[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 125 (Tuesday, June 30, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 37182-37199]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-15619]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 648

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


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

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

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

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

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

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

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

[[Page 37183]]

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

Bycatch Reporting and Monitoring Mechanisms

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

Analytical Techniques and Allocation of At-Sea Fisheries Observers

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

SBRM Performance Standard

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

SBRM Review and Reporting Process

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

Framework Adjustment and/or Annual Specification Provisions

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

[[Page 37184]]

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

Prioritization Process

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

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

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

Industry-Funded Observers and Observer Set-Aside Program Provisions

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

Corrections and Clarifications

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

Changes From Proposed Rule

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

Comments and Reponses

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

[[Page 37185]]

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

[[Page 37186]]

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

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

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

[[Page 37187]]

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

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

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

[[Page 37188]]

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

[[Page 37189]]

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

[[Page 37190]]

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

[[Page 37191]]

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

Classification

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

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648

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

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

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

PART 648--FISHERIES OF THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES

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

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


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


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

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

[[Page 37192]]

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

[[Page 37193]]

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

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


Sec.  648.18  Standardized bycatch reporting methodology.

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

[[Page 37194]]

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


Sec.  648.41  Framework specifications.

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

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


Sec.  648.55  Framework adjustments to management measures.

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

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


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

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

[[Page 37195]]

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

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


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

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

[[Page 37196]]

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

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


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

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

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


Sec.  648.102  Summer flounder specifications.

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

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


Sec.  648.110  Summer flounder framework adjustments to management 
measures.

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

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


Sec.  648.122  Scup specifications.

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

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


Sec.  648.130  Scup framework adjustments to management measures.

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

[[Page 37197]]

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

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


Sec.  648.142  Black sea bass specifications.

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

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


Sec.  648.162  Bluefish specifications.

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

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


Sec.  648.167  Bluefish framework adjustment to management measures.

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

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


Sec.  648.200  Specifications.

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

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


Sec.  648.206  Framework provisions.

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

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


Sec.  648.232  Spiny dogfish specifications.

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

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


Sec.  648.239  Spiny dogfish framework adjustments to management 
measures.

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

[[Page 37198]]

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

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


Sec.  648.260  Specifications.

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

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


Sec.  648.261  Framework adjustment process.

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

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


Sec.  648.292  Tilefish specifications.

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

[[Page 37199]]

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

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


Sec.  648.299  Tilefish framework specifications.

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

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


Sec.  648.320  Skate FMP review and monitoring.

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

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


Sec.  648.321  Framework adjustment process.

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