[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 84 (Friday, May 1, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 25143-25160]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-09950]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 648

[Docket No. 140821699-5361-02]
RIN 0648-XD461


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

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We have partially approved sector operations plans and 
contracts for fishing years 2015 and 2016, granting regulatory 
exemptions for fishing years 2015 and 2016, and providing Northeast 
multispecies annual catch entitlements to approved sectors for fishing 
year 2015. Approval of sector operations plans is necessary to allocate 
annual catch entitlements to the sectors and for the sectors to 
operate. The Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan allows 
limited access permit holders to form sectors, and requires sectors to 
submit their operations plans and contracts to us, NMFS, for approval 
or disapproval. Approved sectors are exempt from certain effort control 
regulations and receive allocations of Northeast multispecies based on 
its members' fishing history.

DATES: Sector operations plans and regulatory exemptions are effective 
May 1, 2015, through April 30, 2017. Northeast multispecies annual 
catch entitlements for sectors are effective May 1, 2015, through April 
30, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Copies of each sector's final operations plan and contract, 
and the environmental assessment (EA), are available from the NMFS 
Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office: John K. Bullard, Regional 
Administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service, 55 Great Republic 
Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. These documents are also accessible via 
the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Amendment 13 to the Northeast (NE) Multispecies Fishery Management 
Plan (FMP) (69 FR 22906, April 27, 2004) established a process for 
forming sectors within the NE multispecies (groundfish) fishery, and 
Amendment 16 to the FMP (74 FR 18262, April 9, 2010), followed by 
Framework Adjustment 45 to the FMP (76 FR 23042, April 25, 2011) and 
Framework 48 to the FMP (78 FR 26118; May 3, 2013), expanded and 
revised sector management.
    The FMP defines a sector as ``[a] group of persons (three or more 
persons, none of whom have an ownership interest in the other two 
persons in the sector) holding limited access vessel permits who have 
voluntarily entered into a contract and agree to certain fishing 
restrictions for a specified period of time, and which has been granted 
a TAC(s) [sic] in order to achieve objectives consistent with 
applicable FMP goals and objectives.'' Sectors are self-selecting, 
meaning each sector can choose its members.
    The NE multispecies sector management system allocates a portion of 
the NE multispecies stocks to each sector. These annual sector 
allocations are known as annual catch entitlements (ACE). These 
allocations are a portion of a stock's annual catch limit (ACL) 
available to commercial NE multispecies vessels within a sector, 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, which are non-allocated. 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) Cod Protection Closures 
(as created by Framework 53; implemented concurrently with this rule); 
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

[[Page 25144]]

(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.
    Of the 24 approved sectors, 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 
include operations spanning two fishing years, as well as 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 determined that the 17 sector operations plans and 
contracts that we have approved, and 19 of the 22 regulatory exemptions 
requested, in whole or partially, are consistent with the FMP's goals 
and objectives, and meet sector requirements outlined in the 
regulations at Sec.  648.87. These 17 operations plans are similar to 
previously approved plans, but include a new exemption request. Copies 
of the operations plans and contracts, and the environmental assessment 
(EA), are available at http://www.regulations.gov and from NMFS (see 
ADDRESSES). One of the 17 sectors, Northeast Fishery Sector (NEFS) IV, 
proposes to operate as a private lease-only sector.

Sector Allocations

    Based on sector enrollment as of February 25, 2015, we have 
projected fishing year 2015 allocations in this final rule. 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 sector operations plans 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.
    We calculate the sector's allocation for each stock by summing its 
members' potential sector contributions (PSC) for a stock and then 
multiplying that total percentage by the available commercial sub-ACL 
for that stock, as approved in Framework 53 to the FMP. Table 1 shows 
the projected total PSC for each sector by stock for fishing year 2015. 
Tables 2 and 3 show the allocations that each sector will be allocated, 
in pounds and metric tons, respectively, for fishing year 2015, based 
on their preliminary fishing year 2015 rosters. At the start of the 
fishing year, 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 each 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. In the past, we have typically finalized 
the prior year's catch during the summer months. We expect to finalize 
2014 catch information consistent with this past practice. We will 
allow sectors to transfer fishing year 2014 ACE for two weeks of the 
fishing year following our 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. Each year of the operations plans, 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/.

[[Page 25145]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01MY15.000


[[Page 25146]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01MY15.001


[[Page 25147]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01MY15.002


[[Page 25148]]



Sector Operations Plans and Contracts

    As previously stated, we received 17 sector operations plans and 
contracts by the September 2, 2014, deadline for fishing years 2015 and 
2016. Each sector elected to submit a single document that is both its 
contract and operations plan. Therefore, these submitted operations 
plans not only contain the rules under which each sector would fish, 
but also provide the legal contract that binds each member to the 
sector. All sectors' proposed operations plans are for two fishing 
years--2015 and 2016. Each sector's operations plan, and each sector's 
members, must comply with the regulations governing sectors, found at 
Sec.  648.87. In addition, each sector must conduct fishing activities 
as detailed in its approved operations plan.
    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 the regulations. If, during 
a fishing year, or between fishing years 2015 and 2016, a sector 
requests an exemption that we have already granted, 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 adequately be monitored; or if a sector is not meeting certain 
administrative or operational requirements. If it becomes necessary to 
revoke an 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 in 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. This includes trips that have declared 
into the small mesh exemption (described below), because vessels 
fishing under this sector exemption, i.e., vessels fishing with both 
small mesh and large mesh during the same trip, are considered a sector 
trip for purposes of monitoring ACE. Catch from a trip in an exempted 
fishery does not count against a sector's allocation because the catch 
is assigned to a separate ACL sub-component.
    For fishing years 2010 and 2011, there was no requirement for an 
industry-funded ASM program, and we were able to fund an ASM program 
with a target ASM coverage rate of 30 percent of all trips. In 
addition, we provided 8-percent observer coverage through the Northeast 
Fishery Observer Program (NEFOP), which helps to support the 
Standardized Bycatch Reporting Methodology (SBRM) and stock 
assessments. This resulted in an overall target coverage rate of 38 
percent, between ASM and NEFOP, for fishing years 2010 and 2011. 
Beginning in fishing year 2012, we have conducted an annual analysis to 
determine the total coverage that would be necessary to achieve the 
same level of precision as attained by the 38-percent total coverage 
target used for fishing years 2010 and 2011. Since fishing year 2012, 
industry has been required to pay for their costs of ASM coverage, 
while we continued to fund NEFOP. However, we were able to fund the 
industry's portion of ASM costs and NEFOP coverage in fishing years 
2012 through 2014. Table 4 shows the annual target coverage rates.

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

    Due to funding changes that are required by the NE Omnibus SBRM 
Amendment, we expect that sector vessels will be responsible for paying 
the at-sea portion of costs associated with the sector 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 accurately monitor sector 
operations. Framework 48 clarified the level of ASM coverage necessary 
to meet these goals. Framework 48 determined that the CV level should 
be achieved 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 total appropriate target coverage rate for fishing year 2015 
is 24 percent. We

[[Page 25149]]

expect ASM coverage to be 20 percent and NEFOP coverage to be 4 percent 
(based on the Omnibus SBRM, as proposed), 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 to be used for fishing year 2015. We gave 
sectors the option to design their own programs in compliance with 
regulations, or elect to adopt the program that we have used in 
previous fishing years. Four sectors chose to adopt the program we used 
in previous years. We approved the sector-proposed program for the 
remaining 12 sectors. ASM programs proposed by the sectors are 
described in detail later in this final rule.
    We are currently looking at how industry funding of its costs for 
the ASM program will affect our data collection systems, especially the 
pre-trip notification system (PTNS), 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 coverage data 
collection and notification requirements.
    Our ability to fund our portion of costs for ASM coverage above 
SBRM coverage levels for the entire 2015 and 2016 fishing years is 
still not known at this time due to budget uncertainties. Currently, 
funding for our portion of ASM costs is expected to 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.
    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, as modified by the sector for reserves or other management 
choices. 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. 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 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.
    Sectors are required to monitor their allocations and catch. To 
help ensure a sector does not exceed its ACE, each sector operations 
plan explains sector monitoring and reporting requirements, including a 
requirement to submit weekly catch reports to us. If a sector reaches 
an ACE threshold (specified in the operations plan), the sector must 
provide us with 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 sector fishing operations in that stock area 
until it acquires more ACE, unless that sector has an approved plan to 
fish without ACE for that stock. 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.

Granted Exemptions for Fishing Years 2015 and 2016

Previously Granted Exemptions Granted for Fishing Years 2015 and 2016 
(1-16)

    We granted exemptions from the following requirements for fishing 
years 2015 and 2016, all of which have been previously requested and 
granted: (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 an 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 granted exemptions and 
supporting rationale can be found in the applicable final rules 
identified in Table 5 below.

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


[[Page 25150]]

Exemptions of Concern That Are Granted for Fishing Years 2015 and 2016 
(17-19)

(17) Prohibition on Combining Small-Mesh Exempted Fishery and Sector 
Trips
    For fishing year 2014, sectors requested and we granted an 
exemption that would allow vessels to possess and use small-mesh and 
large-mesh trawl gear on a single trip, within portions of the SNE 
regulated mesh areas (RMA). Sectors proposed allowing vessels using 
this exemption to fish with smaller mesh in two discrete areas that 
have been shown to have minimal amounts of regulated species and ocean 
pout. See the 2014 Sector Operations Plans 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 show in 
Figure 1.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01MY15.003

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

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

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

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

    As was granted in fishing year 2014, one of three trawl gear 
modifications is 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). To facilitate proper coverage levels and 
assist with enforcement, the vessel is 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. Trips declaring this exemption must stow their small-mesh 
gear and use their large-mesh gear first, and once finished with the 
large mesh, must submit a Multispecies Catch Report via VMS of all 
catch on board at that time. Once the Catch Report is sent, the vessel 
can 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 cannot be redeployed. Any 
legal-sized allocated groundfish stocks caught during these small-mesh

[[Page 25151]]

hauls must be landed and the associated landed weight (dealer or vessel 
trip report (VTR)) will be deducted from the sector's ACE.
    We received two comments in support of granting this exemption as 
proposed, including the modification to the Sector Small-Mesh Fishery 
Exemption Area 2 (see map). One commenter indicated that the provisions 
(e.g. trip start hails, gear stowage requirements, catch report 
submission, and gear modifications) allow for a higher level of 
enforceability.
    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.
    Based on the comments received, we have granted this exemption as 
proposed for fishing years 2015 and 2016. We will be reviewing data 
from 2014 and plan to 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.
(18) Limits on the Number of Gillnets on Day Gillnet Vessels
    The FMP limits the number of gillnets a Day gillnet vessel may fish 
in the groundfish RMAs to prevent an uncontrolled increase in the 
number of nets being fished, thus undermining applicable DAS effort 
controls. The limits are specific to the type of gillnet within each 
RMA: 100 gillnets (of which no more than 50 can be roundfish gillnets) 
in the GOM RMA (Sec.  648.80(a)(3)(iv)); 50 gillnets in the GB RMA 
(Sec.  648.80(a)(4)(iv)); and 75 gillnets in the Mid-Atlantic (MA) RMA 
(Sec.  648.80(b)(2)(iv)). We previously granted 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 have not 
identified trends indicating this. Additionally, a take reduction plan 
has been implemented to reduce bycatch in the fisheries affecting these 
species, and there is continual monitoring of protected species 
bycatch.
    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 fishing years 2015 and 2016, we proposed to 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.
    We received three comments on to this exemption. Oceana was 
supportive of the proposal to deny the exemption in the GOM RMA, but 
urged us to also deny the exemption in other RMAs, to protect GB cod. 
Conversely, two sector-related groups disagreed with our proposal to 
deny the exemption for the GOM, but supported the proposal to grant it 
in the other RMAs. They referenced the fishing mortality limits already 
placed on sectors by ACLs and the sector's resulting allocations, and 
stated that with such a low GOM cod ACL, Day gillnet vessels will 
already be strategizing to avoid catching cod, and therefore don't need 
further limits on the amount of gear they can use.
    While the low ACLs for GOM cod will help reduce the fishing 
pressure on GOM cod, we feel it is important to maintain the FMP's 
limit on the amount of gillnet gear in the GOM that may catch GOM cod, 
in part because of the low sub-ACL set for GOM cod. Also, we are 
particularly concerned with the potential interactions with spawning 
GOM cod and the potential for long-term detrimental effects if spawning 
aggregations are disrupted. Sectors have the flexibility to declare 
into the Trip boat gillnet category, which have no limits on the number 
of nets allowed in the GOM but are not allowed to leave gear 
unattended. At the current time, we do not think it is necessary to 
deny this exemption outside of the GOM RMA. For a full description of 
the comments and further discussion of these issues, please see the 
Comments and Responses Section below.
    Based on the comments received and the concern for spawning cod, we 
are partially granting and denying this sector exemption request for 
fishing years 2015 and 2016, as we proposed in the proposed rule. Day 
gillnet vessels will be restricted to a 150-gillnet limit in the GB, 
SNE, and MA RMAs; in GOM RMA, the vessel will be restricted to a 100-
gillnet limit (of which no more than 50 can be roundfish gillnets).
(19) Regulated Mesh Size 6.5 Inch (16.5 cm) or Greater, for Directed 
Redfish Trips
    Minimum mesh size restrictions (Sec.  648.80(a)(3)(i), (a)(4)(i), 
(b)(2)(i), and (c)(2)(i)) were implemented under previous groundfish 
actions to reduce overall mortality on groundfish stocks, change the 
selection pattern of the fishery to target larger fish, improve 
survival of sublegal fish, and allow sublegal fish more opportunity to 
spawn before entering the fishery. Beginning in fishing year 2012, we 
have granted 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

[[Page 25152]]

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, who 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, and therefore facilitate access to 
this healthy stock, while preventing misuse and ensuring it is 
consistent with the FMP's goals and objectives.

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

    For fishing years 2012 and 2013, the exemption required 100-percent 
monitoring with either an ASM or observer on every trip, primarily 
because of concerns over a greater retention of sub-legal groundfish, 
as well as non-allocated species and bycatch. In fishing year 2012, we 
found that allowing trips that are randomly selected for federally 
funded NEFOP or ASM coverage provided an incentive to take an exemption 
trip when selected for coverage, thereby reducing the number of 
observers/monitors available to cover standard sector trips (i.e., 
trips not utilizing this exemption). If fewer observers/monitors deploy 
on standard sector trips, then the exemption undermines our ability to 
meet required coverage levels and increases the uncertainty 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 our granting 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 trips 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 proposed granting the sectors' 
request to use a 5.5-inch (14.0-cm) mesh codend when fishing in the 
redfish exemption, along with other changes from the previous years' 
exemption that provide operational flexibility while also seeking to 
ensure consistency with the FMP's mortality, selectivity, and spawning 
protection objectives. 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 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 in part by implementing reporting requirements to 
facilitate monitoring and increased coordination with enforcement. If 
we detect vessels targeting non-redfish stocks, particularly stocks of 
concern, the RA retains the right to rescind the exemption. The 5-
percent discard threshold for all groundfish, including redfish, would 
still apply on the redfish portion of observed trips.
    Another way of addressing our concern for incidental catch and 
bycatch of groundfish, and in particular due to our concern for GOM 
cod, we proposed to grant a modified redfish exemption area from 2014 
(see Figure 2).

[[Page 25153]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01MY15.004

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

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

    We worked with the sectors and 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 proposed to 
close them to avoid interaction with and bycatch of GOM cod. 
Additionally, area 138 has historically had very little redfish catch; 
therefore, the exclusion of this area should not limit sectors from 
targeting redfish. The area is bounded on the east, north, west, and 
south by the following coordinates, connected by straight lines in the 
order listed:

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

    Vessels must declare their trip in the 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. 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. We will use these thresholds and catch data or other 
information to determine if this sector exemption should be revoked.
    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. We are concerned about the potential for 
vessels to misreport the mesh size used when other groundfish are 
caught on the redfish portion of the

[[Page 25154]]

trip. Misreporting could help a vessel avoid falling below the required 
threshold.
    Additionally, we remain concerned about vessels catching 
groundfish, including their bycatch of juvenile fish and incidental 
catch or bycatch of GOM cod, 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. When determining the threshold, we also 
considered trips from a portion of the 2012 fishing year, when vessels 
were allowed to use as small as a 4.5-inch mesh codend. Based on this 
data and our analysis of use of the exemption, sector needs, and the 
FMP's goals and objectives, we have set a threshold to provide an 
incentive to target redfish while balancing the incidental catch of 
other allocated stocks in a mixed species fishery.
    We remain concerned, however, that the exemption could allow 
sectors to target groundfish when fishing with a smaller codend or 
increase discards that would likely go unreported, which could 
undermine the protections of the 5-percent bycatch threshold. Because 
of these concerns, we intend to monitor use of the exemption closely. 
We intend to watch whether vessels are using the exemption when 
assigned an observer or ASM, or only using it when unobserved, which 
would affect our ability to monitor 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. If issues such as these arise, or 
if monitoring reveals that trips are having higher than expected catch 
of other groundfish, we may notify sectors so that they can work with 
their vessels to change fishing behavior or comply with the exemption 
requirements. However, as previously stated, the RA retains authority 
to rescind of this exemption, if it is needed.
    We received four comments related to the redfish exemption, all of 
which were supportive of the exemption as it was described in the 
proposed rule. One industry member commented that a 5.5-inch (14.0-cm) 
codend is the appropriate mesh size to target redfish, and that the 
exemption will redirect effort away from GOM cod and onto redfish, 
because the redfish exemption area lies offshore, where there has been 
lower catch of GOM cod. One sector-related group commented in support 
of the proposed catch thresholds, stating that they adequately 
reflected the catch composition when using a 5.5-inch (14.0-cm) codend. 
This group also supported modifications intended to minimize 
interactions with GOM cod. An industry group supported strict 
monitoring of the exemption. We have provided a more detailed response 
to these comments in the Comments and Responses Section below.
    In previous years, we have granted versions of the redfish 
exemption that were more restrictive. This was to ensure that sector 
vessels were effectively targeting only redfish. However, during the 
development of the fishing years 2015 and 2016 exemption, we heard that 
these requirements were too onerous and have discouraged use of the 
exemption. For fishing years 2015 and 2016, we are granting the 
exemption with modifications as we proposed. We are seeking to strike a 
balance between allowing access to an underutilized, healthy stock and 
meeting objectives to prevent overfishing. As previously discussed, we 
intend to monitor this exemption, and retain the authority to rescind 
the exemption if thresholds are not being met.

Denied Fishing Years 2015 and 2016 Exemptions Requests

    In addition to the 19 exemptions granted in this final rule, we are 
denying three other exemption requests for fishing years 2015 and 2016. 
The GOM haddock sink gillnet exemption was previously rejected, 
continues to be of concern, and no new information has been submitted 
that justifies granting it. Regarding the VMS powerdown exemption, 
sectors demonstrated a lack of compliance in previous years. The 
requested 2014 fishing year version of the redfish exemption was too 
similar to the 2015 and 2016 fishing year redfish exemption that is 
granted by this rule. Based on this, we are denying these exemptions in 
this final rule.

Exemption That May Be Considered in a Separate Action

Prohibition on Groundfish Trips in Closed Areas (CA) I and II

    In fishing year 2013, we denied 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 comments 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.

Additional Sector Operations Plan Provisions

Inshore GOM Restrictions

    Several sectors have proposed an operations plan provision to limit 
and more accurately document a vessel's behavior when fishing in what 
they

[[Page 25155]]

consider the inshore portion of the GOM BSA, or the area to the west of 
70[deg]15' W. long. We approve this provision, but note that a sector 
may elect to remove this provision in the final version of its 
operations plan.
    Under this provision, a vessel that is carrying an observer or at-
sea monitor would remain free to fish in all areas, including the 
inshore GOM area, without restriction. If a vessel is not carrying an 
observer or at-sea monitor and fishes any part of its trip in the GOM 
west of 70[deg]15' W. long., the vessel would be prohibited from 
fishing outside of the GOM BSA. Also, if a vessel is not carrying an 
observer or at-sea monitor and fishes any part of its trip outside the 
GOM BSA, this provision would prohibit a vessel from fishing west of 
70[deg]15' W. long. within the GOM BSA. The approved provision includes 
a requirement for a vessel to declare whether it intends to fish in the 
inshore GOM area through the trip start hail using its VMS unit prior 
to departure. We provide sector managers with the ability to monitor 
this provision through the Sector Information Management Module (SIMM), 
a Web site where we also provide roster, trip, discard, and observer 
information to sector managers. A sector vessel may use a federally 
funded NEFOP observer or at-sea monitor on these trips because we do 
not believe it will create bias in coverage or discard estimates, as 
fishing behavior is not expected to change as a result of this 
provision.

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

    Several sectors have requested a provision to allow a vessel to 
haul another vessel's fish trap gear, similar to the current exemptions 
that allow a vessel to haul another vessel's gillnet gear or hook gear. 
These exemptions have generally been referred to as ``community'' gear 
exemptions. Regulations at Sec.  648.84(a) require a vessel to mark all 
bottom-tending fixed gear, which would include fish trap gear used to 
target groundfish. To facilitate enforcement of that regulation, we are 
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 allows 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 will 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 
Office of Law Enforcement (OLE) and the U.S. Coast Guard can enforce 
the provision.

At-Sea Monitoring Proposals

    For fishing years 2015 and 2016, each sector is required to develop 
and fund an ASM program that must be reviewed and approved by NMFS. In 
the event that a proposed ASM program could not be approved, all 
sectors were asked to include an option to use the current NMFS-
designed ASM program as a back-up. Sustainable Harvest Sectors 1 and 3, 
GB Cod Fixed Gear Sector, Northeast Coastal Communities Sector, and 
Maine Coast Community Sector have proposed to use the ASM program that 
was developed and used for fishing years 2010-2014. We approve this 
program for these sectors because we believe the existing program to be 
consistent with goals and objectives of monitoring, and with regulatory 
requirements. NEFS IV has not included provisions for an ASM program 
because the sector operates as a private permit bank and explicitly 
prohibits fishing.
    We approve the ASM programs proposed by the remaining 12 sectors, 
NEFS I-XIII (excluding NEFS IV). 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 ASM programs include 
detailed protocols for waivers, incident reporting, and safety 
requirements. We have determined that the programs are consistent with 
the goals and objectives of at-sea monitoring, and with the regulatory 
requirements.
    Although the current regulations require a sector to fund its costs 
for its ASM program beginning in fishing year 2012, we funded 
industry's ASM costs in fishing years 2013 and 2014. Because of SBRM 
funding requirements and budgetary uncertainty, it is unclear if the 
Agency will have money to fund industry's ASM costs for the entire 
fishing year 2015, but at this point, we anticipate industry taking on 
the responsibility for their at-sea monitoring costs during fishing 
year 2015. As mentioned previously, our ability to fund our portion of 
costs for ASM coverage above SBRM coverage levels for the entire 2015 
and 2016 fishing years is also not known at this time. Currently, 
funding for our portion of ASM costs is expected to 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. Additional information on funding 
and implementation of ASM for fishing year 2015 will be provided as it 
becomes available.

Comments and Responses

    We received a total of nine comments from: Associated Fisheries of 
Maine (AFM), Center for Biological Diversity, NEFS V, NEFS XI, 
Northeast Sector Service Network (NESSN), Oceana, SHS, and two members 
of the fishing industry. We received five comments from members of the 
fishing industry that were not relevant to the sector operations plans 
or exemptions. Only comments that were applicable to the proposed 
measures, including the analyses used to support these measures, are 
responded to below.

Re-Authorization of Sector Exemptions Previously Granted (1-16)

    Comment 1: AFM and NESSN support the approval of exemptions as 
proposed. NEFS V and NEFS XI specifically support the exemptions from 
the 120-day block and the 20-day spawning block requirements, and NEFS 
V asserts that these exemptions should apply to the entire groundfish 
fishery. NEFS XI supports the exemption from the prohibition on a 
vessel hauling another vessel's gillnet gear.
    Response: We have granted the 16 exemptions as proposed.
    Comment 2: NESSN commented on our noted concern about the five 
proposed exemptions that apply in the GOM and their effect on GOM cod, 
stating that none of these exemptions are proposed solely for the GOM, 
and that it is unclear what the Agency would hope to accomplish by 
revoking them.
    Response: These five exemptions apply to or could be used in the 
GOM. Because GOM cod is at very low levels, we asked the public to 
comment if there was any information that might suggest these 
exemptions could negatively affect GOM cod. We received no comments 
with information suggesting that, and therefore we are granting these 
exemptions for fishing years 2015 and 2016.

Exemption From the Prohibition on Combining Small Mesh Exempted Fishing 
With a Sector Trip (17)

    Comment 3: NESSN and NEFS V support NMFS' proposal to grant this 
exemption as modified from fishing year 2014, specifically expanding 
the exemption area 15' northward.

[[Page 25156]]

    Response: We have granted this exemption as proposed. As noted in 
the preamble, this expansion will allow for greater opportunities for 
sector vessels to target small-mesh species. However, we remain 
concerned about vessels potentially catching groundfish, including 
bycatch of juvenile fish, in the requested exemption area with small-
mesh nets, and therefore will continue to closely monitor catch from 
these exempted trips.

Exemption From Number of Gillnets for Day Gillnet Vessels (18)

    Comment 4: Oceana commented in support of NMFS' proposal to deny 
this exemption in GOM, but urged NMFS to deny the exemption for other 
broad stock areas and all vessel categories. Oceana stated that the use 
of anchored sink gillnets poses a serious threat to the effective 
management of the fishery and the recovery of overfished stocks. They 
suggested several measures to control the use of gillnets, including 
revising the Vessel Trip Report regulations and limiting gear 
configuration and soak times.
    NESSN and NEFS XI supported NMFS' proposal to grant this exemption 
in GB and SNE/MA, but disagree with the proposal to deny it for GOM. 
They suggested granting the exemption for the GOM with restrictions on 
certain blocks, as was approved in past years, or with additional 
modifications for the 2015 fishing year. They referenced the 
constraints already placed on sectors by low ACLs and resulting sector 
allocations. They state that with such a low GOM cod ACL, Day gillnet 
vessels will already be strategizing on how to avoid catching cod, and 
therefore do not need further limits on the amount of gear they can 
use. NESSN urged NMFS to work with the sectors to find a workable 
alternative to denying this exemption in the GOM.
    Response: As discussed in the preamble, the exemption from the 
number of gillnets for Day gillnet vessels is granted in the GB, SNE, 
and MA RMAs, but is denied in the GOM. We agree with Oceana's comment 
and disagree with the sector organizations concerning the GOM: The 
condition of the GOM cod stock warrants additional protective measures 
in the GOM. Framework 53 sets an acceptable biological catch (ABC) that 
is well below the estimate of incidental catch of GOM cod that occurred 
in fishing year 2013. The denial of these exemptions are expected to 
help minimize incidental catch or bycatch of GOM cod in gillnets, and 
is intended to serve as a complement to the measures taken in Framework 
53. Data in the EA accompanying this rule indicate that, between 2009 
and 2012, the number of gillnet trips fluctuated but generally fell, 
the amount of catch from gillnet gear decreased, and the number of 
gillnet geardays (used as a proxy for effort) increased. Between 2009 
and 2012, sector gillnet vessels were not operating more efficiently. 
For 2013, the last year for which we have data, trips, catch and 
geardays for gillnet gear all decreased. At this time, it is unknown if 
this more recent decrease in effort is a trend. Therefore, we have 
denied this exemption in the GOM as an additional measure to help 
sectors avoid GOM cod.
    The 2014 interim action for GOM cod originally rescinded this 
exemption for fishing year 2014 for the GOM RMA. In that rule, we also 
suspended the GOM Rolling Closures and implemented seasonal interim 
closures intended to better protect spawning aggregations of GOM cod. 
We noted our concern that ``continuing the exemption could cause 
barriers of gillnets along the boundaries of closed areas that would 
otherwise catch cod going into or coming out of the closed areas.'' As 
a result, we revoked the exemption as a discrete and effective measure 
that could reduce the overall mortality of GOM cod. Framework 53 to the 
NE Multispecies FMP removes the GOM Rolling Closures, and permanently 
replaces them with GOM cod closures, which 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. We remain concerned that granting the 
exemption in the GOM could continue to contribute to or cause barriers 
of gillnets along these discrete closures which were intended to 
protect spawning. As a result, we have denied the exemption in the GOM.
    Oceana also suggested several measures to control and monitor the 
use of gillnet gear. At this time, we do not believe it is necessary to 
implement additional requirements on gillnet vessels. Through the 
sector system, sector managers and NMFS are able to monitor the catch 
of all species in a timely manner. Further, regulations at Sec.  
648.87(b)(1)(ii) require all vessels in a sector to cease fishing 
operations in a stock area once the sector has harvested its allocation 
for a particular stock. This requirement has been sufficient to ensure 
that sectors remain within their quota. Therefore, additional measures 
are not necessary at this time and are outside of the scope of this 
action.
    Oceana further urged NMFS to deny the exemption from the number of 
gillnets for Day gillnet vessels in all areas and for all vessel 
categories. Denying this exemption in the GOM is intended to help avoid 
incidental catch of GOM cod. Given the low GOM cod ACL approved as part 
of Framework 53, as well as other measures, we expect that vessels will 
not target GOM cod, but will instead catch it as incidental catch while 
targeting other groundfish stocks. This exemption is specific to Day 
gillnet vessels, which are allowed to leave gear in the water untended, 
which increases effort that may result in additional incidental catch. 
Limiting the number of gillnets is expected to reduce incidental catch 
of GOM cod.
    At this time, we do not believe it is necessary to deny this 
exemption in other RMAs. While groundfish stocks in the other RMAs are 
overfished or overfishing is occurring, those stocks are in rebuilding 
programs and have ACLs that may support directed fisheries. Also, 
expanding the reduction in gillnet effort to all vessel categories is 
beyond the scope of this action and would require Council action. 
Therefore, denying this exemption in other RMAs is not warranted at 
this time.
    NESSN and NEFS XI urged NMFS to work with the sectors to find a 
workable alternative to denying this exemption in the GOM. As discussed 
below, one sector took a proactive approach to managing their GOM cod 
quota, by including fishing restrictions intended to help members avoid 
concentrations of GOM cod. We would welcome proposals from other 
sectors, and will work with sectors to develop approvable measures for 
their operations plans. If these measures are sufficient, we could 
consider granting this exemption in the GOM. Additionally, if sectors 
do not wish to develop such measures, its member vessels could elect to 
operate as Trip gillnet vessels. Trip gillnet vessels are not 
restricted to a maximum number of nets.

Exemption From the 6.5-Inch (16.5-cm) Mesh Size for Directed Redfish 
Trips (19)

    Comment 5: AFM, NESSN, and two members of the industry commented in 
support of this exemption. One industry member commented that this 
exemption will redirect effort away from GOM cod and onto redfish, 
which he describes as underutilized. That industry member also stated 
that the proposed 5.5-inch (14.0-cm) mesh codend is the correct size 
for targeting redfish. AFM and an industry member both commented in 
support of the flexibility that the exemption provides. AFM requested 
that NMFS provide sectors with a detailed description of all 
requirements that must be met to use the exemption.

[[Page 25157]]

AFM supports strict monitoring, and an industry member commented in 
support of not requiring industry-funded at-sea monitoring coverage 
with this exemption. NESSN commented with support for catch thresholds, 
and stated that the chosen thresholds adequately reflect the likely 
proportion of redfish catch while using a 5.5-inch (14.0-cm) mesh 
codend. They agreed with the adjustment to the exemption area out of 
concern for GOM cod, and feel that the requirements of the exemption 
adequately address OLE's concerns. NESSN also commented that the Agency 
can revoke the exemption mid-season if sectors are not meeting the 
requirements of the exemption.
    Response: In previous years, we have granted versions of the 
redfish exemption that were more restrictive. To ensure that sector 
vessels using the exemption effectively targeted redfish, did not 
target other species with a smaller mesh, and attempted to avoid 
catching sub-legal or juvenile groundfish, we placed additional 
requirements on sectors when using this exemption such as 100-percent 
observer coverage, redfish catch thresholds of 80 percent, and higher 
mesh sizes. The intent of these exemptions has always been to allow 
vessels to target redfish while balancing the FMP's mortality, 
selectivity, and spawning protection objectives; however, we have heard 
from the sectors in the development of the fishing years 2015 and 2016 
exemption that these requirements are too onerous, and have discouraged 
the use of the exemption.
    This year, we are changing some of the requirements from past 
years. It is our hope that this exemption, which allows vessels to use 
a smaller mesh size (5.5 inches; 14.0 cm), fish on a combined 
groundfish/redfish trip, and have a lower target of redfish (50 
percent), will result in more effort in the redfish fishery, while 
still meeting FMP's mortality, selectivity, and spawning protection 
objectives.
    We believe that this exemption will help direct effort onto 
redfish, a healthy stock. The redfish exemption area lies offshore, 
where there has been lower catch of GOM cod, and therefore we agree 
with the comment that this exemption will redirect effort away from GOM 
cod. As mentioned above, Framework 53 has set an ABC below the 2013 
incidental catch estimates, and so sector vessels will already be 
attempting to avoid the catch of GOM cod. To assist with this, and 
because of our continued concern for GOM cod, we removed two blocks 
(one for the entire year, one seasonally) from the 2014 exemption area. 
These two blocks are known to have higher levels of GOM cod catch and/
or spawning activity and removing them from the exemption area will 
further reduce the likelihood of GOM cod interactions for vessels using 
the exemption.
    We intend to monitor this exemption closely, with increased 
coordination with enforcement, to ensure that it is not increasing the 
catch of undersized or juvenile groundfish or significantly increasing 
incidental catch of GOM cod. We will be reviewing catch data, observer 
data, and fishing practices closely. If we determine at any time that 
this exemption is causing concerning levels of bycatch of undersized 
groundfish, incidental catch of GOM cod, or fishing practices that 
adversely affect ASM, we intend to work with sector managers to correct 
the problem; however, the RA retains the authority to rescind approval 
of this exemption as needed. Monitoring will also provide us with more 
data on which we can refine future decisions regarding the optimal mesh 
size and threshold for a sustainable redfish fishery.
    Having learned in past years that additional monitoring coverage as 
part of this exemption leads to decreased use by the fishing industry, 
we have not proposed additional monitoring requirements for fishing 
years 2015 and 2016. The observer coverage rate for sectors, including 
vessels fishing under this exemption, will be 24 percent. The NEFOP 
portion is 4 percent; the ASM portion is estimated to be 20 percent. 
Sectors will likely be required to pay for the sea day cost of ASM for 
part of the 2015 fishing year.
    We will provide sectors who have selected the exemption with the 
full requirements for using the exemption through their operations plan 
and LOAs before the beginning of the fishing year. This will include 
the correct process for declaring a redfish trip via PTNS and VMS, 
reporting requirements, gear use and stowage requirements, and area and 
time constraints.

GOM Haddock Sink Gillnet Mesh Exemption

    Comment 6: NESSN and NEFS XI commented that they disagree with 
NMFS' proposal to deny the GOM Haddock Sink Gillnet Mesh Exemption. 
They state that the exemption would allow them to selectively target 
GOM haddock, a stock which is rebuilding, with minimal catch of GOM 
cod.
    Response: We agree that the status of GOM haddock has improved. We 
released an updated stock assessment for GOM haddock in October 2014, 
which indicated that GOM haddock is no longer overfished and 
overfishing is not occurring. This change was due primarily to the 
addition of three more years of fishery and survey data, and to the 
very strong 2010 year class of GOM haddock. As a result we published an 
emergency rule (79 FR 67090) on November 12, 2014, increasing the 
commercial sub-ACL.
    However, while the GOM haddock stock is improving, the GOM cod 
stock is at a critically low level. In the proposed rule, we proposed 
to deny the GOM Haddock Sink Gillnet Exemption due to our concern for 
GOM cod. We noted our concern that continuous fishing of gillnets left 
in the water and the potential to disrupt spawning when GOM cod are 
caught. We also noted that using nets smaller than the minimum size may 
affect GOM cod mortality. Amendment 16 to the NE Multispecies FMP 
provided in-depth analysis of this exemption, when it proposed and 
analyzed a fishery-wide pilot program. It noted that ``sink gillnets 
are also effective at targeting cod and pollock, and this measure may 
also affect mortality of these two stocks . . . As can be seen in the 
cod selectivity curve (Figure 132), 6 inch gillnets will select smaller 
cod than 6.5 inch gillnets,'' but noted that the average was still 
larger than the minimum size. This analysis, however, was done at a 
time when the GOM cod stock was under a successful rebuilding program. 
As previously discussed in the response to Comment 4, any additional 
pressure on the GOM cod stock could severely affect its ability to 
rebuild from critically low levels. Further, it would be inconsistent 
with our approval of the GOM cod ACL amount below the 2013 incidental 
catch level and the GOM cod protection closures in Framework 53 that 
are designed to further reduce GOM cod mortality. Therefore, we have 
denied this exemption for fishing years 2015 and 2016.

VMS Powerdown

    Comment 7: NEFS XI commented that they do not support NMFS' 
proposal to deny this exemption. They state that if the exemption is 
not approved, compliance with the requirement to keep VMS powered will 
still be an issue. NEFS XI recommended more robust outreach directly to 
the industry on the part of NMFS to increase compliance, rather than 
through sector managers.
    Response: VMS is a tool that allows enforcement to monitor 
compliance, track violators, and provide evidence to support 
enforcement actions. The system uses satellite-based communications 
from on-board units, which send position reports that

[[Page 25158]]

include vessel identification, time, date, and location, and are mapped 
and displayed on the end user's computer screen. NMFS uses VMS to 
monitor the location and movement of commercial fishing vessels. All 
active sector vessels are required to use VMS. Each unit typically 
sends position reports once an hour. Within the groundfish fishery, it 
is a critical tool for monitoring the fishery. Non-compliance with VMS 
requirements decreases our confidence in our ability to adequately 
monitor the fishery.
    We first granted an exemption allowing sector vessels the ability 
to power down while at the dock beginning in fishing year 2011. 
Beginning in fishing year 2012, OLE recognized a lack of compliance 
with the requirements of this exemption, such as not sending the VMS 
powerdown code before turning off the VMS unit, not turning on the VMS 
unit before leaving the dock, or turning off the VMS unit before 
docking. We raised our concerns over compliance with managers on our 
monthly sector manager conference calls. Seeing that compliance had not 
improved, OLE worked to identify sector members that were out of 
compliance with this exemption. We provided this information to sector 
managers and requested their assistance in reaching out to their 
members. At that time, we informed sector managers that if compliance 
did not improve during fishing year 2013, we would reconsider approving 
the exemption for fishing year 2015. After receiving the request for 
this exemption for fishing year 2015, we re-examined compliance with 
the exemption, updated with available data from fishing year 2014, and 
found that compliance had not improved. Therefore, we are denying the 
exemption for fishing year 2015.
    We have heard the concerns raised by NEFS XI and others regarding 
the disapproval of the VMS powerdown exemption. NEFS XI explained that 
some of its members ``do not have the ability to maintain their VMS 
systems while in port as these vessels do not have access to shore 
power'' which may lead to VMS shut down. We understand this 
inconvenience, and will work with sector vessels, as appropriate, when 
this occurs. We note, however, that vessels successfully complied with 
this requirement for many years prior to our granting these exemptions. 
Additionally, sectors are welcome to request, and we may consider, this 
exemption at a future date. However, we would require sectors to 
demonstrate a clear plan for maintaining a high level of compliance 
with the exemption's requirements.

At-Sea Monitoring

    Comment 8: Oceana commented that the 24-percent monitoring level is 
too low, asserting that this level adds clear incentives to misreport 
discarded fish and create harmful bias. They contend that the agency 
must require monitoring levels that preclude behavioral differences 
between observed and unobserved trips, or else expand the use of 
uncertainty buffers to account for the low monitoring levels. The 
Center for Biological Diversity commented that 100-percent observer 
coverage is necessary.
    Response: Similar comments have been received on previous fishing 
years' sector operations rules, and the responses can be found in the 
published final rules, most recently the 2014 Sector Operations Final 
Rule (79 FR 23278; April 28, 2014) and the 2013 Sector Operations Final 
Rule (78 FR 25591; May 2, 2013).
    We have determined that 24-percent observer coverage of sector 
trips is sufficient, to the extent practicable in light of Magnuson-
Stevens Act requirements, to reliably estimate catch for purposes of 
monitoring sector ACEs and ACLs for groundfish stocks. This 
determination is based in part on the statistical sufficiency of the 
level of coverage as summarized in more detail at: http://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/ro/fso/reports/Sectors/ASM/FY2015_Multispecies_Sector_ASM_Requirements_Summary.pdf. Our 
determination also incorporates how data and information are collected 
and analyzed, including obligations on sectors to self-monitor and 
self-report, which is linked to agency monitoring. For the most part, 
these commenters have generally asserted that this system and level of 
monitoring is not adequate without providing any specific justification 
or information to support their assertion.
    Amendment 16 specified that ASM coverage levels should be less than 
100 percent, which requires that the discard portion of catch, and thus 
total catch, be an estimate. Amendment 16 also specified that the ASM 
coverage levels should achieve a 30-percent CV. The level of observer 
coverage, ultimately, should provide confidence that the overall catch 
estimate is accurate enough to ensure that sector fishing activities 
are consistent with National Standard 1 requirements to prevent 
overfishing while achieving on a continuing basis optimum yield from 
each fishery. To that end, significant additional uncertainty buffers 
are established in the setting of ACLs that help make up for any lack 
of absolute precision and accuracy in estimating overall catch by 
sector vessels.
    In developing Amendment 16, the Council anticipated that NEFOP 
might not have sufficient resources to fund sector catch monitoring, so 
Amendment 16 specified that starting in fishing year 2012 sectors would 
be required to develop an industry-funded ASM program to monitor sector 
catch. The NEFOP program provides at-sea observers, and the coverage 
provided to sectors by that program partially satisfies the sector-
specific ASM provision. Collectively, the at-sea coverage provided by 
the ASM and NEFOP programs is providing more data for quota management 
and assessment science than was available to NMFS prior to 
implementation of Amendment 16.
    On February 18, 2014, in Oceana, Inc. v. Pritzker, 1:13-cv-00770 
(D.D.C. 2014), the Court upheld our use of a 30-percent CV standard to 
set ASM coverage levels. In addition to upholding our determination of 
sufficient coverage levels, the Court noted that the ASM program is not 
the sole method of monitoring compliance with ACLs, there are many 
reporting requirements that vessels adhere to, and there are strong 
incentives for vessels to report accurately because each sector is held 
jointly and severally liable for overages and misreporting of catch and 
bycatch.
    Comment 9: Oceana commented that at-sea monitoring coverage levels 
should be set at the vessel level of stratification. They state that 
this is because sector operations plans specify that sector members are 
to harvest an amount of fish equal to the amount each member's permit 
contributed to the sector.
    Response: Amendment 16, developed by the Council and approved by 
NMFS, allows each sector to determine which vessels will actively fish 
and how best to harvest its allocation, including decisions regarding 
consolidation. Amendment 16 did not place restrictions on a sector's 
decision of how to allocate ACE to its members. Thus, each sector is 
free to determine how ACE will be assigned to its member vessels. For 
fishing years 2015 and 2016, sectors generally have elected to assign 
each member the portion of the sector's ACE that it brings to a sector. 
This is typically based on each permit's contribution to the sector's 
ACE, as modified by the sector. In practice, in some years, sector 
members have opted to pool some stock's ACEs for use by all

[[Page 25159]]

members. This does not mark a change from previous fishing years.
    Additionally, Amendment 16 specified a performance standard that 
coverage levels must be sufficient to at least meet the coefficient of 
variation (CV) specified in SBRM (a CV of 30 percent), but was unclear 
as to what level the CV standard is to be applied to--discard estimates 
at the stock level for all sectors, or for each combination of sector 
and stock. Framework 48 clarified that the CV standard is intended to 
apply to discard estimates at the overall stock level for all sectors 
combined. As discussed in NMFS' response to comments on Framework 48, 
the Council and NMFS have determined this level is sufficient as a 
minimum standard for monitoring sector ACEs, consistent with the goals 
of Amendment 16 and the FMP.

GOM Cod

    Comment 10: AFM and SHS commented on the ``Gulf of Maine Cod 
Program,'' which contains voluntary measures to help those sectors 
avoid concentration of GOM cod, and that SHS 1 and 3 have created and 
adopted.
    Response: We appreciate the Sustainable Harvest Sectors' efforts to 
reduce the fishing impacts on GOM cod. We understand that this program 
is voluntary and only applies to SHS 1 and 3. We also understand that 
SHS 1 and 3 can discontinue the program as they see fit, but the 
sectors will be required to request an operations plan amendment if 
they choose to do so.

Two-Year Operations Plans

    Comment 11: NESSN commented in support of the transition to 2-year 
operations plans. They hope streamlining this process will allow for 
``more effective proactive communication and collaboration for tools 
that foster effective sector management, such as sector exemptions.'' 
They noted the importance of maintaining flexibility in the second year 
of operations. Specifically, NESSN highlighted the need for sectors to 
request and develop exemptions and for members to re-evaluate their 
enrollment decision prior to May 1, 2016.
    Response: We are approving sector operations plans for fishing 
years 2015 and 2016. This is an important step toward streamlining the 
sector approval process. We share NESSN's hope that approving 
operations plan for 2 years will allow sectors and NMFS to work 
together on the development of exemptions and other proactive measures 
to address emerging issues. We also hope that we can collaborate with 
the sectors to further streamline sector requirements.
    As stated in the proposed rule, we will allow permit holders the 
opportunity to join, change, or drop out of sectors for fishing year 
2016. Consistent with past years, we will distribute fishing year 2016 
PSC letters to permit holders, set 2016 roster deadlines, and notify 
permit holders and sector managers of the fishing year 2016 deadlines. 
Once sectors submit their roster information, we will publish sector 
ACEs and common pool sub-ACL totals, based upon fishing year 2016 
rosters.
    We understand the importance of being able to request additional 
exemptions in the second year of operations, especially given low ACLs 
and other restrictive management measures approved by the Council. We 
encourage sectors to submit requests for new or revised exemptions at 
any point during fishing years 2015 and 2016. After reviewing any 
request, we will provide sectors with comments on their request, and 
work with them to develop an acceptable exemption and will grant or 
deny the exemption consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act. We 
may combine exemption requests into one or more rules, as staff 
resources allow.
EA
    Comment 12: NESSN commented on the lack of analysis in the EA for 
the GOM Haddock Sink Gillnet Mesh exemption, stating that ``it 
continues to be unclear why an exemption disapproved because of stock 
status is not automatically reconsidered and analyzed in light of a 
change in stock status.''
    Response: NMFS considered several exemption requests, but rejected 
them for further analysis in the EA, including the GOM Haddock Sink 
Gillnet Mesh exemption. In previous cases, we have considered but 
rejected most exemptions we denied for fishing years 2010 through 2014, 
unless the sectors were able to provide new information or data to 
support their current request. We denied this exemption, which was 
requested to facilitate catch of GOM haddock, in fishing years 2013 and 
2014 because of the poor condition of the GOM haddock stock. While a 
new stock assessment found GOM haddock to be in improved condition, 
since then a separate assessment found GOM cod to be in poor condition. 
We did not update our analysis of this exemption's impact on GOM 
haddock in the EA for this action because we are denying the GOM 
Haddock Sink Gillnet Exemption in this action due to this gear's 
potential adverse impact on GOM cod. We recognize that the condition of 
stocks changes over time, and may reconsider and reanalyze this 
exemption in future actions based on updated stock condition for GOM 
cod, GOM haddock, and other stocks in the multispecies fishery. In this 
action, however, because of the poor condition of GOM cod requiring us 
to deny this exemption request, we considered but rejected this 
exemption from further analysis in the EA.

Classification

    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 final rule is 
consistent with the NE Multispecies FMP, other provisions of the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law.
    This action is exempt from the procedures of Executive Order 12866 
because this action contains no implementing regulations.
    Because this rule relieves several restrictions, the AA finds good 
cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1) and (3) to waive the 30-day delay in 
effectiveness so that this final rule may become effective by May 1, 
2015. Sector Operation Plan exemptions grant exemptions or relieve 
restrictions that provide operational flexibility and efficiency that 
help avoid short-term adverse economic impacts on NE multispecies 
sector vessels. When the 17 approved Sector Operations Plans become 
effective, sector vessels are exempted from common pool trip limits, 
DAS limits, and seasonal closed areas. These exemptions provide vessels 
with flexibility in choosing when to fish, how long to fish, what 
species to target, and how much catch they may land. They also relieve 
some gear restrictions, reporting and monitoring requirements, and 
provide access to additional fishing grounds through the authorization 
of 19 exemptions from NE multispecies regulations for fishing years 
2015 and 2016. This flexibility increases efficiency and reduces costs.
    In addition to relieving restrictions and granting exemptions, 
avoiding a delay in effectiveness prevents vessel owners from incurring 
significant adverse economic impacts. A delay in implementing this rule 
would prevent owners who joined a sector in fishing year 2015 (842 
permits, accounting for 99 percent of the historical NE multispecies 
catch) from fishing during the delay and would diminish the advantage 
of the flexibility in vessel operations, thereby undermining the

[[Page 25160]]

intent of the rule. During any delay, sector vessels would be 
prohibited from fishing for groundfish. Being prohibited from fishing 
for up to 30 days would have a significant adverse economic impact on 
these vessels because vessels would be prevented from fishing in a 
month when sector vessels landed approximately 10 percent of several 
allocations, including Eastern GB cod and GB winter flounder. Further, 
sector vessels could only fish during this delay if they chose to fish 
in the common pool. Once they switched to the common pool, however, 
they could not return to a sector for the entire fishing year and would 
forego the flexibility and economic efficiency afforded by sector 
exemptions. Vessels choosing to fish in the common pool to avoid a 30-
day delay in the beginning of their season would then forego potential 
increased flexibility and efficiencies for an entire fishing year. For 
the reasons outlined above, good cause exists to waive the otherwise 
applicable requirement to delay implementation of this rule for a 
period of 30 days.
    The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce 
certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration during the proposed rule stage that this action would 
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. The factual basis for this certification was published in the 
proposed rule and is not repeated here. No comments were received 
regarding this certification. As a result, a regulatory flexibility 
analysis was not required and none was prepared.

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

    Dated: April 20, 2015.
Eileen Sobeck,
Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries 
Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-09950 Filed 4-30-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-22-P