is only slightly below the average ABC based on 75 percent of FMSY for the three catch projections (405 mt). In its justification for an ABC of 386 mt, the SSC also noted that this would be a substantial reduction (75 percent) from the status quo ABC of 1,550 mt. This substantial reduction is necessary based on the 2014 assessment results that indicated a catch of 1,550 mt could result in a fishing mortality rate that is five times the target rate. In light of the past performance for GOM cod, we are requesting specific comment on whether the proposed ABC would sufficiently offset the uncertainties and effectively control fishing mortality.

As noted earlier, updated catch projections indicate rebuilding could occur by 2024 under an ABC of 386 mt. However, an ABC larger than Frebuild may necessitate lower ABCs later in the rebuilding timeline. Additionally, the SSC noted that an ABC of 386 mt would not compromise the stock's ability to rebuild based on the available catch projections. However, this aspect of the SSC's recommendation appears to differ from its conclusion that GOM cod seems unlikely to rebuild in 10 years given existing stock conditions. This difference highlights an important difficulty in evaluating the proposed ABC. As discussed earlier, there is some uncertainty around the likelihood of rebuilding the stock within 10 years, which were noted by both the Groundfish Plan Development Team and the SSC. However, neither technical body concluded that these uncertainties represent a foregone conclusion that this stock, unequivocally, cannot rebuild by 2024. We are requesting specific comment on how the proposed ABC would likely affect stock rebuilding, particularly compared to an ABC based on an Frebuild approach.

One factor that may help offset some of these concerns is that updated stock assessment information will be available in 2015, and in time to re-specify GOM cod catch limits for fishing year 2016. This updated information would also likely provide additional information on the rebuilding potential for GOM cod and the stock's response to recent catch limit reductions. Thus, although this action proposes a 3-year constant ABC, the catch limits adopted are expected to be in place for only 1 year. We also note that despite various uncertainties, no peer review body has concluded that any scenario is more plausible than another, and many of the uncertainties cannot be fully addressed until the next benchmark assessment is completed. Until then, catch limits for GOM cod must, to the extent possible, balance the two assessment models, various natural mortality assumptions, and other uncertainties in the available information. The proposed ABC appears to do this; however, we are requesting specific comments on whether the proposed ABC sufficiently incorporates all of the available information.

Although not specifically mentioned in the SSC's recommendation, the proposed ABC is expected to have substantial economic impacts on groundfish vessels, which are summarized in the section “Economic Impacts of the Proposed Measures” later in this preamble. These impacts are expected to be disproportionately distributed among the groundfish fleet. The largest revenue reductions are expected for vessels less than 50 ft (15 m), and those fishing from Gloucester, MA, and New Hampshire ports. Given current stock conditions, and all of the noted uncertainties in the stock assessment information, the proposed ABC would likely mitigate economic impacts, as much as possible, compared to other ABC alternatives that the SSC reviewed.

Due to the low catch limit proposed for GOM cod, we have some concerns regarding apportionment of catch and the incentive to misreport catch on unobserved trips. We noted these same concerns in our 2014 interim action for GOM cod. Additionally, this issue was discussed during the development of Framework 53, and is noted in various analyses prepared by the Council in support of this action. Due to these concerns, we are considering the possibility of additional reporting requirements (e.g., daily Vessel Monitoring System catch reports) for commercial groundfish vessels. We are not specifically proposing any additional requirements in this action; we are highlighting these concerns because they relate to the proposed specifications. We intend to further consult with the Council on this issue to explore whether additional reporting requirements could help address the noted concerns.

The U.S. ABC for each stock is divided among the various fishery components to account for all sources of fishing mortality. First, an estimate of catch expected from state waters and the “other” sub-component (i.e., non-groundfish fisheries) is deducted from the U.S. ABC. These sub-components are not subject to specific catch controls by the FMP. As a result, the state waters and other sub-components are not allocations, and these components of the fishery are not subject to accountability measures if the catch limits are exceeded. After the state and other sub-components are deducted, the remaining portion of the U.S. ABC is distributed to the fishery components that receive an allocation for the stock. Components of the fishery that receive an allocation are subject to accountability measures if they exceed their respective catch limit during the fishing year.

Once the U.S. ABC is divided, sub-annual catch limits (sub-ACLs) are set by reducing the amount of the ABC distributed to each component of the fishery to account for management uncertainty. Management uncertainty is the likelihood that management measures will result in a level of catch greater than expected. For each stock and fishery component, management uncertainty is estimated using the following criteria: Enforceability and precision of management measures, adequacy of catch monitoring, latent effort, and catch of groundfish in non-groundfish fisheries. The total ACL is the sum of all of the sub-ACLs and ACL sub-components, and is the catch limit for a particular year after accounting for both scientific and management uncertainty. Landings and discards from all fisheries (commercial and recreational groundfish fisheries, state waters, and non-groundfish fisheries) are counted against the ACL for each stock.

For stocks allocated to sectors, the commercial groundfish sub-ACL is further divided into the non-sector (common pool) sub-ACL and the sector sub-ACL, based on the total vessel enrollment in sectors and the cumulative Potential Sector Contributions (PSCs) associated with those sectors. The preliminary sector and common pool sub-ACLs proposed in this action are based on fishing year 2015 PSCs and fishing year 2014 sector rosters. 2015 sector rosters will not be finalized until May 1, 2015, because individual permit holders have until the end of the 2014 fishing year to drop out of a sector and fish in the common pool fishery for 2015. Therefore, it is possible that the sector and common pool catch limits proposed in this action may change due to changes in the sector rosters. If changes to the sector rosters occur, updated catch limits will be published as soon as possible in the 2015 fishing year to reflect the final sector rosters as of May 1, 2015. Sector specific allocations for each stock can be found in the proposed rule for 2015 Sector Operations Plans and Contracts.

The common pool sub-ACL for each stock (except for SNE/MA winter flounder, windowpane flounder, ocean pout, Atlantic wolffish, and Atlantic halibut) is further divided into trimester total allowable catches (TACs). The distribution of the common pool sub-ACLs into trimesters was adopted by Amendment 16 to the FMP and is based on recent landing patterns. Once we project that 90 percent of the trimester TAC is caught for a stock, the trimester TAC area for that stock is closed for the remainder of the trimester to all common pool vessels fishing with gear capable of catching the pertinent stock. Any uncaught portion of the TAC in Trimester 1 or Trimester 2 will be carried forward to the next trimester. Overages of the Trimester 1 or Trimester 2 TAC will be deducted from the Trimester 3 TAC. Any overages of the total common pool sub-ACL will be deducted from the following fishing year's common pool sub-ACL for that stock. Uncaught portions of the Trimester 3 TAC may not be carried over into the following fishing year. Table 8 summarizes the common pool trimester TACs proposed in this action.

Incidental catch TACs are also specified for certain stocks of concern (i.e., stocks that are overfished or subject to overfishing) for common pool vessels fishing in the special management programs (i.e., special access programs (SAPs) and the Regular B Days-at-Sea (DAS) Program), in order to limit the catch of these stocks under each program. Tables 9 through 11 summarize the proposed Incidental Catch TACs for each stock and the distribution of these TACs to each special management program.

Overall fishing effort by both common pool and sector vessels in the Closed Area I Hook Gear Haddock SAP is controlled by an overall TAC for GB haddock, which is the target species for this SAP. The maximum amount of GB haddock that may be caught in any fishing year is based on the amount allocated to this SAP for the 2004 fishing year (1,130 mt), and adjusted according to the growth or decline of the western GB haddock biomass in relationship to its size in 2004. Based on this formula, the proposed GB Haddock TAC for this SAP is 2,448 mt for the 2015 fishing year. Once this overall TAC is caught, the Closed Area I Hook Gear Haddock SAP will be closed to all groundfish vessels for the remainder of the fishing year.

This action proposes to re-configure the GOM rolling closures and prohibit possession of GOM cod for the recreational fishery. A summary of the proposed changes to the GOM rolling closures is provided in Table 12. This action would add closures in the winter (November-January), May, and June, and would remove all closures in April, and one closure in June. Additionally, this action proposes to remove a number of other rolling closures, although sector vessels have been exempt from these areas since 2010.

These closures would apply to all commercial vessels, except for commercial vessels that are fishing with exempted gear, as defined in § 648.2, or in an exempted fishery. Exempted gear is deemed to be not capable of catching groundfish and currently includes: Pelagic hook and line, pelagic longline, spears, rakes, diving gear, cast nets, tongs, harpoons, weirs, dipnets, stop nets, pound nets, pelagic gillnets, pots and traps, shrimp trawls (with a properly configured grate), and surfclam and ocean quahog dredges. Based on the current list of approved exempted fisheries defined in § 648.80, the proposed protection closures would not apply to vessels fishing in the Midwater Trawl Gear Exempted Fishery, the Purse Seine Gear Exempted Fishery, the Raised Footrope Trawl Exempted Whiting Fishery, the Small Mesh Area II Exemption Area, or the Scallop Dredge Exemption Area. As adopted in Amendment 16 to the FMP, sector vessels would continue to be exempt from the closures in March and October. The March and October closures would also not apply to Handgear A vessels, regardless of whether the vessel was fishing in the common pool or in a sector.

The proposed GOM cod closures are intended to protect spawning GOM cod, reduce fishing mortality on GOM cod, and provide additional fishing opportunities for groundfish vessels to target healthy groundfish stocks. These closures are an additional tool the Council is using to protect GOM cod, and are complementary to its requirement for setting catch limits that will prevent overfishing and help rebuild the stock. Based on the available information, and as noted in the Council's analysis, protecting spawning GOM cod could help improve the chances of successful spawning events, and, as a result, help prevent failures of future year classes. Ultimately, the biological objectives of these closures are intended to help prevent further biomass declines and improve the likelihood of rebuilding GOM cod. As part of the proposed measure, the Council also adopted a provision that the closures would be subject to review when the GOM cod spawning stock biomass reaches the minimum biomass threshold (50 percent of SSBMSY).

Recreational vessels would not be subject to the GOM cod protection closures, and could continue to fish in these areas. Instead, this action proposes to prohibit possession of GOM cod for all private and party/charter recreational vessels. This is intended to provide recreational vessels the opportunity to target other healthy groundfish stocks, while reducing the incentive to target GOM cod in order to reduce fishing mortality on this stock by the recreational fishery. Recent catch projections indicate that the recreational fishery would still exceed its allocation for GOM cod in the 2015 fishing year due to bycatch, even with the prohibition on possession that is proposed in this action. Therefore, in a separate rulemaking, we will implement additional recreational measures under our discretionary authority to implement proactive accountability measures to help ensure the recreational fishery does not exceed its allocation in 2015.

We have some concerns for the proposed re-configuration of the GOM area closures. First, the supporting analysis prepared by the Council for this action indicates that the added closures in May and June may provide little additional benefit because little fishing activity has typically occurred in these times and areas. Additionally, the areas proposed to be open in April are historically important areas for spawning cod, and some information indicates the core of the GOM cod stock is concentrated in these areas. The analysis indicates that removing April closures could allow fishing effort to shift into areas of high cod concentration when vessels are targeting other stocks, like GOM haddock. Given the expected low GOM cod allocation, it is difficult to predict how groundfish vessels will operate in 2015, and any potential effort shifts may be minimal with such a restrictive GOM cod catch limit. However, if the removal of the April rolling closures does result in an effort shift into areas of high cod concentration, benefits from additional winter closures could be diminished if fishing mortality increases in April.

The current April rolling closures provide some secondary benefits for other groundfish stocks that spawn in the spring. Framework 53 analysis indicates that removing April closures would provide less spawning protection for GOM winter flounder, CC/GOM yellowtail flounder, plaice, and GOM haddock. Although this spawning protection is a secondary benefit of the current April closures, the expected impact should be considered carefully. For a number of these stocks, the most recent stock assessment information indicates biomass declines. Also important to note is that, in 2014, we implemented the second 10-year rebuilding program for plaice due to inadequate rebuilding progress.

The Council's analysis also summarizes some of the available research on GOM cod spawning. This information indicates that fishing on spawning cod may affect spawning activity beyond just the removal of fish. Fishing activity may disrupt spawning signals, and, as a result, can reduce spawning success. In addition, because spawning fish are stressed, these fish may be less likely to survive capture and release than under normal conditions, or may have reduced egg production following release. Considering all of this supporting information, allowing exempted fisheries and recreational vessels in these protection closures could diminish the additional spawning protection that these closures are intended to provide.

Based on all of these considerations, we are concerned that the proposed protection closures may not fully meet the Council's intended objectives. The Council initially identified enhancing spawning protection as a goal for the Omnibus Habitat Amendment 2. However, because this amendment was not anticipated to be completed quickly enough, and due to concern for the low GOM cod stock size, the Council prioritized GOM cod spawning protection for Framework 53. During the development of Framework 53, the Council identified additional objectives for the GOM area closures beyond just spawning protection. However, complete analysis of the impacts of the proposed protection closures was not available when the Council took final action on Framework 53. As a result, it may have been difficult for the Council to evaluate the likelihood that the proposed measures would meet its intended objectives. Because much of the supporting analysis was not available when the Council adopted the proposed protection closures, we are requesting specific comments on the extent to which the proposed closures would fully meet all of the Council's stated objectives, as well as the biological tradeoffs related to the proposed changes to the GOM area closures for winter (November-January) and April.

Although we have some concerns, largely for the removal of April closures, this action would provide important spawning protection during the winter, which the status quo measures do not provide. The Council's analysis indicates that the proposed changes would protect an additional 35 percent of the winter spawning biomass and 8 percent less of the spring spawning biomass. Available information does not indicate whether the winter or spring spawning biomass is more important relative to overall contribution to cod recruitment. However, some analysis indicates that the winter spawning component may be much smaller than the spring component, although the reasons for this are unknown. The available GOM cod spawning research suggests that once a specific spawning aggregation is lost, there is little indication that the aggregation could recolonize. As a result, the proposed winter closures could provide essential protection for the winter component, and help prevent further depletion of this component. At least in the short-term, the addition of winter closures proposed in this action appears to be more beneficial than the status quo measures.

Further, the economic impacts analysis of the proposed closures indicates that these measures may provide some additional economic opportunities compared to the existing rolling closures. Although the analysis indicates that the economic benefits may be small, we recognize that, given the low catch limits for many groundfish stocks, even small increases in fishing opportunities are meaningful. This is particularly true for small vessels and the ports that would be most impacted by this action, and the proposed closures could help increase the viability of some inshore vessels. As noted in the analysis, it is difficult to quantify the economic impacts of the proposed protection closures. As a result, we are requesting specific comment on these anticipated impacts, including the economic trade-offs that would occur under the proposal to close new areas in the winter and open previously closed areas in April.

The proposed protection measures include a provision that the closures would be subject to review once the minimum biomass threshold for GOM cod is met. However, the Council could review and modify these closures at any time. For all of the reasons mentioned above, protecting spawning aggregations is one way to help prevent further biomass declines and improve the likelihood of rebuilding GOM cod. Given the poor status of GOM cod, and the possibility of additional research on GOM cod spawning, reviewing these closures as additional stock information becomes available is likely more important than waiting for the minimum biomass threshold to be met.

Assessment updates for all 20 groundfish stocks are scheduled for September 2015. If the results of the next GOM cod assessment indicate the stock has declined further, then additional action may be warranted. The Council would likely need to review the GOM cod protection measures, and any updated stock information, and consider expanding protection closures, particularly for the month of April, or other areas of high cod concentration.

This action proposes to establish a mechanism for setting default catch limits in the event a future management action is delayed. If final catch limits have not been implemented by the start of the fishing year on May 1, then default catch limits would be implemented. The default catch limits would be set at 35 percent of the previous year's catch limit, as long as this value does not exceed the Council's recommendation for the upcoming fishing year. If this value exceeds the Council's recommendation, the default catch limits would be reduced to an amount equal to the Council's recommendation for the upcoming fishing year.

The default catch limits would be in place from May 1 through July 31, unless a final rule including permanent catch limits is implemented prior to July 31 that replaces the default catch limits. If final catch limits are not implemented by the end of the default specifications period, then no catch limits would be in place beginning on August 1. Under this scenario, commercial groundfish vessels would be unable to fish until final catch limits and allocations were implemented for the fishing year. All catch occurring while default catch limits are in place would be attributed to the appropriate fishery allocation and the final catch limits for the fishing year.

The default catch limits would be distributed to the various components of the fishery based on the distribution adopted by the Council for the previous fishing year. Additionally, this proposed measure would not change any of the existing accountability measures for any fishery. For example, if a sector catches its entire allocation of redfish specified for the default specifications time period, it would be prohibited from fishing in the redfish stock area until final specifications were set, or it received additional allocation for this stock. The midwater trawl fishery is the only non-groundfish fishery with an inseason accountability measure for its allocation of GOM and GB haddock. When the GOM or GB haddock catch cap specified for the default specifications period is caught, the directed herring fishery would be closed for all herring vessels fishing with midwater trawl gear for the remainder of the default specifications time period, unless final specifications were set prior to July 31. For other non-groundfish fisheries that receive an allocation (e.g., scallop, small-mesh), this proposed measure would not affect current operations because these fisheries do not have inseason accountability measures.

If default catch limits are implemented for any fishing year, groundfish sectors would not be subject to the 20 percent holdback of the prior year's allocation. This holdback provision was implemented in Amendment 16 to the FMP to allow time for processing end-of-year transfers and determine whether any overage reductions are necessary. However, the holdback provision would not be necessary under default catch limits because additional precaution has already been built in with the 65-percent reduction from the previous year's catch limits.

Although most FMPs implement default catch limits that are equal to the previous year's catch limits, a more precautionary approach is proposed for default groundfish catch limits. In recent years, there have been a number of substantial reductions in groundfish catch limits, up to 80 percent. Given the frequency of large reductions, default catch limits equal to the previous year's catch limits could increase the risk of overfishing during the time period which default catch limits are implemented. As a result, reducing the default catch limits from the previous year's catch limits would help ensure that overfishing does not occur during the default time period.

This measure is largely intended to prevent disruption to the groundfish fishery in the event a management action is delayed. Sector vessels are not allowed to fish in a stock area unless their sector has received an allocation for the respective stock. As a result, if catch limits are not implemented by the start of the groundfish fishing year on May 1 in any year, then sector vessels would not be allowed to fish. This would cause severe disruption to the groundfish fishery and could result in foregone yield. Any revenue reductions that may occur during a gap in specifications could worsen the severe economic impacts that have resulted from recent groundfish catch limit reductions.

Groundfish assessment updates are anticipated in September 2015, and these assessments are expected to be used to set catch limits for the 2016 fishing year beginning on May 1, 2016. However, due to the timing of these assessments, the Council's management action that will adopt the catch limits for the 2016 fishing year is not expected to be completed in time to be implemented by May 1, 2016. As a result, in conjunction with the default specifications process proposed in Framework 53, this action also proposes default limits for 2016 that would become effective May 1, 2016, unless otherwise replaced by final specifications. Default catch limits are proposed only for those groundfish stocks that would not have final specifications in place for 2016, absent another management action. The default catch limits proposed in this action are provided in Tables 13 and 14. If these default catch limits exceed the Council's recommendation for fishing year 2016, then they would be adjusted, as necessary, in a future action prior to May 1, 2016.