[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 84 (Monday, May 2, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 26412-26452]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-10051]



[[Page 26411]]

Vol. 81

Monday,

No. 84

May 2, 2016

Part III





 Department of Commerce





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





National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration





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





50 CFR Part 648





Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Provisions; 
Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northeast Groundfish 
Fishery; Framework Adjustment 55 and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 
Conservation and Management Act Provisions; Fisheries of the 
Northeastern United States; Northeast Groundfish Fishery; Fishing Year 
2016; Recreational Management Measures; Final Rules

  Federal Register / Vol. 81 , No. 84 / Monday, May 2, 2016 / Rules and 
Regulations  

[[Page 26412]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 648

[Docket No. 151211999-6343-02]
RIN 0648-BF62


Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 
Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northeast 
Groundfish Fishery; Framework Adjustment 55

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule approves and implements Framework Adjustment 
55 to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan. This rule 
sets 2016-2018 catch limits for all 20 groundfish stocks, adjusts the 
groundfish at-sea monitoring program, and adopts several sector 
measures. This action is necessary to respond to updated scientific 
information and achieve the goals and objectives of the Fishery 
Management Plan. The final measures are intended to help prevent 
overfishing, rebuild overfished stocks, achieve optimum yield, and 
ensure that management measures are based on the best scientific 
information available.

DATES: Effective on May 1, 2016, except for the amendment to Sec.  
648.85(a)(3)(iii)(A), which is effective October 31, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Copies of Framework Adjustment 55, including the 
Environmental Assessment, the Regulatory Impact Review, and the Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis prepared in support of the proposed 
rule are available from Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England 
Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 
01950. The supporting documents are also accessible via the Internet 
at: http://www.nefmc.org/management-plans/northeast-multispecies or 
http://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/sustainable/species/multispecies.
    Copies of each sector's final operations plan and contract, and the 
Fishing Year 2015-2020 Northeast Multispecies Sector Operations Plans 
and Contracts Programmatic Environmental Assessment, are available from 
the NMFS Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office: John K. Bullard, 
Regional Administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service, 55 Great 
Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. These documents are also 
accessible via the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other 
aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this 
final rule may be submitted to NMFS, Greater Atlantic Regional 
Fisheries Office, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930, and by 
email to OIRA[email protected], or fax to 202-395-7285.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Aja Szumylo, Fishery Policy Analyst, 
phone: 978-281-9195; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents

1. Summary of Approved Measures
2. Status Determination Criteria
3. 2016 Fishing Year Shared U.S./Canada Quotas
4. Catch Limits for the 2016-2018 Fishing Years
5. Default Catch Limits for the 2018 and 2019 Fishing Years
6. Groundfish At-Sea Monitoring Program Adjustments
7. Other Framework 55 Measures
8. Sector Measures for the 2016 Fishing Year
9. 2016 Fishing Year Annual Measures Under Regional Administrator 
Authority
10. Regulatory Corrections Under Regional Administrator Authority

1. Summary of Approved Measures

    This action approves and implements the management measures in 
Framework Adjustment 55 to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery 
Management Plan (FMP). The measures implemented in this final rule 
include:
     2016-2018 specifications for all 20 groundfish stocks;
     2016 shared U.S./Canada quotas for Georges Bank (GB) 
yellowtail flounder and Eastern GB cod and haddock;
     Modifications to the industry-funded sector at-sea 
monitoring program;
     Approval of a new sector;
     Modifications to the sector approval process;
     Adjustments to selective trawl gear requirements;
     Removal of the Gulf of Maine (GOM) cod prohibition for 
recreational anglers; and
     A mechanism for sectors to transfer GB cod quota from the 
Eastern U.S./Canada Area to the western area.
    This action also implements a number of other measures that are not 
part of Framework 55, but that were considered under our authority 
specified in the Northeast Multispecies FMP. We are including these 
measures in Framework 55 for expediency purposes, and because these 
measures are related to the catch limits implemented in Framework 55. 
The additional measures implemented in this action are:
     Management measures necessary to implement sector 
operations plans--this action approves one new sector regulatory 
exemption and annual catch entitlements for 19 sectors for the 2016 
fishing year.
     Management measures for the common pool fishery--this 
action implements initial 2016 fishing year trip limits for the common 
pool fishery.
     Other regulatory corrections--this action makes several 
administrative revisions to the regulations to clarify their intent, 
correct references, remove unnecessary text, and make other minor 
edits. Each correction is described in section ``10. Regulatory 
Corrections Under Regional Administrator Authority.''

2. Status Determination Criteria

    The Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) conducted 
operational stock assessment updates in 2015 for all 20 groundfish 
stocks. The final report for the operational assessment updates is 
available at: http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/groundfish/operational-assessments-2015/. This action revises status determination criteria, 
as necessary, and provides updated numerical estimates of these 
criteria, in order to incorporate the results of the 2015 stock 
assessments. Table 1 provides the updated numerical estimates of the 
status determination criteria, and Table 2 summarizes changes in stock 
status based on the 2015 assessment updates. Stock status did not 
change for 15 of the 20 stocks, worsened for 2 stocks (Southern New 
England/Mid-Atlantic (SNE/MA) yellowtail flounder and GB winter 
flounder), improved for 1 stock (Northern windowpane flounder), and 
became more uncertain for 2 stocks (GB cod and Atlantic halibut).
    Status determination relative to reference points is no longer 
possible for GB cod and Atlantic halibut. The assessment peer review 
panel determined that available information for both stocks indicates 
they are still in poor condition and that stock size has not increased. 
Therefore, the panel recommended the status remain overfished for both 
stocks, consistent with the information from previous assessments. 
However, in the absence of fishing mortality estimates to compare to 
overfishing reference points, the

[[Page 26413]]

panel recommended that the overfishing status be unknown for both 
stocks.
    Although the review panel concluded that the overfishing status 
should be unknown for GB cod and halibut, the final NMFS determinations 
for these stocks are different from the review panel's recommendations. 
NMFS has developed a national approach to addressing common status 
determination situations for the purposes of completing the annual 
report to Congress on the Status of U.S. Fisheries and the Fisheries 
Stock Sustainability Index. For cases like GB cod and Atlantic halibut, 
where the stock assessment update is not accepted by the peer review 
process, NMFS bases the status determination on the most recent 
accepted assessment. Based on this approach, the stock status for GB 
cod will remain overfished, with overfishing occurring, consistent with 
the determination from the 2013 GB cod benchmark assessment. The status 
for Atlantic halibut will remain overfished, with overfishing not 
occurring, consistent with the 2012 assessment update for this stock. 
These status determinations will remain until an assessment can provide 
new reference points and/or numerical estimates of existing status 
determination criteria.
    The numerical estimates for the status determination criteria for 
both stocks is still not available based on the results of the 2015 
assessment updates, as reflected in Table 1. In the draft Framework 55 
EA available to the Council when selecting preferred alternatives and 
taking final action, numerical estimates were not provided consistent 
with these results. However, following initial submission of Framework 
55 to NFMS for review, and after the close of the public comment period 
on the proposed rule (81 FR 15003; March 21, 2016) and analysis, the 
Council changed the numerical estimates provided in the document to 
those from the previous 2013 GB cod assessment. Presumably, this change 
was made to provide estimates consistent with the assessment review 
panel's recommendation that the previous assessment is the best 
scientific information available for determining stock status. However, 
this change to the document was made after the Council took final 
action on Framework 55, and after close of the public comment period on 
the proposed rule and analysis, and is not consistent with our standard 
approach for developing numerical estimates for status determination 
criteria. When the stock assessment is not accepted, NMFS retains the 
status determination from the previous assessment because there are no 
new, or updated, numerical estimates of status determination criteria 
available to reliably evaluate whether stock status has changed. 
However, NMFS does not consider the numerical estimates of the status 
determination criteria from the previous assessment valid because the 
assessment update was not accepted.
    The stock status changes for GB cod and halibut do not affect the 
rebuilding plans for these stocks. The rebuilding plan for GB cod has 
an end date of 2026, and the rebuilding plan for halibut has an end 
date of 2056. Although numerical estimates of status determination 
criteria are currently not available, to ensure that rebuilding 
progress is made, catch limits will continue to be set at levels that 
the Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) determines 
will prevent overfishing. Additionally, at whatever point the stock 
assessment for GB cod and halibut can provide biomass estimates, these 
estimates will be used to evaluate progress towards the rebuilding 
targets.

                          Table 1--Numerical Estimates of Status Determination Criteria
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Biomass target (mt)      Maximum fishing mortality
                  Stock                        (SSBMSY or proxy)      threshold  (FMSY or proxy)     MSY (mt)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GB Cod..................................  NA........................  NA........................              NA
GOM Cod:
    M = 0.2 Model.......................  40,187....................  0.185.....................           6,797
    1Mramp Model........................  59,045....................  0.187.....................          10,043
GB Haddock..............................  108,300...................  0.39......................          24,900
GOM Haddock.............................  4,623.....................  0.468.....................           1,083
GB Yellowtail Flounder..................  NA........................  NA........................              NA
SNE/MA Yellowtail Flounder..............  1,959.....................  0.35......................             541
CC/GOM Yellowtail Flounder..............  5,259.....................  0.279.....................           1,285
American Plaice.........................  13,107....................  0.196.....................           2,675
Witch Flounder..........................  9,473.....................  0.279.....................           1,957
GB Winter Flounder......................  6,700.....................  0.536.....................           2,840
GOM Winter Flounder.....................  NA........................  0.23 (exploitation rate)..              NA
SNE/MA Winter Flounder..................  26,928....................  0.325.....................           7,831
Acadian Redfish.........................  281,112...................  0.038.....................          10,466
White Hake..............................  32,550....................  0.188.....................           5,422
Pollock.................................  105,226...................  0.277.....................          19,678
Northern Windowpane Flounder............  1.554 kg/tow..............  0.45......................             700
Southern Windowpane Flounder............  0.247 kg/tow..............  2.027.....................             500
Ocean Pout..............................  4.94 kg/tow...............  0.76......................           3,754
Atlantic Halibut........................  NA........................  NA........................              NA
Atlantic Wolffish.......................  1,663.....................  0.243.....................             244
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SSB = Spawning Stock Biomass; MSY = Maximum Sustainable Yield; F = Fishing Mortality; M = Natural Mortality; GOM
  = Gulf of Maine; SNE = Southern New England; MA = Mid-Atlantic; CC = Cape Cod.
Note. A brief explanation of the two assessment models for GOM cod is provided in section ``4. Catch Limits for
  the 2016-2018 Fishing Years.''


[[Page 26414]]


                                                       Table 2--Summary of Changes to Stock Status
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Previous assessment                                         2015 assessment
                Stock                -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Overfishing?                 Overfished?                  Overfishing?                 Overfished?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GB Cod..............................  Yes........................  Yes........................  Yes........................  Yes.
GOM Cod.............................  Yes........................  Yes........................  Yes........................  Yes.
GB Haddock..........................  No.........................  No.........................  No.........................  No.
GOM Haddock.........................  No.........................  No.........................  No.........................  No.
GB Yellowtail Flounder..............  Unknown....................  Unknown....................  Unknown....................  Unknown.
SNE/MA Yellowtail Flounder..........  No.........................  No.........................  Yes........................  Yes.
CC/GOM Yellowtail Flounder..........  Yes........................  Yes........................  Yes........................  Yes.
American Plaice.....................  No.........................  No.........................  No.........................  No.
Witch Flounder......................  Yes........................  Yes........................  Yes........................  Yes.
GB Winter Flounder..................  No.........................  No.........................  Yes........................  Yes.
GOM Winter Flounder.................  No.........................  Unknown....................  No.........................  Unknown.
SNE/MA Winter Flounder..............  No.........................  Yes........................  No.........................  Yes.
Acadian Redfish.....................  No.........................  No.........................  No.........................  No.
White Hake..........................  No.........................  No.........................  No.........................  No.
Pollock.............................  No.........................  No.........................  No.........................  No.
Northern Windowpane Flounder........  Yes........................  Yes........................  No.........................  Yes.
Southern Windowpane Flounder........  No.........................  No.........................  No.........................  No.
Ocean Pout..........................  No.........................  Yes........................  No.........................  Yes.
Atlantic Halibut....................  No.........................  Yes........................  No.........................  Yes.
Atlantic Wolffish...................  No.........................  Yes........................  No.........................  Yes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. 2016 Fishing Year U.S./Canada Quotas

Management of Transboundary Georges Bank Stocks

    As described in the proposed rule, eastern GB cod, eastern GB 
haddock, and GB yellowtail flounder are jointly managed with Canada 
under the United States/Canada Resource Sharing Understanding. This 
action adopts shared U.S./Canada quotas for these stocks for fishing 
year 2016 based on 2015 assessments and the recommendations of the 
Transboundary Management Guidance Committee (TMGC) (Table 3). For a 
more detailed discussion of the TMGC's 2016 catch advice, see the 
TMGC's guidance document at: http://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/sustainable/species/multispecies/index.html.

 Table 3--2016 Fishing Year U.S./Canada Quotas (mt, Live Weight) and Percent of Quota Allocated to Each Country
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                 Eastern  GB      GB yellowtail
                           Quota                             Eastern  GB cod       haddock          flounder
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Shared Quota........................................               625            37,000               354
U.S. Quota................................................         138 (22%)      15,170 (41%)         269 (76%)
Canada Quota..............................................         487 (78%)      21,830 (59%)          85 (24%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The regulations implementing the U.S./Canada Resource Sharing 
Understanding require that any overages of the U.S. quota for eastern 
GB cod, eastern GB haddock, or GB yellowtail flounder be deducted from 
the U.S. quota in the following fishing year. If catch information for 
the 2015 fishing year indicates that the U.S. fishery exceeded its 
quota for any of the shared stocks, we will reduce the respective U.S. 
quotas for the 2016 fishing year in a future management action, as 
close to May 1, 2016, as possible. If any fishery that is allocated a 
portion of the U.S. quota exceeds its allocation and causes an overage 
of the overall U.S. quota, the overage reduction would only be applied 
to that fishery's allocation in the following fishing year. This 
ensures that catch by one component of the fishery does not negatively 
affect another component of the fishery.

4. Catch Limits for the 2016-2018 Fishing Years

Summary of Catch Limits

    This action adopts catch limits for all 20 groundfish stocks for 
the 2016-2018 fishing years based on the 2015 operational assessment 
updates. Catch limit increases are adopted for 10 stocks; however, for 
a number of stocks, the catch limits adopted in this action are 
substantially lower than the catch limits set for the 2015 fishing year 
(with decreases ranging from 14 to 67 percent). The catch limits 
implemented in this action, including overfishing limits (OFLs), 
acceptable biological catches (ABCs), and annual catch limits (ACLs), 
can be found in Tables 4 through 11. A summary of how these catch 
limits were developed, including the distribution to the various 
fishery components, was provided in the proposed rule and is not 
repeated here. Additional information on the development of these catch 
limits is also provided in the Framework 55 EA and its supporting 
appendices. We have adjusted the groundfish sub-ACL for GB cod for 2017 
and 2018 in Tables 6 and 7 to correct a transcription error in the 
proposed rule. The sub-ACL for 2017 and 2018 was incorrectly listed as 
608 mt, but should have been listed as 997 mt. Although the 2017 and 
2018 groundfish sub-ACL was listed incorrectly, the components of the 
groundfish sub-ACL, namely the preliminary sector sub-ACL (975 mt) and 
the preliminary common pool sub-ACL (22 mt), were correct in the 
proposed rule.
    The sector and common pool catch limits implemented in this action 
are based on potential sector contributions for fishing year 2016 and 
fishing year

[[Page 26415]]

2015 sector rosters. 2016 sector rosters will not be finalized until 
May 1, 2016, because individual permit holders have until the end of 
the 2015 fishing year (April 30, 2016) to drop out of a sector and fish 
in the common pool fishery for 2016. Therefore, it is possible that the 
sector and common pool catch limits in this action may change due to 
changes in the sector rosters. If changes to the sector rosters occur, 
updated catch limits will be announced as soon as possible in the 2016 
fishing year to reflect the final sector rosters as of May 1, 2016. 
Sector-specific allocations for each stock can be found in section ``8. 
Sector Administrative Measures.''

                         Table 4--Fishing Years 2016-2018 Overfishing Limits and Acceptable Biological Catches (mt, Live Weight)
   [Total ABC provided for 2016 to show limit prior To deduction of Canadian catch for GB Cod, GB haddock, GB yellowtail flounder, GB winter flounder,
                                                            white hake, and Atlantic halibut]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                2016                            2017                      2018
                            Stock                             ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   OFL       Total ABC     U.S. ABC       OFL        U.S. ABC       OFL        U.S. ABC
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GB Cod.......................................................        1,665        1,249          762        1,665        1,249        1,665        1,249
GOM Cod......................................................          667          500          500          667          500          667          500
GB Haddock...................................................      160,385       77,898       56,068      258,691       48,398      358,077       77,898
GOM Haddock..................................................        4,717        3,630        3,630        5,873        4,534        6,218        4,815
GB Yellowtail Flounder.......................................          Unk          354          269          Unk          354  ...........  ...........
SNE/MA Yellowtail Flounder...................................          Unk          267          267          Unk          267          Unk          267
CC/GOM Yellowtail Flounder...................................          555          427          427          707          427          900          427
American Plaice..............................................        1,695        1,297        1,297        1,748        1,336        1,840        1,404
Witch Flounder...............................................          521          460          460          732          460          954          460
GB Winter Flounder...........................................          957          755          668        1,056          668        1,459          668
GOM Winter Flounder..........................................        1,080          810          810        1,080          810        1,080          810
SNE/MA Winter Flounder.......................................        1,041          780          780        1,021          780        1,587          780
Redfish......................................................       13,723       10,338       10,338       14,665       11,050       15,260       11,501
White Hake...................................................        4,985        3,816        3,754        4,816        3,624        4,733        3,560
Pollock......................................................       27,668       21,312       21,312       32,004       21,312       34,745       21,312
N. Windowpane Flounder.......................................          243          182          182          243          182          243          182
S. Windowpane Flounder.......................................          833          623          623          833          623          833          623
Ocean Pout...................................................          220          165          165          220          165          220          165
Atlantic Halibut.............................................          210          158          124          210          124          210          124
Atlantic Wolffish............................................          110           82           82          110           82          110           82
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unk = Unknown; CC = Cape Cod; N = Northern; S = Southern.
Note: An empty cell indicates no OFL/ABC is adopted for that year. These catch limits will be set in a future action.


                                                                             Table 5--Fishing Year 2016 Catch Limits
                                                                                        [mt, live weight]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Total                                               Midwater                                State
                            Stock                               Total ACL    groundfish  Preliminary  Preliminary  Recreational     trawl       Scallop     Small-mesh  waters sub-   Other sub-
                                                                              fishery       sector    common pool     fishery      fishery      fishery     fisheries    component    component
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GB Cod.......................................................          730          608          595           13  ............  ...........  ...........  ...........           23           99
GOM Cod......................................................          473          437          273            8           157  ...........  ...........  ...........           27           10
GB Haddock...................................................       53,309       51,667       51,209          458  ............          521  ...........  ...........          561          561
GOM Haddock..................................................        3,430        3,344        2,385           31           928           34  ...........  ...........           26           26
GB Yellowtail Flounder.......................................          261          211          207            4  ............  ...........           42            5           NA            3
SNE/MA Yellowtail Flounder...................................          255          182          145           37  ............  ...........           39  ...........            5           29
CC/GOM Yellowtail Flounder...................................          409          341          325           16  ............  ...........  ...........  ...........           43           26
American Plaice..............................................        1,235        1,183        1,160           23  ............  ...........  ...........  ...........           26           26
Witch Flounder...............................................          441          370          361            8  ............  ...........  ...........  ...........           12           59
GB Winter Flounder...........................................          650          590          584            6  ............  ...........  ...........  ...........           NA           60
GOM Winter Flounder..........................................          776          639          604           35  ............  ...........  ...........  ...........          122           16
SNE/MA Winter Flounder.......................................          749          585          514           71  ............  ...........  ...........  ...........           70           94
Redfish......................................................        9,837        9,526        9,471           55  ............  ...........  ...........  ...........          103          207
White Hake...................................................        3,572        3,459        3,434           25  ............  ...........  ...........  ...........           38           75
Pollock......................................................       20,374       17,817       17,705          112  ............  ...........  ...........  ...........        1,279        1,279
N. Windowpane Flounder.......................................          177           66           na           66  ............  ...........  ...........  ...........            2          109
S. Windowpane Flounder.......................................          599          104           na          104  ............  ...........          209  ...........           37          249
Ocean Pout...................................................          155          137           na          137  ............  ...........  ...........  ...........            2           17
Atlantic Halibut.............................................          119           91           na           91  ............  ...........  ...........  ...........           25            4
Atlantic Wolffish............................................           77           72           na           72  ............  ...........  ...........  ...........            1            3
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 26416]]


                                                                             Table 6--Fishing Year 2017 Catch Limits
                                                                                        [mt, live weight]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Total                                               Midwater                                State
                            Stock                               Total ACL    groundfish  Preliminary  Preliminary  Recreational     trawl       Scallop     Small-mesh  waters sub-   Other sub-
                                                                              fishery       sector    common pool     fishery      fishery      fishery     fisheries    component    component
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GB Cod.......................................................        1,197          997          975           22  ............  ...........  ...........  ...........           37          162
GOM Cod......................................................          473          437          273            8           157  ...........  ...........  ...........           27           10
GB Haddock...................................................       46,017       44,599       44,204          395  ............          450  ...........  ...........          484          484
GOM Haddock..................................................        4,285        4,177        2,979           39         1,160           42  ...........  ...........           33           33
GB Yellowtail Flounder.......................................          343          278          273            5  ............  ...........           55            7           NA            4
SNE/MA Yellowtail Flounder...................................          255          187          145           37  ............  ...........           39  ...........            5           29
CC/GOM Yellowtail Flounder...................................          409          341          325           16  ............  ...........  ...........  ...........           43           26
American Plaice..............................................        1,272        1,218        1,195           23  ............  ...........  ...........  ...........           27           27
Witch Flounder...............................................          441          370          361            8  ............  ...........  ...........  ...........           12           59
GB Winter Flounder...........................................          650          590          584            6  ............  ...........  ...........  ...........           NA           60
GOM Winter Flounder..........................................          776          639          604           35  ............  ...........  ...........  ...........          122           16
SNE/MA Winter Flounder.......................................          749          585          514           71  ............  ...........  ...........  ...........           70           94
Redfish......................................................       10,514       10,183       10,124           59  ............  ...........  ...........  ...........          111          221
White Hake...................................................        3,448        3,340        3,315           24  ............  ...........  ...........  ...........           36           72
Pollock......................................................       20,374       17,817       17,705          112  ............  ...........  ...........  ...........        1,279        1,279
N. Windowpane Flounder.......................................          177           66           na           66  ............  ...........  ...........  ...........            2          109
S. Windowpane Flounder.......................................          599          104           na          104  ............  ...........          209  ...........           37          249
Ocean Pout...................................................          155          137           na          137  ............  ...........  ...........  ...........            2           17
Atlantic Halibut.............................................          119           91           na           91  ............  ...........  ...........  ...........           25            4
Atlantic Wolffish............................................           77           72           na           72  ............  ...........  ...........  ...........            1            3
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                                             Table 7--Fishing Year 2018 Catch Limits
                                                                                        [mt, live weight]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Total                                               Midwater                                State
                            Stock                               Total ACL    groundfish  Preliminary  Preliminary  Recreational     trawl       Scallop     Small-mesh  waters sub-   Other sub-
                                                                              fishery       sector    common pool     fishery      fishery      fishery     fisheries    component    component
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GB Cod.......................................................        1,197          997          975           22  ............  ...........  ...........  ...........           37          162
GOM Cod......................................................          473          437          273            8           157  ...........  ...........  ...........           27           10
GB Haddock...................................................       74,065       71,783       71,147          636  ............          724  ...........  ...........          779          779
GOM Haddock..................................................        4,550        4,436        3,163           39         1,231           45  ...........  ...........           35           35
GB Yellowtail Flounder.......................................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ............  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
SNE/MA Yellowtail Flounder...................................          255          179          142           37  ............  ...........           38  ...........            5           29
CC/GOM Yellowtail Flounder...................................          409          341          325           16  ............  ...........  ...........  ...........           43           26
American Plaice..............................................        1,337        1,280        1,256           24  ............  ...........  ...........  ...........           28           28
Witch Flounder...............................................          441          370          361            8  ............  ...........  ...........  ...........           12           59
GB Winter Flounder...........................................          650          590          584            6  ............  ...........  ...........  ...........           NA           60
GOM Winter Flounder..........................................          776          639          604           35  ............  ...........  ...........  ...........          122           16
SNE/MA Winter Flounder.......................................          749          585          514           71  ............  ...........  ...........  ...........           70           94
Redfish......................................................       10,943       10,598       10,537           61  ............  ...........  ...........  ...........          115          230
White Hake...................................................        3,387        3,281        3,257           24  ............  ...........  ...........  ...........           36           71
Pollock......................................................       20,374       17,817       17,705          112  ............  ...........  ...........  ...........        1,279        1,279
N. Windowpane Flounder.......................................          177           66           na           66  ............  ...........  ...........  ...........            2          109
S. Windowpane Flounder.......................................          599          104           na          104  ............  ...........          209  ...........           37          249
Ocean Pout...................................................          155          137           na          137  ............  ...........  ...........  ...........            2           17
Atlantic Halibut.............................................          119           91           na           91  ............  ...........  ...........  ...........           25            4
Atlantic Wolffish............................................           77           72           na           72  ............  ...........  ...........  ...........            1            3
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 26417]]


                                   Table 8--Common Pool Trimester Total Allowable Catches for Fishing Years 2016-2018
                                                                    [mt, live weight]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      2016                                   2017                                   2018
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Stock                  Trimester    Trimester    Trimester    Trimester    Trimester    Trimester    Trimester    Trimester    Trimester
                                          1            2            3            1            2            3            1            2            3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GB Cod.............................          3.3          4.9          5.0          5.4          8.0          8.2          5.4          8.0          8.2
GOM Cod............................          2.1          2.7          2.8          2.1          2.7          2.8          2.1          2.7          2.8
GB Haddock.........................        123.5        151.0        183.0        106.6        130.3        158.0        171.6        209.8        254.3
GOM Haddock........................          8.4          8.1         14.6         10.5         10.1         18.2         11.1         10.7         19.3
GB Yellowtail Flounder.............          0.8          1.2          2.1          1.0          1.6          2.8  ...........  ...........  ...........
SNE/MA Yellowtail Flounder.........          8.2         14.4         16.4          8.1         14.3         16.2          8.0         14.1         16.0
CC/GOM Yellowtail Flounder.........          5.5          5.5          4.7          5.5          5.5          4.7          5.5          5.5          4.7
American Plaice....................          5.4          8.1          9.1          5.6          8.4          9.3          5.9          8.8          9.8
Witch Flounder.....................          2.3          2.6          3.6          2.3          2.6          3.6          2.3          2.6          3.6
GB Winter Flounder.................          0.5          1.4          3.9          0.5          1.4          3.9          0.5          1.4          3.9
GOM Winter Flounder................         12.8         13.2          8.7         12.8         13.2          8.7         12.8         13.2          8.7
Redfish............................         13.7         17.0         24.2         14.7         18.2         25.9         15.3         19.0         26.9
White Hake.........................          9.5          7.8          7.8          9.2          7.5          7.5          9.0          7.4          7.4
Pollock............................         31.4         39.3         41.5         31.4         39.3         41.5         31.4         39.3         41.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: An empty cell indicates that no catch limit has been set yet for these stocks. These catch limits will be set in a future management action.


                     Table 9--Common Pool Incidental Catch Caps for Fishing Years 2016-2018
                                                [mt, live weight]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Percentage of
                      Stock                         common pool        2016            2017            2018
                                                   sub-ACL  (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GB Cod..........................................               2            0.26            0.43            0.43
GOM Cod.........................................               1            0.08            0.08            0.08
GB Yellowtail Flounder..........................               2            0.08            0.11  ..............
CC/GOM Yellowtail Flounder......................               1            0.16            0.16            0.16
American Plaice.................................               5            1.13            1.17            1.22
Witch Flounder..................................               5            0.42            0.42            0.42
SNE/MA Winter Flounder..........................               1            0.71            0.71            0.71
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


 Table 10--Common Pool Incidental Catch Total Allowable Catches Distribution to Each Special Management Program
                                                  [Percentage]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Closed Area I   Eastern U.S./
                              Stock                               Regular B days-    hook gear      CA haddock
                                                                    at-sea  (%)    haddock  (%)         (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GB Cod..........................................................              50              16              34
GOM Cod.........................................................             100  ..............  ..............
GB Yellowtail Flounder..........................................              50  ..............              50
CC/GOM Yellowtail Flounder......................................             100  ..............  ..............
American Plaice.................................................             100  ..............  ..............
Witch Flounder..................................................             100  ..............  ..............
SNE/MA Winter Flounder..........................................             100  ..............  ..............
White Hake......................................................             100  ..............  ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                           Table 11--Common Pool Incidental Catch Total Allowable Catches for Each Special Management Program
                                                                    [mt, live weight]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Regular B days-at-sea       Closed Area I hook gear haddock    Eastern U.S./Canada haddock
                        Stock                         --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          2016       2017       2018       2016       2017       2018       2016       2017       2018
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GB Cod...............................................       0.13       0.22       0.22       0.04       0.07       0.07       0.09       0.15       0.15
GOM Cod..............................................       0.08       0.08       0.08        n/a        n/a        n/a        n/a        n/a        n/a
GB Yellowtail Flounder...............................       0.04       0.05       0.00        n/a        n/a        n/a       0.04       0.05       0.00
CC/GOM Yellowtail Flounder...........................       0.16       0.16       0.16        n/a        n/a        n/a        n/a        n/a        n/a
American Plaice......................................       1.13       1.17       1.22        n/a        n/a        n/a        n/a        n/a        n/a
Witch Flounder.......................................       0.42       0.42       0.42        n/a        n/a        n/a        n/a        n/a        n/a
SNE/MA Winter Flounder...............................       0.71       0.71       0.71        n/a        n/a        n/a        n/a        n/a        n/a
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 26418]]

5. Default Catch Limits for the 2018 and 2019 Fishing Years

    Framework 53 established a mechanism for setting default catch 
limits in the event a future management action is delayed. If final 
catch limits have not been implemented by the start of a fishing year 
on May 1, then default catch limits are set at 35 percent of the 
previous year's catch limit, effective through July 31 of that fishing 
year. If this value exceeds the Council's recommendation for the 
upcoming fishing year, the default catch limit must be reduced to an 
amount equal to the Council's recommendation. Because groundfish 
vessels are not able to fish if final catch limits have not been 
implemented, this measure was established to prevent disruption to the 
groundfish fishery. Additional description of the default catch limit 
mechanism is provided in the preamble to the Framework 53 final rule 
(80 FR 25110; May 1, 2015).
    This rule announces default catch limits for the 2018 fishing year 
for GB yellowtail flounder, and for the 2019 fishing year for all 
remaining groundfish stocks. Default catch limits for the 2018 fishing 
year for GB yellowtail flounder were inadvertently omitted in the 
proposed rule, but are included here because the Council only 
recommended specifications for the 2016 and 2017 fishing year for this 
stock. The GB yellowtail flounder default specifications will become 
effective May 1, 2018, through July 31, 2018, unless otherwise replaced 
by final specifications. Similarly, for the remaining groundfish 
stocks, default specifications will become effective May 1, 2019, 
through July 31, 2019, unless otherwise replaced by final 
specifications. The default catch limits for 2018 GB yellowtail 
flounder are summarized in Table 12, and the default catch limits for 
2019 for all other stocks are summarized in Table 13.
    The preliminary sector and common pool sub-ACLs in Table 12 and 13 
are based on existing 2015 sector rosters, and will be adjusted based 
on rosters from the 2017 or 2018 fishing years. In addition, prior to 
the start of the 2018 or 2019 fishing years, we will evaluate whether 
any of the default catch limits announced in this rule exceed the 
Council's recommendations for 2018 for GB yellowtail flounder, or for 
2019 for the remaining groundfish stocks. If necessary, we will 
announce adjustments prior to implementing the default specifications.
    The midwater trawl fishery is the only non-groundfish fishery with 
an inseason accountability measure for its groundfish allocation. When 
the GOM or GB haddock catch cap specified for the default 
specifications period is caught, the directed herring fishery would be 
closed for all herring vessels fishing with midwater trawl gear for the 
remainder of the default specifications time period, unless final 
specifications were set prior to July 31. For other non-groundfish 
fisheries that receive a groundfish allocation (e.g., scallop, small-
mesh), the default measures will not affect fishing operations because 
these fisheries do not have inseason accountability measures.

                  Table 12--Fishing Year 2018 Default Specifications for GB Yellowtail Flounder
                                                [mt, live weight]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                       Preliminary   Preliminary
                   Stock                      U.S. ABC      Total ACL    Groundfish   sector  sub-   common pool
                                                                           sub-ACL         ACL         sub-ACL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GB Yellowtail Flounder....................           39            39            32            31             1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                               Table 13--Fishing Year 2019 Default Specifications
                                                [mt, live weight]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           Preliminary  Preliminary    Midwater
               Stock                  U.S. ABC    Total ACL    Groundfish  sector sub-  common pool     trawl
                                                                sub-ACL        ACL        sub-ACL      fishery
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GB Cod............................          583          437          465          455           10  ...........
GOM Cod...........................          233          175          204          127            4  ...........
GB Haddock........................      125,327       27,264        5,007        4,963           44           51
GOM Haddock.......................        2,176        1,685        1,552        1,107           14           16
SNE/MA Yellowtail Flounder........  ...........           93           66           52           14  ...........
CC/GOM Yellowtail Flounder........          315          149          119          113            5  ...........
American Plaice...................          644          491          448          439            9  ...........
Witch Flounder....................          334          161          129          126            3  ...........
GB Winter Flounder................          511          264          233          231            2  ...........
GOM Winter Flounder...............          378          284          224          212           12  ...........
SNE/MA Winter Flounder............          555          273          205          180           25  ...........
Redfish...........................        5,341        4,025        3,709        3,688           21  ...........
White Hake........................        1,657        1,268        1,168        1,160            8  ...........
Pollock...........................       12,161        7,459        6,236        6,196           39  ...........
N. Windowpane Flounder............           85           64           64  ...........           64  ...........
S. Windowpane Flounder............          292          218          218  ...........          218  ...........
Ocean Pout........................           77           58           58  ...........           58  ...........
Atlantic Halibut..................           74           55           55  ...........           55  ...........
Atlantic Wolffish.................           39           29           29  ...........           29  ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 26419]]

6. Groundfish At-Sea Monitoring Program Adjustments

    This action adjusts the groundfish sector at-sea monitoring (ASM) 
program to ensure the likelihood that discards for all groundfish 
stocks are monitored at a 30-percent coefficient of variation (CV) 
while making the program more cost-effective. Due to changes in the 
2015 revision to the Standardized Bycatch Reporting Methodology (SBRM) 
Amendment (80 FR 37182; June 30, 2015) that limit Agency discretion in 
how Congressional funding is used to provide observer coverage, we are 
unable to pay for industry's portion of ASM costs for the 2016 fishing 
year. A description of the existing industry-funded ASM program, and 
historic determination of ASM coverage levels, is included in the 
preamble to the proposed rule and is not repeated here.

ASM Program Adjustments

    This final rule modifies the method used to set the target coverage 
level for the industry-funded ASM program based on 5 years of 
experience with ASM coverage operations for groundfish sectors and 
evaluation of the accumulated discard data. These adjustments provide 
for setting target coverage levels sufficient to meet the 30-percent CV 
requirement while making the program more cost effective and smooth the 
fluctuations in the annual coverage level to provide additional 
stability for the fishing industry. The changes in this action remove 
ASM coverage for a certain subset of sector trips, use more years of 
discard information to predict ASM coverage levels, and base the target 
coverage level on the predictions for stocks that would be at a higher 
risk for an error in the discard estimate.
    None of the adjustments implemented in this action remove our 
obligation under Amendment 16 and Framework 48 to ensure sufficient ASM 
coverage to achieve a 30-percent CV for all stocks, nor do they change 
our requirement to monitor catch sufficiently to prevent overfishing. 
The changes result in a target coverage level of 14 percent for the 
2016 fishing year, including SBRM coverage paid in full by the 
Northeast Fisheries Observer Program (NEFOP). Assuming NEFOP covers 4 
percent of trips as it has in recent years, this action results in 
sectors paying for ASM on approximately 10 percent of their vessels' 
trips in 2016.
    We have determined that all of the adjustments to the ASM program 
in Framework 55 are consistent with the Northeast Multispecies FMP, 
including Amendment 16 and Framework 48, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 
Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) and its National 
Standards, and other applicable law. Amendment 16 stated that the 
primary goal of at-sea monitors is to verify area fished, catch, and 
discards by species and gear type. Amendment 16's overall goals 
included achieving goals of economic efficiency and minimizing adverse 
economic impacts on fishing communities to the extent practicable. 
Framework 48 clarified the objectives of the ASM program and included 
these goals. It further elaborated that target ASM coverage levels must 
balance the goals and objectives of groundfish monitoring programs, the 
National Standards, and the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 
including, but not limited to, costs to us and sector vessels. In 
making our determination of the annual ASM coverage level, we must take 
into account the National Standards, in particular National Standards 
1, 2, 5, 7, 8, and 9. These National Standards specifically speak to 
preventing overfishing; using the best scientific information 
available; minimizing costs and avoiding duplications where 
practicable; efficiency in the use of fishery resources; taking into 
account impacts on fishing communities and minimizing adverse economic 
impacts to the extent practicable; and minimizing bycatch to the extent 
practicable. The adjustments in Framework 55 are consistent with 
Amendment 16, Framework 48, and the National Standards. They further 
refine our ability to address groundfish monitoring objectives while 
setting a more efficient target ASM coverage level.
    The measures included in this action are reasonable, narrowly-
focused adjustments to the method used to calculate the target ASM 
coverage level for 2016 and future fishing years. Rather than 
specifying a fixed ASM coverage target for all future years, this 
action refines the process we use for predicting the level of ASM 
coverage necessary in a given year to achieve the 30-percent CV 
requirement. While these adjustments result in a lower target ASM 
coverage level for the 2016 fishing year compared to previous years, 
there is no guarantee that the changes will result in reduced target 
coverage levels in future fishing years (i.e., using the same methods 
approved here could result in higher coverage in 2017 or 2018 than in 
recent years).
    We are only able to determine whether the target coverage level 
reaches the 30-percent CV for all stocks in hindsight, after a fishing 
year is over. Thus, while a target ASM coverage level is expected to 
generate a 30-percent CV on discard estimates for each stock, there is 
no guarantee that the required coverage level will be met or result in 
a 30-percent CV across all stocks due to changes in fishing effort and 
observed fishing activity that may happen in a given fishing year. 
However, during the 2010-2014 fishing years, the target coverage level 
was in excess of the coverage level that would have been necessary to 
reach at least a 30-percent CV for almost every stock.
    We expect the 2016 target coverage level to achieve results 
consistent with prior years based on applying the 2016 target coverage 
level to the 2010-2014 fishing year data. For example, over the five 
years from 2010-2014, coverage levels of 14 percent would have achieved 
a 30-percent CV or better for 95 out of the 100 monitored stocks (i.e., 
20 stocks x 5 years). For two of the years, 2010 and 2012, all of the 
stocks would have achieved a 30-percent CV or better. The lowest 30-
percent CV achievement overall would have occurred in fishing year 
2014, when 17 of the 20 groundfish stocks would have met the 30-percent 
CV under the 2016 target coverage level. The three stocks that would 
not have achieved the 30-percent CV included redfish, GOM winter 
flounder, and SNE/MA yellowtail flounder. Our application of the 2016 
target coverage level to 2010-2014 data, however, showed that stocks 
not achieving the 30-percent CV typically did not recur. Moreover, the 
only stock that would not have achieved a 30-percent CV for more than 
one of the five years (2 times) was SNE/MA yellowtail flounder. 
However, the 14-percent coverage level is projected to achieve the 
necessary 30-percent CV requirement for SNE/MA yellowtail flounder in 
2016. Were a higher coverage level necessary to achieve the 30-percent 
CV requirement for this stock, coverage would have been set equal to 
that level.
    Further, the risk of not achieving the required CV level for these 
stocks is mitigated by a number of factors. For example, a sizeable 
portion of the SNE/MA yellowtail flounder ACL has been caught over the 
last three years (58-70 percent), but less than 10 percent of total 
catch was made up of discards. Redfish and GOM winter flounder were 
underutilized over the last three fishing years (less than 50 percent 
of the ACL caught) and less than 10 percent of their total catch was 
made up of discards. Thus, even in the unexpected event of not 
achieving a 30-percent CV, the risk to these stocks of erring in the 
discard estimates is very low.

[[Page 26420]]

    Further, the ASM program is only a portion of overall sector 
monitoring. The ASM program provides a basis for sector discard 
estimation. For most allocated stocks, discards are only a small 
portion of total catch. To monitor total sector catch, not just 
discards, NMFS and sector managers rely on a number of data sources, 
including NEFOP data, vessel monitoring systems (VMS), vessel trip 
reports, VMS catch reports, and dealer reports, all subject to 
extensive reconciliation processes. In addition, due to joint and 
severable liability of sector members for certain violations, including 
illegal discarding and misreporting of catch, there is a strong 
incentive for sector members to self-enforce monitoring and reporting 
requirements to ensure the sector has the most accurate information 
available. To account for any lack of absolute precision and accuracy 
in estimating overall catch by sector vessels, uncertainty buffers are 
included when establishing commercial groundfish fishery catch limits. 
In light of these requirements, and based on the available analyses of 
groundfish monitoring programs, we conclude that the sector monitoring 
requirements overall, including the adjustments to the method used to 
set the ASM coverage level in conjunction with other available data, 
are sufficient to monitor sector allocations and prevent overfishing.

Removal of Standard That 80 Percent of Discarded Pounds be Monitored at 
a 30-Percent CV

    From 2012 to 2015, we set coverage levels to ensure that at least 
80 percent of the discarded pounds of all groundfish stocks were 
estimated at a 30-percent CV or better to maintain the same statistical 
quality achieved in the 2010 fishing year. We applied this standard 
during years when Congress appropriated funds to pay for industry costs 
for the ASM program (2010 and 2011), and in other years when we were 
able to fund industry's costs for ASM (2012--2014, and part of 2015). 
In some years, applying this standard resulted in higher coverage 
levels than if the standard were not applied. However, this additional 
criterion was not necessary to satisfy the CV requirement of the ASM 
program, or to accurately monitor sector catches, and was not required 
by the Northeast Multispecies FMP. This action clarifies the Council's 
intent that target ASM coverage levels for sectors should be set using 
only realized stock-level CVs, and should not be set using the 
additional administrative standard of monitoring 80 percent of discard 
pounds at a 30-percent CV or better.

Removing ASM Coverage Requirement for Extra-Large Mesh Gillnet Trips

    This Council action removes the ASM coverage requirement for sector 
trips using gillnets with extra-large mesh (10 inches (25.4 cm) or 
greater) in the SNE/MA and Inshore GB Broad Stock Areas. A majority of 
catch on these trips is of non-groundfish stocks such as skates, 
monkfish, and dogfish, with minimal or no groundfish catch. As a 
result, applying the same level of coverage on these trips as targeted 
groundfish trips does not contribute to improving the overall precision 
and accuracy of sector discard estimates, and would not be an efficient 
use of the limited resources for the ASM program. These trips will 
still be subject to SBRM coverage through NEFOP, and monitoring 
coverage levels would be consistent with non-sector trips that target 
non-groundfish species.
    This measure is intended to reduce ASM costs to sectors with 
members that take this type of extra-large mesh gillnet trip. Reducing 
ASM coverage for these trips allows resources to be used to monitor 
trips that catch more groundfish, which could improve discard estimates 
for directed groundfish trips. All other sector trips will still be 
required to meet the 30-percent CV standard at a minimum. Changes in 
stock size or fishing behavior on these trips could change the amount 
of groundfish bycatch in future fishing years. However, data from 2012 
to 2014 shows that groundfish catch has represented less than 5 percent 
of total catch on a majority of trips, and large changes are not 
expected. We will continue to evaluate this measure in the future to 
make sure bycatch levels remain low.
    Because this subset of trips will have a different coverage level 
than other sector trips in the SNE/MA and Inshore GB Broad Stock Areas, 
we will create a separate discard strata for each stock caught on 
extra-large gillnet trips in order to ensure the different coverage 
levels do not bias discard estimates. At this time, no adjustments to 
the current notification procedures appear necessary to implement this 
measure. Sector vessels already declare gear type and Broad Stock Area 
to be fished in the Pre-Trip Notification System, which will allow us 
to easily identify trips that are exempt from ASM coverage.
    To minimize the possibility that this measure could be used to 
avoid ASM coverage, only vessels declared into the SNE/MA and/or 
Inshore GB Broad Stock Areas using extra-large mesh gillnets will be 
exempt from the ASM coverage requirement. Vessels using extra-large 
mesh gillnet declaring into the GOM or Offshore GB Broad Stock Areas 
will not be exempt from the ASM coverage requirement. In addition, a 
vessel is already prohibited from changing its fishing plan for a trip 
once a waiver from coverage has been issued.
    Framework 48 implemented a similar measure exempting the subset of 
sector trips declared into the SNE/MA Broad Stock Area on a monkfish 
Day-At-Sea (DAS) and using extra-large mesh gillnets from the standard 
ASM coverage level. The Framework 48 measure gave us the authority to 
specify some lower coverage level for these trips on an annual basis 
when determining coverage levels for all other sector trips. Since this 
measure was implemented at the start of the 2013 fishing year, the ASM 
coverage level for these trips has been set to zero, and these trips 
have only been subject to NEFOP coverage. The measure adopted in this 
action supersedes the Framework 48 measure because it entirely removes 
the ASM coverage requirement from these trips.

Using Multiple Years of Data To Determine ASM Total Coverage Levels

    Currently, data from the most recent fishing year are used to 
predict the target ASM coverage level for the upcoming fishing year. 
For example, data from the 2013 groundfish fishing year were used to 
set the target ASM coverage level for the 2015 fishing year. When a 
single year of data is used to determine the target coverage level, the 
entire coverage level is driven by the variability in discards in a 
single stock. This variability is primarily due to inter-annual changes 
in management measures and fishing activity. Though the target ASM 
coverage level has ranged from 22 to 26 percent for the last four 
fishing years, there is the potential that variability could result in 
large fluctuations of target ASM coverage levels in the future, and 
result in target coverage levels that are well above the level 
necessary to meet the 30-percent CV for most stocks. For example, 
available analyses indicates that, using the status quo methodology, 
the ASM coverage level would be 41 percent in 2016 compared to the 
current 2015 rate of 24 percent. Based on a 2016 target coverage level 
of 41 percent, the coverage level that would have been necessary to 
meet a 30-percent CV in 2014 would be exceeded by 15-39 percent for 19 
of the 20 stocks.
    The measure adopted in this action will use information from the 
most recent three full fishing years to predict target ASM coverage 
levels for the upcoming fishing year. For example, data from the 2012 
to 2014 fishing years were used to predict the target ASM

[[Page 26421]]

coverage level for the 2016 fishing year. Now that five full years of 
discard data are available, using multiple years of data is expected to 
smooth inter-annual fluctuations in the level of coverage needed to 
meet a 30-percent CV that might result from changes to fishing activity 
and management measures. This measure is intended to make the annual 
determination of the target ASM coverage level more stable. For 
example, the percent coverage necessary to reach a 30-percent CV for 
redfish varied widely for the last 3 years (5 percent in 2012; 10 
percent in 2013, and 37 percent in 2014). Additional stability in 
predicting the annual target ASM coverage level is beneficial in the 
context of the industry-funded ASM program. Wide inter-annual 
fluctuations in the necessary coverage level make it difficult for 
groundfish vessels to plan for the costs of monitoring, and for ASM 
service providers to adjust staffing to meet variable demands for 
monitoring coverage. The ability for ASM service providers to 
successfully meet staffing needs, including maintaining the appropriate 
staff numbers and retaining quality monitors, increases the likelihood 
of achieving the target coverage level each year.

Filtering the Application of the 30-Percent CV Standard for Determining 
Target Coverage

    The measure adopted in this action will filter the application of 
the 30-percent CV standard for determining target coverage levels 
consistent with existing goals for the ASM program. Stocks that meet 
all of the following criteria will not be used as the predictor for the 
annual target ASM coverage level for all groundfish stocks: (1) Not 
overfished; (2) Overfishing is not occurring; (3) Not fully utilized 
(less than 75 percent of sector sub-ACL harvested); and (4) Discards 
are less than 10 percent of total catch.
    None of the adjustments in this Framework, including this measure, 
eliminates the 30-percent CV standard or removes the Agency's 
requirement to prevent overfishing. Rather, this measure is intended to 
reflect the Council's policy that the target ASM coverage level should 
be based on stocks that are overfished, are subject to overfishing, or 
are more fully utilized--that is, stocks for which it is critical to 
attempt to fully account for past variability in discard estimates. 
Because stocks that meet all four of the filtering criteria are healthy 
and not fully utilized, there is a lower risk in erring in the discard 
estimate. Additionally, using these stocks to predict the target 
coverage could lead to coverage levels that are not necessary to 
accurately monitor sector catch.
    For the 2016 fishing year, preliminary analysis shows that, under 
the status quo methodology for determining the ASM target coverage 
level, redfish would drive the target coverage level at 37 percent. 
However, redfish is a healthy stock, and current biomass is well above 
the biomass threshold. Redfish also meets all of the filtering 
criteria--the stock is currently not overfished, overfishing is not 
occurring, only 45 percent of the sector sub-ACL was harvested in 2014, 
and only 3 percent of total catch was made up of discards. Also, 
because of the high year-to-year variability in the coverage necessary 
to achieve the 30-percent CV standard for redfish, we expect the target 
coverage level of 14 percent to meet the 30-percent CV requirement for 
2016.

Clarification of Groundfish Monitoring Goals and Objectives

    As described in the preamble to the proposed rule, Framework 
Adjustment 48 revised and clarified the goals and objectives of 
groundfish monitoring programs to include, among other things, 
improving the documentation of catch, reducing the cost of monitoring, 
and providing additional data streams for stock assessments. However, 
Framework 48 did not prioritize these goals and objectives. This 
rulemaking clarifies that, consistent with Amendment 16, the primary 
goal of the sector ASM program is to verify area fished, catch and 
discards by species, and by gear type, and that when the Agency sets 
the target coverage rate, it should consider achieving this goal in the 
most cost effective manner practicable, which is consistent with 
Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements and Amendment 16's overall goal. This 
clarification of the program goals would not affect the target ASM 
coverage levels.

7. Other Framework 55 Measures

Formation of Sustainable Harvest Sector II

    This action approves the formation of a new sector, Sustainable 
Harvest Sector II, for operation in the 2016 fishing year. Allocations 
for Sustainable Harvest Sector II are included in section ``8. Sector 
Measures for the 2016 Fishing Year'' based on enrollment information 
submitted for this sector as of March 15, 2016. All permits enrolled in 
this sector, and the vessels associated with those permits, have until 
April 30, 2016, to withdraw from the sector and fish in the common pool 
for the 2016 fishing year. Final 2016 sector allocations, based upon 
final rosters, will be announced as soon as possible after the start of 
the 2016 fishing year.

Modification of the Sector Approval Process

    This action modifies the sector approval process so that new 
sectors no longer have to be approved through an FMP amendment or 
framework adjustment. Under the process implemented in this final rule, 
new sectors must submit operations plans to both the Council and NMFS 
no later than September 1 of the fishing year prior to the fishing year 
they intend to begin operations. For example, if a new sector wishes to 
operate for the 2017 fishing year starting on May 1, 2017, it must 
submit its operations plan to the Council and NMFS no later than 
September 1, 2016.
    Once NMFS receives operations plans for any proposed sectors, it 
will notify the Council in writing of its intent to consider approving 
new sectors. NMFS will present the submitted sector operations plans 
and any supporting analysis for the new sector at a Groundfish 
Committee meeting and a Council meeting. After its review, the Council 
will submit comments to NMFS in writing and indicate whether it 
endorses the formation of the new sector. NMFS will then make a final 
determination about new sector consistent with the Administrative 
Procedure Act. NMFS will not initiate a rulemaking to make final 
determinations on the formation of the new sector without the Council's 
endorsement.
    This modified process is intended to shorten the timeline for, and 
increase the flexibility of, the sector approval process, while 
maintaining the same opportunities for Council approval and public 
involvement that the current process provides. No other aspects of the 
sector formation process, including the content of sector operations 
plan submissions, change as a result of this measure.

Modification to the Definition of the Haddock Separator Trawl

    This action modifies requirements for the haddock separator trawl 
to improve the enforceability of this selective trawl gear. In many 
haddock separator trawls, the separator panel is made with the same 
mesh color as the net, which makes it difficult for enforcement to 
identify whether the gear is properly configured during vessel 
inspections. This rule requires the separator panel to be a contrasting 
color to the portions of the net that it separates in order to make

[[Page 26422]]

the panel highly visible. The new requirement is intended to improve 
identification of the panel during vessel inspections, which is 
expected to allow for faster inspections and more effective 
enforcement. This modification does not affect rope or Ruhle trawls. We 
are delaying effectiveness of this measure by 6 months, until October 
31, 2016 to allow affected fishermen time to replace their separator 
panels with contrasting netting.

Removal of Gulf of Maine Cod Recreational Possession Limit

    This final rule removes the prohibition on recreational possession 
of GOM cod that was established as part of the protection measures 
implemented for this stock in Framework 53. We currently set 
recreational management measures for GOM cod and haddock in 
consultation with the Council, and have the authority to modify bag 
limits, size limits, and seasons. The Framework 53 prohibition on the 
recreational possession of GOM cod was implemented as a permanent 
provision in the Northeast Multispecies FMP. In removing the permanent 
prohibition on recreational possession of GOM cod, this measure returns 
the authority to us to set the recreational bag limit for GOM cod. We 
are implementing the 2016 recreational management measures for GOM cod 
and haddock in a separate, concurrent rulemaking to ensure the 
recreational fishery does not exceed its allocations for these stocks.

Distribution of Eastern/Western GB Cod Sector Allocations

    This rule allows sectors to ``convert'' their eastern GB cod 
allocation into western GB cod allocation using the same process 
previously implemented for GB haddock in Framework Adjustment 51 (77 FR 
22421; April 22, 2014). This measure is intended to prevent the Western 
U.S./Canada Area from prematurely closing to a sector before its 
overall GB cod allocation has been caught, and provides additional 
flexibility for sectors to harvest their GB cod allocations.
    Sectors are allowed to convert eastern GB cod allocation into 
western GB cod allocation at any time during the fishing year, and up 
to 2 weeks into the following fishing year to cover any overage during 
the previous fishing year. A sector's proposed allocation conversion 
would be referred to, and approved by, NMFS based on general issues, 
such as whether the sector is complying with reporting or other 
administrative requirements, including weekly sector reports, or member 
vessel compliance with Vessel Trip Reporting requirements. Based on 
these factors, we would notify the sector if the conversion is approved 
or disapproved. Consistent with the existing GB haddock transfer 
provision, we intend to use member vessel compliance with Vessel Trip 
Reporting requirements as the basis for approving, or disapproving, a 
reallocation of eastern GB quota to the Western U.S./Canada Area. If we 
include additional criteria in the future as the basis for approving or 
disapproving reallocation of these requests, we will do so consistent 
with the Administrative Procedure Act. This is identical to the process 
used for reviewing, and approving, quota transfer requests between 
sectors.
    The responsibility for ensuring that sufficient allocation is 
available to cover the conversion is the responsibility of the sector. 
This measure would also extend to state-operated permit banks. Any 
conversion of eastern GB cod allocation into western GB cod allocation 
may be made only within a sector, or permit bank, and not between 
sectors or permit banks. In addition, once a portion of eastern GB cod 
allocation has been converted to western GB cod allocation, that 
portion of allocation remains western GB cod for the remainder of the 
fishing year. Western GB cod allocation may not be converted to eastern 
GB cod allocation. This measure does not change the requirement that 
sector vessels may only catch their eastern GB cod allocation in the 
Eastern U.S./Canada Area, and may only catch the remainder of their GB 
cod allocation in the Western U.S./Canada Area.
    The total catch limit for GB cod includes the U.S. quota for 
eastern GB cod, so this measure does not jeopardize the total ACL for 
GB cod, or the U.S. quota for the eastern portion of the stock. A 
sector would also still be required to stop fishing in the Eastern 
U.S./Canada Area once its entire eastern GB cod allocation was caught, 
or in the Western U.S./Canada Area once it's western GB cod allocation 
was caught, or at least until it leased in additional quota. This 
ensures sufficient accountability for sector catch that will help 
prevent overages of any GB cod catch limit. Although we are approving 
this measure, we recommend that the Council occasionally review this 
measure in the future to ensure that it is still appropriate, 
particularly if there is a drastic change in the stock assessment for 
GB cod or its eastern management unit.

8. Sector Measures for the 2016 Fishing Year

    This action also includes measures necessary to implement sector 
operations plan, including sector regulatory exemptions and annual 
catch entitlements, for all 19 sectors for the 2016 fishing year. In 
past years, sector operations measures have been approved through a 
separate, concurrent rulemaking, but are included in this rulemaking 
for efficiency.

Sector Operations Plans and Contracts

    A total of 19 sectors are approved to operate in the 2016 fishing 
year, including:
     Seventeen sectors that had operations plans previously 
approved for the 2016 fishing year (see the Final Rule for 2015 and 
2016 Sector Operations Plans and 2015 Contracts and Allocation of 
Northeast Multispecies Annual Catch Entitlements; 80 FR 25143; May 1, 
2015);
     Sustainable Harvest Sector II, discussed in section ``7. 
Other Framework 55 Measures,'' which was approved for formation as part 
of Framework 55; and
     Northeast Fishery Sector 12, which has not operated since 
2013, but submitted an operations plan that is approved for the 2016 
fishing year.
    Copies of the operations plans and contracts, and the EA, for all 
approved sectors are available at: http://www.regulations.gov and from 
NMFS (see ADDRESSES).

Sector Allocations

    Based on anticipated 2016 sector enrollment as of March 15, 2016, 
we have projected sector allocations for the 2016 fishing year in this 
final rule. All permits enrolled in a sector, and the vessels 
associated with those permits, have until April 30, 2016, to withdraw 
from a sector and fish in the common pool for the 2016 fishing year. We 
will publish final sector annual catch entitlements (ACEs) and common 
pool sub-ACL totals, based upon final rosters, as soon as possible 
after the start of the 2016 fishing year, and again after the start of 
the 2017 and 2018 fishing years.
    The sector allocations in this final rule are based on the 2016 
fishing year specifications described above under ``3. Catch Limits for 
the 2016-2018 Fishing Years.'' We calculate the sector's allocation for 
each stock by summing its members' potential sector contributions (PSC) 
for a stock, as shown in Table 14. The information presented in Table 
14 is the total percentage of the commercial sub-ACL each sector would 
receive for

[[Page 26423]]

the 2016 fishing year, based on preliminary 2016 fishing year rosters. 
Tables 15 and 16 show the allocations each sector would receive for the 
2016 fishing year, based on their preliminary 2016 fishing year 
rosters. At the start of the fishing year, after sector enrollment is 
finalized, we provide the final allocations, to the nearest pound, to 
the individual sectors, and we use those final allocations to monitor 
sector catch. While the common pool does not receive a specific 
allocation, the common pool sub-ACLs have been included in each of 
these tables for comparison.
    We do not assign an individual permit separate PSCs for the Eastern 
GB cod or Eastern GB haddock; instead, we assign a permit a PSC for the 
GB cod stock and GB haddock stock. Each sector's GB cod and GB haddock 
allocations are then divided into an Eastern ACE and a Western ACE, 
based on each sector's percentage of the GB cod and GB haddock ACLs. 
For example, if a sector is allocated 4 percent of the GB cod ACL and 6 
percent of the GB haddock ACL, the sector is allocated 4 percent of the 
commercial Eastern U.S./Canada Area GB cod TAC and 6 percent of the 
commercial Eastern U.S./Canada Area GB haddock TAC as its Eastern GB 
cod and haddock ACEs. These amounts are then subtracted from the 
sector's overall GB cod and haddock allocations to determine its 
Western GB cod and haddock ACEs. Framework 51 implemented a mechanism 
that allows sectors to ``convert'' their Eastern GB haddock allocation 
into Western GB haddock allocation (79 FR 22421; April 22, 2014) and 
fish that converted ACE in Western GB. This rule approves a similar 
measure for GB cod under ``6. Other Framework 55 Measures.''
    At the start of the 2016 fishing year, we will withhold 20 percent 
of each sector's 2016 fishing year allocation until we finalize fishing 
year 2015 catch information. In the past, we have typically finalized 
the prior year's catch during the summer months. We expect to finalize 
2015 catch information consistent with this past practice. We will 
allow sectors to transfer ACE from the 2015 fishing year for two weeks 
of the fishing year following our completion of year-end catch 
accounting to reduce or eliminate any 2015 fishing year overages. If 
necessary, we will reduce any sector's 2016 fishing year allocation to 
account for any remaining overages in the 2015 fishing year. We will 
notify the Council and sector managers of this deadline in writing and 
will announce this decision on our Web site at: http://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/.
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P

[[Page 26424]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR02MY16.002


[[Page 26425]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR02MY16.003


[[Page 26426]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR02MY16.004

BILLING CODE 3510-22-C

[[Page 26427]]

Sector Carryover From the 2015 to 2016 Fishing Year

    Sectors can carry over up to 10 percent of the unused initial 
allocation for each stock into the next fishing year. However, the 
maximum available carryover may be reduced if up to 10 percent of the 
unused sector sub-ACL, plus the total ACL for the upcoming fishing 
year, exceeds the total ABC. Based on the catch limits implemented in 
this action, we evaluated whether the total potential catch in the 2016 
fishing year would exceed the ABC if sectors carried over the maximum 
10-percent of unused allocation from 2015 to 2016 (Table 17). Table 17 
corrects errors presented in that table in the proposed rule, and 
provides analysis of maximum carryover for pollock, which was omitted 
from the table in the proposed rule. Under this scenario, total 
potential catch would exceed the 2016 ABC for all stocks except for GOM 
haddock and GB haddock. As a result, we expect we will need to adjust 
the maximum amount of unused allocation that a sector can carry forward 
from 2015 to 2016 (down from 10 percent). However, it is possible that 
not all sectors will have 10 percent of unused allocation at the end of 
the 2015 fishing year. We will make final adjustments to the maximum 
carryover possible for each sector based on the final 2015 catch for 
the sectors, each sector's total unused allocation, and the cumulative 
PSCs of vessels/permits participating in the sector. We will announce 
this adjustment as close to May 1, 2016, as possible.
    Based on the catch limits adopted in this rule, the de minimis 
carryover amount for the 2016 fishing year will be set at the default 
one-percent of the 2016 overall sector sub-ACL. The overall de minimis 
amount will be applied to each sector based on the cumulative PSCs of 
the vessel/permits participating in the sector. If the overall ACL for 
any allocated stock is exceeded for the 2016 fishing year, the allowed 
carryover harvested by a sector minus its specified de minimis amount, 
will be counted against its allocation to determine whether an overage, 
subject to an accountability measure (AM), occurred.

              Table 17--Evaluation of Maximum Carryover Allowed From the 2015 to 2016 Fishing Years
                                                [mt, live weight]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                       Total
                                                                     Potential       potential      Difference
                                                                  carryover (10%    catch (2016    between total
              Stock                2016 U.S. ABC  2016 Total ACL  of 2015 sector    total ACL +      potential
                                                                     sub-ACL)        potential     catch and ABC
                                                                                     carryover
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GB Cod..........................             762             730             175             905             143
GOM cod.........................             500             473              20             493              -7
GB Haddock......................          56,068          53,309           2,157          55,466            -602
GOM Haddock.....................           3,630           3,430              95           3,525            -105
SNE Yellowtail Flounder.........             267             255              46             301              34
CC/GOM Yellowtail Flounder......             427             409              44             453              26
Plaice..........................           1,297           1,235             138           1,373              76
Witch Flounder..................             460             441              60             501              41
GB Winter Flounder..............             668             650             187             837             169
GOM Winter Flounder.............             810             776              37             813               3
SNE/MA Winter Flounder..........             780             749             115             864              84
Redfish.........................          10,338           9,837           1,097          10,934             596
White Hake......................           3,754           3,572             431           4,003             249
Pollock.........................          21,312          20,374           1,363          21,737             425
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note. Carry over of GB yellowtail flounder is not allowed because this stock is jointly managed with Canada.

Sector Exemptions

    Because sectors elect to receive an allocation under a quota-based 
system, the Northeast Multispecies FMP grants sector vessels several 
``universal'' exemptions from the FMP's effort controls. These 
universal exemptions apply to: Trip limits on allocated stocks; the GB 
Seasonal Closure Area; NE multispecies DAS restrictions; the 
requirement to use a 6.5-inch (16.5-cm) mesh codend when fishing with 
selective gear on GB; and portions of the GOM Cod Protection Closures. 
The Northeast Multispecies FMP prohibits sectors from requesting 
exemptions from permitting restrictions, gear restrictions designed to 
minimize habitat impacts, and reporting requirements. In addition to 
the ``universal'' exemptions approved under Amendment 16 to the FMP, 
all 19 sectors are granted 19 additional exemptions from the NE 
multispecies regulations for the 2016 fishing year. These exemptions 
were previously approved in the sector operations rulemaking for the 
2015 and 2016 fishing years. Descriptions of the current range of 
approved exemptions are included in the preamble to the Final Rule for 
2015 and 2016 Sector Operations Plans and 2015 Contracts (80 FR 25143; 
May 1, 2015) and are not repeated here.
    We are approving an additional sector exemption intended to 
complement the Framework 55 measure that removes the ASM coverage 
requirement for sector trips using 10-inch (25.4-cm) mesh, or larger, 
gillnet gear and fishing exclusively in the inshore GB and SNE/MA broad 
stock areas (described in section ``6. Groundfish At-Sea Monitoring 
Program Adjustments''). The sector exemption allows vessels on these 
ASM-excluded sector trips to also target dogfish using 6.5-inch (16.5-
cm) mesh gillnet gear within the footprint and season of either the 
Nantucket Shoals Dogfish Exemption Area (June 1 to October 15), the 
Eastern Area of the Cape Cod Spiny Dogfish Exemption Area (June 1 to 
December 31), or the Southern New England Dogfish Gillnet Exemption 
Area (May 1 to October 31). Allowing sectors to participate in these 
exempted fisheries for dogfish while simultaneously being excluded from 
ASM coverage on extra-large mesh sector trips (i.e., take trips using 
both greater than 10-inch (25.4-cm) mesh and 6.5-inch (16.5-in) mesh) 
is intended to maximize the viability and profitability of their 
businesses. The GB Fixed Gear Sector requested this exemption, and we 
will grant this exemption to any sectors that modify their operations 
plans to include this exemption. In this rule, we have also implemented 
regulatory text to detail the process for amending sector operations 
plans during the fishing year

[[Page 26428]]

in section ``10. Regulatory Corrections under Regional Administrator 
Authority.''
    We intend to monitor the use of this exemption using the existing 
vessel trip report (VTR) requirement. Vessels are currently required to 
send separate VTRs for each statistical area in which fishing occurred 
on a trip, and for each gear type used on a trip. Thus, consistent with 
the current regulations, vessels must submit a VTR to document catch on 
the extra-large mesh portion of the trip, and a separate VTR for the 
portion of the trip in which deploy the vessel deploys 6.5-inch (16.5-
in) mesh gillnet gear within the footprint and season of the existing 
dogfish exempted areas. We will closely monitor this exemption to 
evaluate whether additional reporting measures are necessary, and will 
propose any changes to reporting requirements related to this measure 
consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act. While sector trips 
using this exemption will still be exempt from ASM coverage, any legal-
sized allocated groundfish stocks caught during these trips must be 
landed and the associated landed weight (dealer or VTR) will be 
deducted from the sector's ACE.

9. 2016 Fishing Year Annual Measures Under Regional Administrator 
Authority

    The Northeast Multispecies FMP gives us authority to implement 
certain types of management measures for the common pool fishery, the 
U.S./Canada Management Area, and Special Management Programs on an 
annual basis, or as needed. This action implements a number of these 
management measures for the 2016 fishing year. These measures are not 
part of Framework 55, and were not specifically considered by the 
Council. We are implementing them in conjunction with Framework 55 
measures in this final rule for expediency purposes, and because they 
relate to the catch limits considered in Framework 55.

Common Pool Trip Limits

    The initial fishing year 2016 DAS possession limits and maximum 
trip limits for common pool vessels are included in Tables 18 and 19. 
These possession limits were developed after considering changes to the 
common pool sub-ACLs and sector rosters from 2015 to 2016, catch rates 
of each stock during 2015, and other available information. During the 
fishing year, we will adjust possession and trip limits, as necessary, 
to facilitate harvest or prevent overages, of common pool catch limits.
    We have corrected an error in the per DAS limit for CC/GOM 
yellowtail flounder in Table 18. Table 19 in the proposed rule listed 
the CC/GOM yellowtail flounder limit as 75 lb (34 kg) per DAS. The 
limit should have been listed as 750 lb (340 kg) per DAS. After re-
evaluating the common pool allocation, and in response to public 
comment, we are also setting the initial GOM haddock trip limit at 200 
lb (91 kg) per DAS, up to 600 lb (272 kg) per trip. We have determined 
that this higher initial trip limit is warranted given the 175-percent 
increase in the 2016 GOM haddock common pool sub-ACL, and will provide 
increased opportunity for common pool vessels to target GOM haddock.

  Table 18--Initial Common Pool Possession and Trip Limits for the 2016
                              Fishing Year
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Stock                           2016 trip limit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GB Cod (outside Eastern U.S./Canada      500 lb (227 kg) per DAS, up to
 Area).                                   2,500 lb per (1,134 kg) per
                                          trip.
GB Cod (inside Eastern U.S./Canada       100 lb (45 kg) per DAS, up to
 Area).                                   500 lb (227 kg) per trip.
GOM Cod................................  25 lb (11 kg) per DAS up to 100
                                          lb (45 kg) per trip.
GB Haddock.............................  100,000 lb (45,359 kg) per
                                          trip.
GOM Haddock............................  200 lb (91 kg) per DAS up to
                                          600 lb (272 kg) per trip.
GB Yellowtail Flounder.................  100 lb (45 kg) per trip.
SNE/MA Yellowtail Flounder.............  250 lb (113 kg) per DAS, up to
                                          500 lb (227 kg) per trip.
CC/GOM Yellowtail Flounder.............  750 lb (340 kg) per DAS up to
                                          1,500 lb (680 kg) per trip.
American plaice........................  1,000 lb (454 kg) per trip.
Witch Flounder.........................  250 lb (113 kg) per trip.
GB Winter Flounder.....................  250 lb (113 kg) per trip.
GOM Winter Flounder....................  2,000 lb (907 kg) per trip.
SNE/MA Winter Flounder.................  2,000 lb (907 kg) per DAS, up
                                          to 4,000 lb (1,814 kg) per
                                          trip.
Redfish................................  Unlimited.
White hake.............................  1,500 lb (680 kg) per trip.
Pollock................................  Unlimited.
Atlantic Halibut.......................  1 fish per trip.
Windowpane Flounder....................  Possession Prohibited.
Ocean Pout.............................
Atlantic Wolffish......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------


Table 19--Initial Cod Trips Limits for Handgear A, Handgear B, and Small
            Vessel Category Permits for the 2016 Fishing Year
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Permit                          2016 trip limit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Handgear A GOM Cod.....................  25 lb (11 kg) per trip.
Handgear A GB Cod......................  300 lb (136 kg) per trip.
Handgear B GOM Cod.....................  25 lb (11 kg) per trip.
Handgear B GB Cod......................  25 lb (11 kg) per trip.
Small Vessel Category..................  300 lb (136 kg) of cod,
                                          haddock, and yellowtail
                                          flounder combined.
                                         Maximum of 25 lb (11 kg) of GOM
                                          cod and 100 lb (45 kg) of GOM
                                          haddock within the 300-lb
                                          combined trip limit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 26429]]

Closed Area II Yellowtail Flounder/Haddock Special Access Program

    This action allocates zero trips for common pool vessels to target 
yellowtail flounder within the Closed Area II Yellowtail Flounder/
Haddock Special Access Program (SAP) for fishing year 2016. Common pool 
vessels can still fish in this SAP in 2016 to target haddock, but must 
fish with a haddock separator trawl, a Ruhle trawl, or hook gear. 
Vessels are not allowed to fish in this SAP using flounder trawl nets. 
This SAP is open from August 1, 2016, through January 31, 2017.
    We have the authority to determine the allocation of the total 
number of trips into the Closed Area II Yellowtail Flounder/Haddock SAP 
based on several criteria, including the GB yellowtail flounder catch 
limit and the amount of GB yellowtail flounder caught outside of the 
SAP. The Northeast Multispecies FMP specifies that no trips should be 
allocated to the Closed Area II Yellowtail Flounder/Haddock SAP if the 
available GB yellowtail flounder catch is insufficient to support at 
least 150 trips with a 15,000-lb (6,804-kg) trip limit (or 2,250,000 lb 
(1,020,600 kg)). This calculation accounts for the projected catch from 
the area outside the SAP. Based on the 2016 fishing year GB yellowtail 
flounder groundfish sub-ACL of 465,175 lb (211,000 kg), there is 
insufficient GB yellowtail flounder to allocate any trips to the SAP, 
even if the projected catch from outside the SAP area is zero. Further, 
given the low GB yellowtail flounder catch limit, catch rates outside 
of this SAP are more than adequate to fully harvest the 2016 GB 
yellowtail flounder allocation.

10. Regulatory Corrections Under Regional Administrator Authority

    The following changes are being made using Magnuson-Stevens Act 
section 305(d) authority to clarify regulatory intent, correct 
references, inadvertent deletions, and other minor errors.
    In Sec.  648.87(b)(4)(i)(G), text is revised to clarify that NMFS 
will determine the adequate level of insurance that monitoring service 
providers must provide to cover injury, liability, and accidental death 
to cover at-sea monitors, and notify potential service providers.
    In Sec.  648.87(c)(2)(i)(A), the definition of the Fippennies Ledge 
Area is added after being inadvertently deleted in a previous action.
    In Sec.  648.87(c)(4), regulatory text is added to detail the 
process for amending sector operations plans during the fishing year.

Comments and Responses on Measures Proposed in the Framework 55 
Proposed Rule

    We received 35 comments during the comment period on the Framework 
55 proposed rule. Public comments were submitted by the Council, two 
state officials and one state office, five non-governmental 
organizations, seven sectors, six commercial fishing organizations, 
seven commercial fishermen, four recreational fishermen, and two 
individuals. We requested specific comment on whether the Council's 
proposed measures in Framework 55 are consistent with the Northeast 
Multispecies FMP, as adjusted by Amendment 16 and Framework 48, the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act and its National Standards, and other applicable 
law. Responses to the comments received are below, and, when possible, 
responses to similar comments on the proposed measures have been 
consolidated.

Status Determination Criteria

    Comment 1: The Council commented that the proposed rule did not 
accurately summarize the assessment peer review's conclusion that the 
overfishing status for GB cod and Atlantic halibut is unknown.
    Response: The proposed rule noted that, based on the results of the 
2015 assessment update for GB cod, the stock remains overfished and 
that overfishing is occurring. For halibut, the proposed rule noted the 
stock remains overfished and that overfishing is not occurring. These 
final NMFS stock status determinations differ slightly from the 
conclusions of the assessment peer review panel. Clarification of these 
determinations for GB cod and halibut is provided in section ``2. 
Status Determination Criteria,'' and is not repeated here.

2016 Fishing Year Shared U.S./Canada Quotas

    Comment 2: Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) supported the proposed 
2016 fishing year shared U.S./Canada quotas for eastern GB cod, eastern 
GB haddock, and GB yellowtail flounder.
    Response: We agree, and this final rule implements these quotas for 
the 2016 fishing year. The 2016 shared U.S./Canada quotas are based on 
the results of the 2015 TRAC assessment, which represents the best 
scientific information available. These quotas are also consistent with 
the recommendations of the TMGC and the SSC.

Catch Limits for the 2016-2018 Fishing Years

    Comment 3: EDF supported all of the proposed catch limits for the 
2016-2018 fishing years.
    Response: We agree, and are implementing these catch limits for the 
2016-2018 fishing years. These catch limits are based on the 2015 stock 
assessments for these stocks, which represent the best scientific 
information available, and are consistent with the SSC's 
recommendations and conservation objectives. Assessment updates are 
scheduled for 2017 for most groundfish stocks, which will provide the 
opportunity to update the 2018 catch limits implemented in this final 
rule, if warranted.
    Comment 4: Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) opposed the proposed 
2016-2018 catch limits. CLF commented that catch limits have failed to 
effectively control fishing mortality for most groundfish stocks, and 
that the proposed 2016-2018 catch limits will not prevent overfishing.
    Response: We disagree. As noted above, the catch limits in 
Framework 55 are consistent with the best scientific information 
available, conservation objectives of the Northeast Multispecies FMP, 
and applicable law. In each year since Amendment 16 was implemented in 
2010, ACLs have not been exceeded for a majority of groundfish stocks, 
with the exception of the windowpane flounder stocks in most of these 
years, and GOM haddock in 2013. When ACLs have been exceeded, we have 
implemented accountability measures (AMs) to prevent overfishing. We 
continue to use the best scientific information available from our 
stock assessments, trawl surveys, and catch history to set catch limits 
for groundfish stocks. In response to stock assessments, quotas for 
many poor-performing groundfish stocks have been substantially reduced. 
For example, the catch limit for GOM cod has been reduced by 95 percent 
since Amendment 16 was implemented. Although there are uncertainties in 
the stock assessments, the SSC uses some strategies (e.g., holding the 
ABC constant for a 3-year period if the stock is in poor condition) to 
account for this uncertainty. Further, although 2018 catch limits are 
adopted in this action, assessment updates are scheduled for most 
groundfish stocks for fall 2017. These assessment updates will provide 
the opportunity to update the 2018 catch limits adopted in this action 
and ensure that catch limits continue to be set consistent with 
conservation and

[[Page 26430]]

management objectives of the Northeast Multispecies FMP.
    Comment 5: The Associated Fisheries of Maine (AFM) and 
Massachusetts state representative Antonio Cabral expressed concern for 
the GB cod catch limit and the economic impacts this quota reduction 
will have on groundfish vessels. State Representative Cabral suggested 
that the current 2015 catch limit should remain in place. AFM also 
commented that the SSC should have been provided with projections for 
stock growth under the status quo model in addition to the approach 
recommended by the assessment peer review panel.
    Response: We are adopting the Council's recommended GB cod ABC of 
1,249 mt for the 2016-2018 fishing years. This ABC is a 95-percent 
reduction compared to 2015, and available analysis indicates that GB 
cod, as well as other key groundfish stocks, will likely constrain the 
fishery in 2016. However, catch limits must first meet conservation 
objectives and satisfy applicable Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements to 
end overfishing and rebuild fish stocks, even if they result in 
negative economic impacts. The Council selected the ABC recommended by 
the SSC, which is the highest possible ABC allowed that will end 
overfishing and allow some stock rebuilding.
    The 2015 assessment review panel agreed that, in the event the 2015 
assessment update for any stock was not accepted, an alternative 
assessment approach to specify catch advice would be based on the most 
recent 3-year average quota or catches. The assessment model for GB cod 
was rejected as a basis for catch advice. However, the assessment peer 
review panel was concerned that the status quo catch may not be 
appropriate for GB cod given current stock status and resource survey 
trends. As a result, the peer review panel recommended using an 
approach that reduced recent average catch by the same proportion as 
the most recent survey trend. The Council's Groundfish Plan Development 
Team (PDT) provided the SSC with advice based on this approach and the 
SSC used this approach, which represents the best scientific 
information available, in developing its recommendation of 1,249 mt for 
the 2016 to 2018 fishing years.
    Comment 6: AFM commented that the U.S. assessment for GB cod and 
the TRAC assessment for eastern GB cod should use the same assumptions 
because it is a single stock.
    Response: In advance of the 2015 groundfish assessments, we 
anticipated conflicting results between the U.S. assessment for the 
entire GB cod stock and the joint U.S.-Canada assessment for the shared 
portion of this stock. The discrepancy is due to the use of different 
models and natural mortality assumptions for each assessment, and would 
have resulted in a U.S.-Canada estimate for the shared portion of the 
stock that was larger than the U.S. estimate for the entire GB cod 
stock. During the July 2015 TRAC assessment, the model for the shared 
portion of the GB cod stock was accepted. However, the U.S. assessment 
for the total GB cod stock was rejected due to a strong retrospective 
pattern during the September 2015 groundfish assessments and instead, 
the 2016 catch recommendation was based on a recent average catch 
approach, described in the response to Comment 5.
    Since the 2015 assessments, we have continued to work with Canadian 
managers and scientists to resolve the differences in the assumptions 
used in both assessments. The TRAC has been directed to provide 2017 
catch advice that better balances the different assumptions used in the 
GB cod and eastern GB cod assessment models. We are also planning to 
assess the structure of the cod stocks (GB and GOM) in 2017. The 
results of this analysis will help determine how many stocks there are, 
based on the biology of the stock, and inform discussions on the 
assumptions used in the GB cod and eastern GB cod assessment models. 
All of this analysis will ultimately support future benchmark 
assessments for the resulting cod stocks.
    Comment 7: NEFS XIII and one commercial fisherman commented that 
the Council should set GB cod management measures for party/charter 
boats that reflect the large reductions in allocations that have been 
imposed on the commercial fleet. The commercial fisherman suggested a 
two- to five-fish bag limit and a spawning closure for April, May and 
June.
    Response: Management measures for the GB cod recreational fishery 
were not considered by the Council in Framework 55. Amendment 16 only 
adopted recreational allocations and AMs for GOM cod and haddock, and 
did not establish recreational allocations or AMs for any other 
groundfish stocks. Amendment 16 specified that a recreational 
allocation would only be made if recreational catch, after accounting 
for recreational state waters catch, is less than 5 percent of total 
removals. At the time Amendment 16 was developed and implemented, 
recreational catches of GB cod did not meet this standard, and no 
allocation was made. For the purposes of catch accounting, Amendment 16 
specified that recreational catch of GB cod would be included in the 
other sub-component, which is the portion of the U.S. ABC expected to 
be harvested by unidentified non-groundfish fishery components. The 
other sub-component is not considered an allocation, and the fisheries 
included in this component are not subject to specific AMs.
    The majority of other subcomponent catch from 2010-2014 was 
recreational landings; however, the Council has not yet considered 
whether a recreational allocation for GB cod may be necessary. Creation 
of a recreational allocation for this stock would have to be developed 
through the Council in a future management action.
    Comment 8: AFM, the Northeast Seafood Coalition (NSC), and the 
Sustainable Groundfish Association (SGA) expressed concern for the 
witch flounder ABC of 460 mt. AFM commented in opposition to the witch 
flounder ABC. All three organizations noted that a higher ABC, equal to 
the SSC's recommendation, could have been adopted. Both AFM and NSC 
also noted that the difference in stock growth between the three witch 
flounder ABC alternatives (399 mt; 460 mt; and 500 mt) is not 
statistically significant.
    Response: We are adopting the Council's recommended witch flounder 
ABC of 460 mt for the 2016-2018 fishing years. A description of the SSC 
and Council discussions regarding the witch flounder ABC, and the 
development of various catch alternatives, is included in the preamble 
to the proposed rule and Appendix I of the Framework 55 EA, and is not 
repeated here.
    The SSC's ABC recommendation is a limit that the Council may not 
exceed when developing its final ABC recommendation. However, this does 
not, and should not, preclude the Council from selecting an ABC that is 
lower than the SSC's catch advice. Although the Council could have 
selected a higher ABC equal to the SSC's recommendation of 500 mt, the 
Council recommended a slightly lower ABC (460 mt) to balance the need 
to provide flexibility for groundfish vessels while reducing the risk 
of overfishing. The Council recommended this ABC after consideration of 
stock growth, the probability of overfishing, and the economic impacts 
of the various ABC alternatives. An ABC of 460 mt complies with 
Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements, including achieving optimum yield 
and taking into account the needs of fishing communities, without 
compromising conservation objectives to prevent overfishing and rebuild 
the stock.

[[Page 26431]]

    As noted in the proposed rule, a benchmark assessment for witch 
flounder is scheduled for fall of 2016. Assessment results would likely 
be available in time to re-specify witch flounder catch limits for the 
2017 fishing year, if necessary. Thus, although a 3-year constant ABC 
is adopted in this action, the limits may only be in place for 1 year 
and will be replaced if updated information shows it is necessary.
    NSC correctly noted that the preamble to the proposed rule did not 
correctly reference the December 2015 Council motion for the SSC to 
reconsider the witch flounder ABC. The preamble inadvertently included 
text from the Council's larger discussion leading to the final motion 
that discussed consideration of incidental non-target catch of witch 
flounder. However, the proposed rule included the correct ABC of 460 
mt, and the error does not affect the rationale for the catch limit 
adopted in this final rule.
    Comment 9: NSC and the Fisheries Survival Fund (FSF) commented that 
the 2015 assessment update for SNE/MA yellowtail flounder should have 
been rejected, but supported the SSC's alternative ABC approach and the 
final ABC recommendation. FSF also questioned why the GB cod assessment 
was rejected but the SNE/MA yellowtail assessment was not. NSC supports 
additional scientific examination of the datasets, model formulation, 
and source of the retrospective error in this assessment.
    Response: We are adopting a 267-mt ABC for SNE/MA yellowtail 
flounder for the 2016-2018 fishing years, as recommended by the Council 
and SSC. A description of the SSC discussion regarding the SNE/MA 
yellowtail flounder ABC is included in the preamble to the proposed 
rule, and is not repeated here.
    When developing its ABC recommendations for SNE/MA yellowtail 
flounder, the SSC discussed the disparate treatment of the GB cod and 
SNE/MA yellowtail flounder assessment. The SSC noted that, although the 
decisions for each assessment seem inconsistent, there are important 
differences between the assessments that justified these respective 
decisions. For example, the magnitude of the retrospective bias for 
SNE/MA yellowtail flounder (106 percent) was substantially less than 
for GB cod (240 percent). In addition, the SNE/MA yellowtail flounder 
assessment performed better than the GB cod assessment by other 
diagnostic measures. We agree that these are reasonable distinctions 
that support the SSC's decisions. The SSC's discussion is summarized in 
more detail in the SSC's November 17, 2017, memorandum to the Council 
on 2016-2018 groundfish ABCs, included in Appendix I to the Framework 
55 EA.
    Although the SNE/MA yellowtail flounder assessment update was not 
rejected, as supported by the commenters, the SSC acknowledged the poor 
condition of the stock, substantial uncertainty in the assessment, and 
procedural issues with the assessment terms of reference in 
recommending a 3-year ABC of 267 mt. This ABC is based on a combination 
of the assessment catch projections and an estimate of 2015 catch, 
which appropriately balances the new understanding of this stock's 
status and uncertainty in the assessment, while allowing as much 
flexibility as practicable for groundfish and scallop vessels.
    Because SNE/MA yellowtail flounder is now overfished, a rebuilding 
program must be developed for the stock. We will work with the Council 
to develop an appropriate rebuilding program, particularly in light of 
some of the difficulties that the assessment results presented in 
developing 2016-2018 catch advice.
    Comment 10: Two recreational fishermen opposed to the 60-percent 
increase in the GOM winter flounder ABC. One commented that the stock 
is not healthy enough to justify a 60-percent quota increase. Both 
commented that the recreational fishery will be harmed if the quota 
increase causes more commercial fishing effort. One suggested a 
commercial moratorium to allow the stock to rebuild.
    Response: GOM winter flounder catch limits are based on the 2015 
assessment for the stock. Overfishing is not occurring, but biomass 
reference points are unavailable for this stock. The assessment model 
relies on resource survey data, so current biomass and fishing 
mortality estimates, as well as catch advice, tend to vary with 
interannual variations in the survey. After declines in the survey 
indices for the last 5 years (2009-2013), there was an increase in 
survey catch in 2014, which resulted in the increase in catch advice.
    The assessment review panel expressed concern that the recent 
biomass estimates substantially decreased despite relatively low catch, 
and noted that reasons for this apparent decline are unknown. In spite 
of the uncertainties in the assessment, it was approved as a basis for 
catch advice. Because catch advice fluctuates with area-swept 
assessments, the assessment review panel recommended stabilizing catch 
advice by averaging the area-swept fall and spring survey. This results 
in an ABC of 745 mt. The PDT provided the SSC with this option, but the 
SSC ultimately chose an ABC consistent with 75% FMSY.
    NMFS disagrees that a commercial moratorium is necessary to limit 
catch of GOM winter flounder. While this is a relatively large ABC 
increase compared to 2015, recent catches have been well below the 
overfishing threshold. In addition, available catch information 
suggests that a majority of GOM winter flounder catch comes from the 
same statistical areas as the majority of GOM cod catch. We expect that 
the low catch limit for GOM cod will continue to limit catch of GOM 
winter flounder.
    Comment 11: One commercial fisherman suggested that NMFS increase 
allowed landings of Atlantic halibut to three fish per trip for limited 
access permits because it could convert discards to landings, maximize 
value of quota, and support the collection of biological samples for 
this stock.
    Response: Framework 55 did not consider adjustments to the Atlantic 
halibut trip limit. Adjustments of the trip limit for halibut are 
outside of the scope of this action. Any changes to the trip limit 
would have to be developed through the Council process in a future 
management action.
    Comment 12: A number of commenters expressed concern about specific 
assessments and about the assessment process in general. Several 
commenters proposed alternative data sources or assessment models.
    Response: The Framework 55 proposed rule did not propose or solicit 
public comment on assessment methods or processes. NMFS can only 
approve, partially approve, or disapprove the status determination 
criteria and catch limits proposed in this action based on an 
evaluation of their compliance with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the 
Northeast Multispecies FMP, and other applicable law.
    The 2015 assessment updates replicated the methods recommended in 
the most recent benchmark decisions, as modified by any subsequent 
operational assessments or updates, with the intention of simply adding 
years of data. Only minor flexibility in the assessment assumptions was 
allowed to address emerging issues. Thus, the commenters' suggestions 
for alternative data sources or assessment models would not have been 
appropriate for the 2015 assessment updates.
    The NEFSC has made significant efforts over the past few years to

[[Page 26432]]

increase transparency and promote an understanding of the assessment 
process. These efforts include outreach meetings, data workshops, and 
providing informational materials in advance of the peer review 
meetings. We encourage the commenters to continue to engage with the 
NEFSC to ensure that their concerns and suggestions are raised as early 
in the process as possible.
    Comment 13: The Council identified a transcription error in the 
groundfish sub-ACL for GB cod for 2017 and 2018 in its February 19, 
2016, submission of the Framework 55 EA. This error is also reflected 
in Tables 6 and 7 in the proposed rule.
    Response: We have corrected this error in Tables 6 and 7 under 
section ``4. Catch Limits for the 2016-2018 Fishing Years.'' The 
groundfish sub-ACL was incorrectly listed as 608 mt for both years. It 
should have been listed as 997 mt.

Default Catch Limits for the 2019 Fishing Year

    Comment 14: The Council noted that the transcription error in the 
GB cod sub-ACL (see Comment 13) was carried into the default 
specifications for the 2019 fishing year. The Council also noted that 
the proposed rule inadvertently omitted default specifications for 2018 
for GB yellowtail flounder.
    Response: We have corrected the omission of the GB yellowtail 
flounder default specifications under section ``5. Default Catch Limits 
for the 2018 and 2019 Fishing Years.'' Default catch limits for the 
2018 fishing year for GB yellowtail flounder were inadvertently omitted 
in the proposed rule because the Council only recommended 
specifications for the 2016 and 2017 fishing year for this stock. This 
error has been corrected here. The transcription error in the GB cod 
groundfish sub-ACL did not affect the 2019 default specifications 
presented in the proposed rule for this stock.

Groundfish At-Sea Monitoring Program Adjustments

    Comment 15: AFM, the SHS, New Hampshire Governor Margaret Wood 
Hassan, the Gloucester Fisheries Commission (GFC), the SGA, the 
Northeast Seafood Coalition, NEFS II, NEFS VII, NEFS VIII, NEFS XII, 
NEFS XIII, and the Massachusetts Office of the Attorney General 
commented in support of the changes to the ASM program.
    Response: We agree, and are implementing the full set of proposed 
changes to the ASM program. This action does not specify a fixed ASM 
coverage target for all future years, and is not approving a lower 
target ASM coverage level in perpetuity. Rather, using information 
gained from past ASM coverage levels, this action refines the process 
we use for predicting the level of ASM coverage necessary in a given 
year to achieve the required 30-percent CV. In comparison to previous 
years, the refinements made in this action could lead to lower or 
higher ASM coverage target rates in future years.
    Based on these changes, this rule also announces our determination 
that the target ASM coverage level is 14 percent (ASM + NEFOP observer 
coverage) for the 2016 fishing year. This level of coverage provides a 
reliable estimate of overall catch by sectors to monitor annual catch 
levels in the most cost-effective means practicable. This 
interpretation is justified in light of the requirement for 
conservation and management measures to be consistent with all National 
Standards, specifically, National Standards 2, 5, 7, and 8, which 
speak, respectively, to the need to use the best scientific information 
available; efficiency in the use of fishery resources; the need to 
minimize costs and avoid unnecessary duplication, where practicable; 
and the need to take into account impacts on fishing communities and 
minimize adverse economic impacts, to the extent practicable. We have 
conducted analyses, and considered both precision and accuracy issues 
in determining the appropriate level of coverage that provides a 
reliable estimate of overall catch while reducing the cost burden to 
sectors and NMFS. A more detailed summary of the supporting analyses, 
and an explanation and justification supporting our determination that 
an at-sea coverage level of 14 percent (10 percent ASM + 4 percent 
NEFOP) is sufficient is contained in the EA.
    Comment 16: The Georges Bank Cod Fixed Gear Sector, the SGA, and 
The Nature Conservancy (TNC) commented in support of the alternative to 
exempt extra-large mesh gillnet trips in Broad Stock Areas 2 and 4 from 
ASM coverage. The NSC, the GFC, NEFS II, NEFS VII, NEFS VIII, NEFS XII, 
NEFS XIII also support this measure, provided that this change does not 
increase coverage levels on other sector trips.
    Response: We agree, and are adopting this alternative as proposed. 
These trips have negligible groundfish catch and are receiving the same 
level of coverage as other sector trips, with no resultant benefit to 
the overall precision and accuracy of groundfish discard estimates. By 
exempting these trips from ASM coverage, those resources can be 
directed to cover trips with meaningful catches of groundfish and, 
thereby, improve the estimates of groundfish discards.
    These extra-large mesh gillnet sector trips will be excluded from 
the trips considered in setting and monitoring ASM coverage levels. 
However, we are not yet able to determine how removing the ASM coverage 
requirement from certain trips will impact the overall variability of 
the remaining population of sector trips, or how it will affect the 
coverage necessary to meet the 30-percent CV requirement in future 
years. The economic impact section of the EA (Section 7.4) discusses 
this uncertainty, and notes that, if ASM coverage were to be shifted 
onto other components of the fleet, there would be no overall cost 
savings to sectors. Nonetheless, we are approving this measure because 
it prioritizes limited resources and monitoring coverage for trips that 
actually catch groundfish.
    Comment 17: Many commenters questioned the appropriateness of the 
ASM program's 30-percent CV precision standard. EDF, Oceana, and TNC 
urge NMFS to disapprove the ASM measures in Framework 55, and implement 
higher coverage levels they contend are necessary to precisely and 
accurately monitor catch and discards. They encourage us to continue to 
work with the Council to develop measures to monitor the fishery based 
on the best available science and to assure accountability to prevent 
overfishing. Cape Cod Commercial Fishermen's Alliance and Penobscot 
East Resource Center did not comment in detail on the groundfish 
monitoring program adjustments proposed in Framework 55, but expressed 
their view that it is necessary to work towards an effective and 
affordable groundfish monitoring program that meets the goals and 
objectives of the Northeast Multispecies FMP.
    Response: We are approving the measures in Framework 55. Framework 
55 only includes administrative modifications to the ASM program using 
information gained from ASM program performance in the past 5 years, 
and was narrowly focused on adjusting the method used to set the target 
coverage level for the industry-funded ASM program. The Council has 
identified groundfish monitoring as a priority for 2016, and the PDT is 
already working on analysis to inform more extensive changes to the 
groundfish monitoring program (e.g., possibly adjusting the 30-percent 
CV precision standard) in a future action. We note that to administer 
the monitoring program each year, we set target ASM

[[Page 26433]]

coverage levels to achieve monitoring program requirements. Consistent 
with this practice, we would have implemented a 17-percent target ASM 
coverage level had Framework 55 been disapproved, using several of the 
administrative approaches analyzed in this action, namely the removal 
of our internal standard of monitoring 80 percent of discards at a 30-
percent CV and using multiple years of data to determine target ASM 
coverage levels. We support the Council's efforts to evaluate 
groundfish monitoring programs through our membership on the Groundfish 
PDT, the Groundfish Committee, and the Council.
    Comment 18: TNC opposed changes to the method used to set the 
target coverage level for the industry-funded ASM program, citing the 
executive summary in the draft EA, which stated that we will likely 
miss the 30-percent CV standard.
    Response: We clarify that we are approving a method to set the 
target ASM coverage level, but we are not changing the requirements to 
achieve the 30-percent CV precision standard and meet the goals and 
objectives of the monitoring program. As stated in the preamble to the 
proposed rule, we expect that the Framework 55 changes in the method 
used to set the ASM target coverage level will result in target 
coverage levels that will meet the 30-percent CV precision standard and 
will reliably estimate catch. We also expect that the 2016 target 
coverage level of 14 percent announced in this action will achieve 
results consistent with prior years.
    The commenter cites an inaccurate portrayal of the intent of the 
measures contained in the text of the draft version of the EA. The text 
states that we will likely miss the 30-percent CV standard, but these 
measures were always intended to meet the 30-percent CV standard and 
the monitoring goals and objectives of the FMP. We released an advance 
draft of the EA to support the publication of the proposed rule prior 
to completing our full review process. We are not required to finalize 
the EA at the proposed rule stage, but have routinely published draft 
EAs in the past to allow the public time to consider and comment on the 
full range of potential impacts of actions under consideration in our 
region. We have clarified our intent for these measures in our 
development the final EA. Our proposed rule and this final rule provide 
the analysis for our conclusion that we expect the method used to set 
the target ASM coverage level, and the 14-percent 2016 target coverage 
level, to meet the 30-percent CV precision standard specified in the 
Northeast Multispecies FMP. We have not changed our requirement to 
ensure that the target coverage level will achieve the required CV 
standard. If the target coverage level resulting from this method was 
too low to ensure we would achieve the 30-percent CV standard, we would 
set a different target coverage level to achieve that standard.
    Comment 19: Oceana, EDF, and TNC questioned the effectiveness of 
the 30-percent CV standard as a mechanism for setting monitoring 
levels, and commented that this precision standard may not accurately 
determine sector catch and ACE utilization. These commenters noted the 
worsening retrospective patterns in the assessments, and that 
overfishing occurred every year that the ASM program met the 30-percent 
CV standard, even as reported landings and discards stayed below ACE 
levels. EDF highlighted that lower coverage levels will undermine stock 
assessments and lead to overfishing, which violates National Standard 
1. EDF and Oceana noted that the changes included in Framework 55 
violate our obligation under the Magnuson-Stevens Act to ``assess and 
specify the present . . . condition of the fishery'' and ``assess the 
amount and type of bycatch'' occurring in the fishery. EDF also 
asserted that additional reporting mechanisms meant to support the ASM 
program, such as vessel and dealer reports, and enforcement mechanisms, 
are not working.
    Response: Framework 55 does not alter Amendment 16's primary goal 
for ASM monitoring to verify area fished, catch, and discards by 
species, by gear type. Rather, it underscores it. Framework 55 further 
clarifies that Amendment 16's goals and objectives as identified in 
Framework 48 must meet this goal by the most cost-efficient means 
practicable. This is consistent with the Magnuson-Steven Act 
requirement to take into account cost considerations without 
compromising conservation. To effectuate this goal, the specific ASM 
measures included in Framework 55 are narrowly focused on adjusting the 
method used to set the target coverage level for the industry-funded 
ASM program in order to meet the 30-percent CV requirement, among the 
other existing goals and objectives of the program. During the 
development of Framework 55, we advised the Council that any larger 
changes to the ASM program would likely require an amendment rather 
than a framework adjustment.
    Framework 48's goals and objectives for the ASM program include 
performing periodic reviews of the monitoring program's effectiveness. 
Framework 55 does not change this goal, and we agree with the 
commenters that review should include evaluating the groundfish 
monitoring program beyond this action, including whether the 30-percent 
CV standard is the most appropriate way to set ASM coverage levels. 
NMFS, and now industry, are both devoting considerable financial 
resources to achieving this precision standard, and it is important to 
fully consider whether this expenditure is appropriate to meet the 
groundfish monitoring goals and objectives. Further evaluation is also 
warranted in light of the 2015 assessment results, potential changes in 
the fishery since 2010, and now that the sector program has been 
operational for over 5 years. As noted in previous responses to 
comments, this evaluation must occur through the Council, and is 
already underway.
    We agree with the commenters that an evaluation of the ASM program 
must include a review of its performance for providing data for stock 
assessments and reducing management and/or biological uncertainty, 
along with all of the other goals and objectives identified by 
Framework 48. The CV standard, however, only sets the level of 
precision that will be achieved through catch sampling. A precision 
standard for at-sea monitoring by itself cannot account for the 
entirety of scientific and management uncertainty. For example, we 
recognize that overfishing is still occurring for many groundfish 
stocks despite the fact that we have met the CV standard, and ACL 
overages have not occurred. A 2013 NMFS publication (Methot, R. 2013) 
discusses this possibility, and explains ``that scientific and 
management uncertainty mean that simply setting targets below limits 
does not necessarily prevent the stock from experiencing overfishing'' 
(p. 63). The overfishing status of a stock can be based on an estimate 
of fishing mortality compared to the threshold, or catch being greater 
than OFL. However, because the fishing mortality threshold and the OFL 
are based on estimates, they cannot perfectly reflect what is happening 
to the fish stock. Further, overfishing can be caused by a number of 
factors, including a lack of effective management controls and 
scientific uncertainty in fishing mortality estimates or environmental 
factors. As is the case with many groundfish stocks, new scientific 
information and updated assessments have changed the perception of 
stock status from when catch limits were specified.
    As the commenters point out, achieving a certain level of precision

[[Page 26434]]

around the discard estimate does not guarantee that overfishing will 
not occur. Rather, the suite of management measures used for any 
fishery is designed to minimize the probability that overfishing 
occurs. Assuming that the ACLs are set correctly, the groundfish sector 
program includes an array of accountability measures beyond monitoring, 
such as restricted gear areas and common pool trip limits. These 
measures are regularly evaluated and adjusted in response to updated 
scientific information to ensure they are meeting their intended goal. 
The buffer between the OFL and ABC can also be adjusted to better 
account for scientific uncertainty, and the SSC frequently uses this 
approach to set groundfish catch limits. We will continue to use the 
information in the assessments to adjust catch limits and management 
measures to prevent overfishing.
    EDF and Oceana noted that the changes included in Framework 55 
violate our obligation under the Magnuson-Stevens Act to ``assess and 
specify the present . . . condition of the fishery'' and ``assess the 
amount and type of bycatch'' occurring in the fishery. However this 
requirement is satisfied by the Greater Atlantic Region SBRM, not the 
ASM program. The sector ASM program is a separate program with distinct 
goals. Providing additional data for stock assessments is one of the 
goals of groundfish monitoring programs and is considered when 
evaluating the ASM program and setting the target coverage level. This 
statement is not meant to diminish the information benefits the ASM 
program provides for stock assessments, but is meant to clarify that 
the changes to the ASM program in Framework 55 are not in violation of 
our SBRM requirements under the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
    Last, we do not use the CV standard alone to reliably estimate 
catch. There are many reporting requirements that vessels adhere to, 
and there are strong incentives for vessels to report accurately. 
Enforcing reporting requirements is currently a high priority for the 
Northeast Division of the NOAA Office of Law Enforcement, and the 
threat of a civil or criminal enforcement action creates a strong 
incentive for compliance. There is also a strong incentive for sectors 
to promote internal compliance, because a sector and the fishing 
businesses in a sector can be held jointly and severally liable for 
overages and misreporting of catch, including both landings and 
discards. The percent of overall catch composed of discards has a 
larger impact on monitoring ACLs than the 30-percent CV standard. 
Landings remain the largest portion of catch for allocated stocks and 
are reported by dealers, vessels, and sectors.
    Despite uncertainty that exists in assessments and the degree of 
imprecision in monitoring inherent in the 30-percent CV standard, we 
will continue to use the information in the assessments to adjust catch 
limits and management measures to prevent overfishing. National 
Standard Guidelines recognize that scientific and management 
uncertainty exists and requires consideration of, and accounting for, 
such uncertainty when setting catch limits.
    To that end, significant additional uncertainty buffers are 
established in the setting of ACLs that help make up for any lack of 
absolute precision and accuracy in estimating overall catch by sector 
vessels. Although the commenters focus on uncertainties in assessments 
that merit consideration when evaluating the information provided by 
the ASM program in future actions, the commenters provide no concrete 
evidence of a link between Framework 55's coverage target adjustments 
to our ability to adequately monitor sector catch and provide 
information sufficient for assessments. We conclude that sector 
monitoring requirements overall, including the adjustments to the 
method used to set the ASM coverage level, are sufficient to monitor 
sector ACE and prevent overfishing.
    Comment 20: Oceana, EDF, TNC, and PERC expressed fear that the ASM 
coverage level for 2016 will be too low, will incentivize illegal 
discards, and will create harmful bias. Oceana and EDF cited numerous 
Groundfish PDT analyses that identified the likelihood of observer bias 
(i.e., behavioral differences between fishing trips with or without an 
observer). EDF argued that lease prices and recent cod discard rates 
are evidence that discarding is high in the groundfish fishery, and is 
likely resulting in catch in excess of the annual catch limits.
    Response: The ASM portion of sector monitoring program relies on 
the assumption that calculated discard rates on observed trips can be 
applied to unobserved trips. However, if vessel operators discard fish 
at higher rates when there are no observers on board, then catch (and 
overall mortality of fish) will be higher than estimated. For the 2013-
2015 fishing years, we have published a summary report explaining and 
justifying the ASM coverage level needed to monitor catch levels for 
each year (http://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/aps/monitoring/nemultispecies.html). The summary report includes the most 
recent considerations of accuracy related to the ASM program, both 
completed during the 2012 fishing year. Oceana and EDF both cite the 
major analyses on accuracy done in support of ASM coverage levels, 
namely a NMFS analysis evaluating the possibility of an observer effect 
in monitoring discards in the groundfish fishery, and a NMFS analysis 
on the probability of exceeding catch limits based on a hypothetical 
increase in the rate of discarding on unobserved trips. Overall, the 
available analyses suggest that potential biases in ASM data do not 
negate the utility of the discard estimates provided by the program.
    EDF cites our analysis of at-sea monitoring requirements for the 
Northeast multispecies sector fishery, but draws the unsupported 
conclusion that discarding increases on unobserved trips. An analysis 
contained in that report examined if there were indications of an 
observer effect on groundfish trips that could result in either 
systematic or localized biases, which would suggest that observer data 
used to generate discard estimates may not be representative. This 
study evaluated whether differences in performance occur when a vessel 
carried an observer and when it did not. The study found evidence for 
some differences in fishing behavior between observed and unobserved 
groundfish trips; however, the analysis could 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.
    Oceana cited another NFMS analysis, included in the same ASM 
summary report, which found that even if there is some bias that 
increases unreported discards, the discard rate for the groundfish 
sector trips studied would need to be five to ten times higher on 
unobserved trips to appreciably increase the risk for total catch to 
exceed the ABC or OFL. None of the analyses conducted to date suggest 
behavioral differences on observed versus unobserved trips of this 
magnitude. Neither commenter provides evidence of the magnitude of 
potential discarding. The analysis concluded that, given that landings 
are below the total sector ACLs, setting a monitoring coverage level 
that meets the 30-percent CV requirement at the stock level provides a 
reasonable level of certainty that observer bias would have to be much 
larger than plausible before the risk of exceeding the OFL would exceed

[[Page 26435]]

5 percent. Based on the discussion in these analyses, we have not 
recommended an adjustment to the target ASM coverage level, or to other 
monitoring requirements, to address bias in this and past fishing years 
because there is no scientific information available at this time to 
estimate a reliable adjustment factor.
    None of the commenters provided information showing that a 
reduction in the target coverage level will coincide with or cause 
increased bias involving increased discards on unobserved trips, or the 
magnitude of any such increased discards. EDF commented that there is 
an economic incentive for a vessel to fish differently when an observer 
is on board. There may be economic incentives to discard stocks with 
low catch limits to avoid reaching those limits. It is unclear, 
however, whether and how this incentive changes as target monitoring 
levels increase or decrease, or when a vessel is required to pay for an 
at-sea monitor's services and warrants further review when evaluating 
the ASM program. For example, at the June 2015 Council meeting during 
the development of Framework 55, EDF commented that observer bias was 
due to NMFS subsidizing ASM costs for industry since 2010. Because 
sectors have not had to pay for ASM, EDF noted the incentive for bias 
exists to catch less on observed trips. This argument posits that the 
bias incentive occurs when fishermen do not pay for ASM services, 
presumably because they can better afford a trip that avoids discarding 
and results in less catch. Based on this argument, one may equally 
infer that, when industry pays for ASM, their economic incentive to 
fish differently on monitored trips may change. In the absence of any 
studies or analysis to support these conclusions, or that show the 
magnitude of any such incentives and changed behavior, we have no 
reasonable basis for setting different coverage target rates or using a 
different method than provided for in this action. We have determined 
that changes to the method used to set the target ASM coverage level, 
and the resulting 14-percent coverage level set for fishing year 2016, 
are expected to reach a 30-percent CV, and will provide accurate and 
precise enough discard estimates to monitor sector ACEs and ACLs.
    Finally, EDF and TNC argue that the low GOM cod catch and ACE lease 
price in the 2015 fishing year is evidence that vessels are illegally 
discarding GOM cod on unobserved trips. This allegation is based on 
many assumptions about the abundance, distribution, and catchability of 
GOM cod, and the ability of vessels to avoid GOM cod. EDF and TNC 
ignore the simplest logical deduction, that if the stock assessment has 
accurately characterized the abundance of GOM cod as truly low and the 
population as highly concentrated, and that vessels are successfully 
avoiding GOM cod, then we would expect to see a decline in catch and 
resultant decrease in ACE leasing price.
    Amendment 16 specified that ASM coverage levels should be less than 
100 percent, which requires estimating the discard portion of catch, 
and thus total catch. While it is required that the overall ASM 
coverage level must meet at least a 30-percent CV precision standard, 
that level of coverage also must minimize effects of potential 
monitoring bias to the extent practicable while maintaining as much 
flexibility as possible to enhance fleet viability. In order to assure 
perfect accuracy (i.e., zero bias), 100-percent observer coverage would 
be required. However, complete coverage is not only prohibited by 
Amendment 16, but would be expensive, not in the public interest, and 
inconsistent with National Standards 5, 7, and 8.
    Ultimately, the target ASM coverage level should meet the 30-
percent CV standard and provide confidence that the overall catch 
estimate is accurate enough to ensure that sector fishing activities 
are consistent with National Standard 1 requirements to prevent 
overfishing while achieving on a continuing basis optimum yield from 
each fishery. We have determined that applying the method we approve in 
this action to set the 2016 target coverage level of 14 percent will 
meet this goal. Our determination incorporates all of our sector 
monitoring and reporting requirements, including obligations on sectors 
to self-monitor and self-report, which is linked to Agency monitoring. 
For the most part, the commenters have generally asserted that this 
system and level of monitoring is not adequate without providing any 
specific justification or information to support their assertion. As 
noted in other responses, this action does not specify a fixed ASM 
coverage target for all future years, and only refines the process we 
use for predicting the level of ASM coverage necessary in a given year 
to achieve the 30-percent CV requirement. In comparison to previous 
years, the refinements made in this action could lead to lower, or 
higher, ASM coverage target rates in future years.
    We agree that it would be beneficial to complete additional 
analysis of the potential sources of bias. However, it is difficult to 
quantify bias, or make definitive conclusions on these types of 
analyses, because data must be used to infer activity that may not be 
observed or documented. Available analyses suggest that bias is not 
likely to undermine our ability to monitor ACLs. We support the 
continued improvement of available analyses, especially in light of the 
recent declines in groundfish catch limits, and expect that as 
additional data become available, these types of analyses will improve.
    Comment 21: EDF commented that the only accountability measure in 
the groundfish fishery is the pound-for-pound payback provision.
    Response: Framework 55 did not address groundfish accountability 
measures, and this comment is outside the scope of this action. 
Nonetheless, we disagree that the only accountability measure in the 
groundfish fishery is the pound-for-pound payback provision. That 
provision is only one of a complex set of proactive and reactive 
accountability measures designed to prevent overfishing. These measures 
were implemented in Amendment 16, and modified through a number of 
subsequent framework adjustments. The accountability measures include 
inseason closures and possession limit adjustments, area closures, and 
selective gear requirements in addition to the pound-for-pound payback 
provision. These measures are required to comply with the Magnuson-
Stevens Act and reflect the spectrum of AMs recognized in the National 
Standard 1 guidelines.
    Comment 22: CLF suggests abandoning ASM and relying instead on only 
VTRs.
    Response: We disagree. We have determined the adjustments to the 
method used to calculate the target ASM coverage level will result in 
coverage levels that will provide information comparable to past years. 
In addition, we expect the 14-percent target ASM coverage level 
approved in this action will achieve the 30-percent CV requirement. As 
noted elsewhere in our responses, the ASM program is only one component 
of a larger sector monitoring system designed to ensure that sector 
catch stays below ACLs. As a result, the overall system, including 
NEFOP coverage, ASM, VTRs, dealer reports, and other factors, provides 
benefits over relying only on VTRs for catch monitoring.
    Comment 23: EDF comments that low levels of monitoring will have a 
direct negative impact on enforcement.
    Response: We disagree that ASM levels will negatively affect 
enforcement. ASM is not part of our enforcement program. At-sea 
monitors are aboard vessels strictly for data

[[Page 26436]]

collection. To the extent that the presence of at-sea monitors on 
fishing trips encourages compliance, it is a benefit, but is not the 
goal or objective of placing monitors aboard vessels.
    Comment 24: EDF claims that ASM reductions will have the greatest 
impact on non-allocated stocks.
    Response: We agree that reductions in ASM coverage levels may 
disproportionately affect our catch estimates for non-allocated stocks 
because catch for these stocks is mostly comprised of discards. 
However, we expect that the approved adjustments to the method used to 
calculate the target ASM coverage level and the resulting 14-percent 
target coverage level for 2016 announced in this action will achieve 
the required 30-percent CV on discard estimates for all groundfish 
stocks. Looking back at the coverage levels required to meet a 30-
percent CV for the five non-allocated stocks, coverage levels under 
roughly 8 percent would have resulted in a 30-percent CV in each year 
from 2010 to 2014. In each year from 2010 to 2014, catch of Atlantic 
halibut, ocean pout, and wolffish was below the ACL. The Council 
addressed ACL overages for the windowpane flounder stocks with reactive 
accountability measures by requiring the use of selective trawl gear. 
Nonetheless, because these stocks have the potential to be most 
impacted by the changes in Framework 55, they will need to be a focal 
point of consideration of the Council's efforts to revise groundfish 
monitoring programs.
    Comment 25: EDF recommends increasing management uncertainty 
buffers to account for the additional uncertainty that will result from 
lower ASM coverage levels. They allege that reducing ASM without 
adjusting uncertainty buffers violates the Magnuson-Stevens Act and is 
arbitrary and capricious. They assert that the Agency can no longer 
rely on the assumption that discarding is minimal, and that observer 
bias can be estimated to an effect of nearly zero as justification for 
not adjusting management uncertainty buffers.
    Response: Each time catch limits are set, the PDT reviews the 
management uncertainty buffers used for each fishery component and 
recommends necessary adjustments. For Framework 55, the PDT reviewed 
the current management uncertainty buffers, as well as previous 
analysis completed in support of Framework 50.
    Both the PDT and the Council have periodically discussed the 
possibility of increasing the buffers due to evidence that fishing 
behavior may differ on observed and unobserved trips, possibly 
resulting in an underestimate of discards. However, to date, there is 
no scientific basis for determining either the direction or magnitude 
of bias sufficient for the PDT to estimate the amount of suspected bias 
on unobserved trips. As a result the PDT has been unable to determine 
whether any adjustments to the existing buffers would be warranted to 
address potential bias. The PDT concluded that no new information is 
available at this time that would warrant any changes to the buffers 
previously adopted in Framework 50, and recommended no changes to the 
management uncertainty.
    The commenters provide no quantitative evidence of a specific 
amount of unobserved discarding, and do not suggest a method to 
quantify bias in order to adjust the management uncertainty buffer. As 
stated above, we agree that it would be beneficial to complete 
additional analysis of the potential sources, magnitude, and direction 
of bias. However, it is difficult to quantify bias, or make definitive 
conclusions on these types of analyses, since data must be used to 
infer activity that may not be observed or documented. Thus, at this 
time, we are not able to reasonably determine an appropriate adjustment 
to the management uncertainty buffer than is already used. Using the 
best scientific information available is neither arbitrary, nor 
capricious, but is consistent with the National Standards.
    Comment 26: Commenters make various claims about the economic 
analysis of the ASM program. Oceana claims that, though the adjustments 
in Framework 55 are built on the Council's desire to control ASM costs, 
the economic analysis shows that the estimated declines in groundfish 
revenues on groundfish trips when comparing both the ``No Action'' 
alternative (41 percent target ASM coverage) to the adjusted program 
(14 percent target ASM coverage) are virtually identical when compared 
to predicted groundfish revenues for the 2015 fishing year. They 
conclude that substantial changes to the ASM program to minimize costs 
are not even achieving that goal. EDF points out that the cost savings 
of adjusting the ASM program as proposed is overestimated because 
sectors are able to negotiate lower rates for ASM. Finally, EDF notes 
that the IRFA and economic analysis fail to analyze the cost of lower 
monitoring in the potential form of overfishing or on the leasing 
market.
    Response: Oceana correctly notes that the model results indicate 
that gross revenues are predicted to be essentially unchanged when 
comparing 14 percent ASM coverage to 41 percent ASM coverage. This does 
not, however, reflect the change in costs or profitability of those 
revenues. Section 7.4 of the EA contains the economic analysis done in 
support of this action; details of the economic analysis are not 
repeated here. The model is intended to capture fishery-wide behavior 
changes related to both catch limits and other management changes such 
as ASM coverage levels, and can overestimate landings in a number of 
circumstances. The EA highlights that the predicted groundfish revenue 
is nearly identical when there is 14 percent ASM coverage ($52.4 
million) and 41 percent ASM coverage ($52.3 million), and attributes 
this finding to the model assumptions. The economic model simulates 
fishing activity until all quotas have been reached in all broad stock 
areas, and assumes that ACE flows freely from lessor to lessee (which 
underestimates trips costs). Within the model, trips that become 
unprofitable due to ASM costs are not selected. Because of this, one 
might expect revenues to decline more substantially with higher ASM 
coverage levels. However, as more trips are unprofitable under the 
options with industry-funded ASM, the model is forced to select a 
greater number of profitable trips. With higher ASM coverage levels 
(and higher ASM costs), more sector trips become unprofitable. As the 
ACE from these trips that are no longer profitable flows to another 
sector member, then revenue from these trips is still realized in the 
model. The result is that revenues appear nearly equal between options 
with 14 percent and 41 percent ASM coverage. In reality, because ACE 
does not flow freely between sectors, and not all vessels can opt for 
all types of trips, higher ASM coverage levels may in fact reduce gross 
revenues.
    The analysis in the EA assumes ASM costs are $710 per seaday, based 
on the cost that NMFS was able to negotiate with service providers. As 
EDF points out, sectors were successfully able to negotiate lower 
seaday costs for ASM. However, the fact that sectors were able to 
negotiate lower costs does not diminish the significant economic impact 
of the industry-funded ASM program on individual fishery participants 
and sectors. Our economic analyses predict economic impacts for average 
vessels in different size classes, or the fishery as a whole, but could 
mask very real economic impacts at the vessel or community scale.
    We disagree with the comment that the EA fails to consider the 
costs of lower monitoring in the form of overfishing. Section 7.4 of 
the EA

[[Page 26437]]

discusses that it is not possible to determine the overall economic 
benefits of ASM at this time. The EA notes that, while increased 
coverage can improve discard estimates, the marginal value of each 
percent increase in ASM coverage is unknown. We agree that additional 
analysis is warranted to attempt to determine the marginal benefits of 
the ASM program in terms of the stock biology. Until additional 
information is available, we will continue to implement the existing 
groundfish monitoring program, and will continue to set ASM coverage 
levels that meet the program goals and precision standards. Similarly, 
for the leasing market, the EA concludes that additional precision may 
or may not lead to changes in available ACE to a sector (i.e., assumed 
discards were too high or too low). Thus, the marginal value of added 
precision from each percent increase in ASM coverage is unknown. The 
NEFSC conducts annual retrospective analyses of the leasing market in 
its groundfish fishery performance reports. The most recent version of 
the report, which analyzes the 2013 groundfish fishing year, is 
available here: http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/read/socialsci/pdf/groundfish_report_fy2013.pdf.
    Comment 27: EDF notes that Framework 55 fails to analyze the 
possibility of reducing costs to fishermen by using electronic 
monitoring, consistent with RFA requirements. EDF and TNC both urge 
NMFS to expedite the implementation of electronic monitoring and 
reporting programs, and that electronic monitoring would reduce 
uncertainty in catch data and improve stock assessments at a lower 
seaday cost than ASM.
    Response: Last year, in collaboration with the Gulf of Maine 
Research Institute (GMRI), Archipelago Marine Research, Ltd., 
Saltwater, Inc., and EcoTrust Canada, we developed an assessment of the 
potential costs of an electronic monitoring program for a hypothetical 
Northeast multispecies fishery sector, and compared it to the costs of 
the existing ASM program, which it could replace or augment. We are 
also in the process of updating that assessment. Based on how an 
electronic monitoring program is designed and implemented, video review 
and storage costs can be substantial. Thus, we do not agree with the 
commenter's characterization of the potential cost savings with 
electronic monitoring at this time. The commenters promote the 
potential for lower costs with electronic monitoring than with at-sea 
monitors, but provide no cost estimates to substantiate the claim that 
it is less expensive than ASM. 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.
    The Northeast Multispecies FMP already allows sectors to use 
electronic monitoring in place of at-sea monitors if the technology is 
deemed sufficient for a specific trip, based on gear type and area 
fished, if approved by NMFS. We had been working with TNC, GMRI, 
EcoTrust Canada, and several sectors for the last year, to implement a 
program that would have used electronic monitoring to monitor the 
fishery. We have approved an exempted fishing permit to allow a number 
of sector vessels to participate in an experiment using electronic 
monitoring in lieu of ASM to further develop a program based on 
electronic monitoring for sectors. NMFS will continue to support 
development of electronic monitoring as a potential tool where it is 
fitting and appropriate.
    Comment 28: EDF and TNC suggests that NMFS should have considered 
the weighted discard proportional approach, as published by Dr. Jenny 
Sun, as an alternative to lowering the overall target ASM coverage 
level in Framework 55. EDF also notes that this method may reduce cost 
to small entities, and thus address requirements of the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (RFA).
    Response: The PDT has discussed this approach at meetings in 
September 2012 and from May-August 2015; however, the Council did not 
elect to consider this approach in past actions, or as an alternative 
in Framework 55, because it did not meet all of the goals and 
objectives in Amendment 16 and Framework 48. This approach assigns ASM 
coverage proportional to the weight of discards anticipated on a given 
trip, and does not include consideration of the 30-percent CV 
requirement specified in the regulations. At both times, the PDT 
concluded that more trips would require coverage than those included in 
the proposed analysis, which would erode some of the cost savings in 
the proposed approach. The PDT also discussed that allocating ASM 
coverage to focus on larger, offshore vessels that account for more of 
the discards would potentially lead to under-coverage of sectors with 
smaller, inshore vessels that are responsible for catch of species of 
concern, such as GOM cod and SNE/MA yellowtail flounder, as well as 
unallocated stocks with zero possession. The PDT, other NMFS reviewers, 
and several commenters have noted that the objective of the ASM program 
is not simply to determine the lowest cost approach to observe the most 
catch across the groundfish sectors in total, or to only reduce the 
costs of monitoring to small vessels. Rather, the objective is to 
achieve sampling that ensures precise and unbiased real-time estimates 
of catch by stock, sector, and gear. This weighted approach would also 
have to address cost discrepancies in imposing ASM coverage primarily 
on larger, offshore vessels over smaller vessels, inshore vessels.
    Dr. Sun recently published a peer-reviewed article (Sun and Fine, 
2016) that included additional adjustments to the approach, in which 
coverage is further weighted to account for stocks with high 
utilization. This article was published on December 29, 2015, after the 
Council developed and took final action on Framework 55. The Groundfish 
PDT received a presentation on the revised analysis at its March 30, 
2016, meeting, and intends to review this approach, along with other 
monitoring approaches, as part of the development of the forthcoming 
groundfish monitoring amendment. The Council can choose to further 
develop this approach if it meets the Council's goals and objectives 
for groundfish monitoring programs. We reiterate that adopting this 
approach to groundfish monitoring would require a Council amendment, 
because it would change the objectives and standards for the groundfish 
monitoring program established in Amendment 16 and Framework 48.
    As stated elsewhere in this rule, this action does not specify a 
fixed ASM coverage target for all future years, and is not approving a 
lower target ASM coverage level in perpetuity. Rather, this action 
refines the process we use for predicting the level of ASM coverage 
necessary in a given year to achieve the 30-percent CV required. In 
comparison to previous years, the refinements made in this action could 
lead to lower, or higher, ASM coverage target rates in future years. 
Thus, while the Council and our analysis considers the impacts of a 
reduced ASM coverage level for 2016, we do not necessarily expect that 
the lower coverage level will persist for future fishing years.
    Comment 29: EDF and Oceana claim that the changes proposed in 
Framework 55 ignore National Standard 1 in favor of National Standard 
7. EDF notes that costs may only be considered when two alternatives 
achieve similar conservation goals. EDF and TNC note the EA states that 
reducing ASM coverage will have negative biological impacts compared to 
the No Action alternative.

[[Page 26438]]

    Response: The Framework 55 adjustments to the method used to set 
that target ASM coverage level achieve the required Northeast 
Multispecies FMP precision standards without compromising conservation 
goals. The 30-percent CV standard, and the requirement under Amendment 
16 to sufficiently verify area fished, catch, and discards by species, 
by gear type, remain unaltered. Framework 48 clarified the objectives 
of Amendment 16's ASM program to ensure that ASM coverage levels must 
be consistent with the goals and objectives of groundfish monitoring 
programs, the National Standards, and the requirements of the Magnuson-
Stevens Act, including but not limited to costs to sector vessels and 
NMFS. This is consistent with Amendment 16's goals of achieving 
economic efficiency and minimizing adverse impacts to fishing 
communities that are included in Framework 48's goals of reducing 
monitoring costs and balancing actual costs against the opportunity 
costs of insufficient monitoring. Framework 55 simply further clarifies 
that monitoring must be implemented in the most cost-efficient means 
practicable.
    In addition, the goals of Amendment 16 and Frameworks 48 and 55, 
are consistent with our requirement to take into account the National 
Standard, and in particular National Standards 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, and 9 in 
making our determination of the appropriate level of ASM coverage for 
sectors on an annual basis. These National Standards specifically speak 
to preventing overfishing; using the best scientific information 
available; efficient use of fishery resources; minimizing costs, and 
avoiding duplications where practicable; taking into account impacts on 
fishing communities; minimizing adverse economic impacts to the extent 
practicable; and minimizing bycatch and bycatch mortality to the extent 
practicable.
    We agree that the EA characterizes the impacts of lower ASM 
coverage levels as negative compared to higher ASM coverage levels. The 
EA notes that positive impacts of higher ASM coverage levels could 
include better information for stock assessments and reduced 
uncertainty around discard estimates. However, any quantification of 
the magnitude of these types of benefits is speculative, and can only 
be discussed as marginal because it is not yet possible to quantify the 
biological outcomes relative to the information gained with each 
additional percentage of monitoring coverage. A similar concept is 
highlighted in the economic analysis in section 7.4 of the Framework 55 
EA, in terms of the overall benefit of added precision in discard 
estimates. The EA notes that the marginal value of added precision from 
each percent increase in ASM coverage is unknown. Hence, the EA 
describes any impact potential as low.
    We have generally characterized the benefits of higher monitoring 
coverage levels as positive compared to lower monitoring coverage 
levels in other actions in this region (e.g., the joint New England/
Mid-Atlantic Council Industry-funded Omnibus Amendment), and have 
largely tied this positive benefit to the potential for improvements in 
stock assessments and on the types of management measures that may be 
necessary to address bycatch. However, as we have discussed in these 
related analyses, there are several reasons why these types of 
potential downstream effects (e.g., improvements to stock assessments) 
are considered too remote and speculative to be evaluated 
quantitatively.
    First, this action adjusts the method used to set target ASM 
coverage levels. The adjustments to the method used to set target ASM 
coverage levels do not, by themselves, automatically allow for higher 
ASM coverage in future fishing years. While increases in target ASM 
coverage levels may be expected to improve data quality, realization of 
an increase in the target coverage level compared to past fishing years 
depends on the coverage levels generated by the changes approved in 
this action. As noted elsewhere in this section, in comparison to 
previous years, the changes in this action could lead to lower or 
higher ASM coverage target rates in future years. Thus, while the 
Council's and our analysis considers the impacts of a reduced ASM 
coverage level for 2016, we do not necessarily expect that the lower 
coverage level will persist for future fishing years.
    Second, in addition to the uncertainty of what target coverage 
rates will be set in future years, the potential effects of increased 
data deriving from a method setting target coverage rates are too 
remote and speculative to be quantitatively evaluated in the EA because 
there is no way to predict the effect that an improvement in data 
quality would have for managing the groundfish fishery. Improvements in 
data quality would give assessment scientists and fishery managers more 
confidence in the data. However, there is no way to predict the type of 
new information that would arise from future catch estimations (e.g., 
higher or lower discard estimates). Because changes in direction of 
catch estimation cannot be predicted at this time, there is no way to 
predict whether changes in management would be required to address any 
potential issues that may arise.
    Thus, while acknowledging that it is not possible to quantify the 
biological benefit for higher coverage, the EA makes conclusions 
concerning environmental impacts from lower or higher coverage based on 
the idea that more information from monitoring tends to reduce 
uncertainty in setting catch limits and assessments. However, by this 
principle alone, and without consideration of other factors, one would 
be required to conclude that coverage rates should never be reduced, 
and should always be increased if possible. To underscore the 
imprudence of following this logic, in similar fashion one could 
conclude that fishing should always be reduced because less fishing 
mortality generally benefits fish stocks. The National Standards, 
Amendment 16, and Frameworks 48 and 55 require consideration of other 
factors, however. Specifically, we must consider the efficient use of 
resources for monitoring catch limits and preventing overfishing. In 
this instance, we have considered the target coverage rate required to 
monitor catch rates in the most efficient manner practicable. While one 
may conclude that a generally higher coverage rate may provide more 
catch information that would potentially reduce uncertainty, any 
potential benefit to fish stocks in the future from more information is 
more attenuated than the sufficiency of the information for the 
immediate task of monitoring of catch limits and the cost benefits that 
come from the efficient use of monitoring resources to achieve that 
purpose. We are required by law to consider these other factors when 
determining a rate of coverage that meets conservation requirements.
    Comment 30: EDF claims that the Agency failed to explain its 
decision to depart from the 80-percent of discard pounds observed at a 
30-percent CV standard, and that it is arbitrary and capricious for the 
Agency to remove this standard without explaining why.
    Response: We disagree that we failed to explain our decision to 
depart from this discretionary, administrative standard. As discussed 
in the proposed rule, and in the Summary of Analyses Conducted To 
Determine At-Sea Monitoring Requirements for Multispecies Sectors for 
Fishing Year 2015 (available here: http://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/aps/monitoring/nemultispecies.html), we had previously concluded that it is desirable 
to maintain a 30-percent CV or better for at least 80 percent of the

[[Page 26439]]

discarded pounds in the fishery. We applied this standard in the 
initial years that the ASM program operated for a number of reasons. 
First, the program was new, and we lacked experience and data. In the 
initial years that the program was implemented, when we did not have 
coverage information from previous years, this standard was chosen to 
guide setting target ASM coverage levels to achieve results consistent 
with the initial monitoring year, when the realized observer coverage 
was highest. When Federal funding was available to cover industry costs 
for the ASM program, we could justify applying a discretionary standard 
that resulted in higher coverage levels than required by the program 
because it did not impose an additional economic burden on industry.
    During the development of Framework 55, using coverage information 
that was unavailable when the administrative standard was first 
adopted, the PDT reevaluated this administrative standard, and 
determined that it was not necessary to accomplish the goals of the ASM 
program. As noted in the proposed rule, this standard is not necessary 
to satisfy the CV requirement of the ASM program to accurately monitor 
sector catches, or meet the other monitoring program goals, and it was 
not required by the Northeast Multispecies FMP. Further, imposing a 
standard that results in coverage higher than necessary to meet the 
program goals would not be consistent with National Standards 5, 7, and 
8, which relate to efficiency in the use of fishery resources; 
minimizing costs and avoiding duplications where practicable; 
efficiency in the use of fishery resources; and taking into account 
impacts on fishing communities and minimizing adverse economic impacts 
to the extent practicable. Removing this administrative standard makes 
the method used to set the target ASM coverage level more efficient, 
while still addressing groundfish monitoring program objectives.
    Comment 31: Oceana claims that enlarging the data set used to 
include the volatile, anomalous period from 2012 to 2014 is 
inappropriate for setting coverage levels. Oceana asserted that we 
failed to provide evidence supporting the claim that this longer period 
is a better foundation for forecasting monitoring than most recent 
complete year. They go on to say that using an averaged approach 
ignores the fact that the dynamics of the fishery have led to a 
different stock driving the ASM coverage level in each year to date. 
They assert that using multiple years of data violates National 
Standard 2 because it would amount to using an unrepresentative sample 
of the data. Finally, they claim that the multiyear approach is not 
able to respond to emergent trends in the fishery in a timely fashion. 
They assert that NMFS must retain the ability to respond to changes in 
fishing behavior quickly to ensure accurate and precise fishery 
monitoring.
    Response: We disagree. Currently, the coverage level for year 3 is 
set prior to the end of year 2, using data from year 1 because that is 
the most recent complete set of data available. Because of this need to 
plan ahead using older data, relying on a single year of data does not 
necessarily give us a more accurate representation of current or future 
conditions than using three years of data. Looking at 5 years of data 
from fishing years 2010-2014, it is clear that the stock with the 
greatest variability in discards, and greatest need for ASM coverage, 
not only varies from year to year, but the species requiring the most 
ASM coverage in year 3 has never been accurately predicted by year 1 
data.
    Section 7.1 of the Framework 55 EA compares the performance of 
basing the target coverage level on 1 year of data to 2- and 3-year 
averages to evaluate their ability to predict the coverage level 
necessary to achieve a 30-percent CV in 2014. To predict the target 
coverage level using 1 year of data, the 2012 target coverage level was 
used to predict the coverage necessary to achieve a 30-percent CV for 
2014. For the 2-year average, data for 2011-2012 was used. For the 3-
year average, data from 2010-2013 was used. Overall, the 3-year average 
performed relatively well compared to using a single year, or 2-year 
average. The EA acknowledges that, because the ASM program only started 
in 2010, there are a limited number of years of data available to make 
this comparison, and that more years of data and analysis are necessary 
to make the final conclusion regarding the most appropriate approach. 
Therefore, using multiple years of data may reveal true trends while 
minimizing non-significant fluctuations, which provides for additional 
stability for industry consistent with National Standards 5 and 8.
    In addition, averages are routinely used in fisheries management to 
smooth interannual variability. In the Greater Atlantic Region, the 
recreational fisheries for GOM cod, GOM haddock, summer flounder, scup, 
and black sea bass base the determination of whether catch has exceeded 
the recreational sub-ACL by comparing the 3-year moving average of 
recreational catch to the 3-year moving average of the recreational 
sub-ACL. For overfished skate species, the 3-year average of the 
appropriate weight per tow from the trawl survey index is used as a 
proxy for stock biomass, and is a trigger to indicate whether the 
additional management measures are necessary to promote stock 
rebuilding. We have determined that using three years of data will 
minimize unnecessary fluctuations in the target ASM coverage level 
while meeting our need to reliably estimate discards.
    Comment 32: Oceana commented that exempting extra-large mesh 
gillnet trips from ASM coverage in Broad Stock Areas 2 and 4 could 
increase uncertainty around bycatch estimates for protected resources 
in locations that are especially prone to protected species 
interactions.
    Response: First, the Greater Atlantic Region has observer programs 
explicitly funded to support Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) and 
Endangered Species Act (ESA) information requirements. The MMPA and ESA 
observers are allocated across fisheries based on the estimated 
likelihood of protected resources interactions. Allocation of observers 
related to these acts is separate from the allocations of observers 
under our region's SBRM program and the ASM program.
    We agree that ASM has provided a wealth of information about 
protected species interactions in commercial fishing gear, particularly 
in the extra-large mesh gillnet fisheries. The full discussion of the 
protected species impacts of this alternative is provided in the EA in 
Section 7.3.3.1.4, and is not repeated in full here. In terms of data 
collection, the EA notes that removing the ASM coverage requirement for 
these trips may reduce the amount of information available on protected 
species interactions in extra-large mesh gillnet gear. From 2010-2014, 
the number of hauls observed through the ASM program in the extra-large 
mesh fishery exceeded the number of hauls observed by traditional NEFOP 
observers, constituting 60 percent of all observed extra-large mesh 
hauls. Moreover, ASM documented 63 percent of all protected species 
interactions in the extra-large mesh fisheries. Data collected on 
protected species interactions through ASM has also reduced uncertainty 
in bycatch estimates for almost all gear types used in the groundfish 
fishery. The EA characterizes this potential reduction in information 
benefits on protected resources interactions in extra-large mesh gear 
as an indirect, low negative impact on protected resources.
    In spite of the information collection benefits the ASM program has 
provided

[[Page 26440]]

for protected resources, gathering this information is not included in 
the ASM program goals and objectives. Thus, any benefits of the ASM 
program in terms of protected resources information are ancillary to 
the program goal. We acknowledge that removing the ASM coverage on 
extra-large mesh gillnet trips may increase uncertainty in protected 
resources interactions for this gear type. However, now that industry 
is paying for the costs of monitoring, it is not reasonable to expect 
for them to pay for the costs of information collection above and 
beyond the amount required to support the program goals. In addition, 
discards of all groundfish stocks are still required to meet the 30-
percent CV standard, even if certain trips are excluded from coverage.
    Comment 33: In regards to the alternative that filters the 
application of the 30-percent CV standard, Oceana asserts that 
exempting a population from ASM coverage requirements is not permitted 
in the Northeast Multispecies FMP. They note the proposed rule itself 
states that none of the proposed adjustments remove the obligation 
under Amendment 16 and Framework 48 to ensure sufficient ASM coverage 
to achieve a 30-percent CV.
    Response: We agree that none of the measures in Framework 55 remove 
our obligation to achieve a 30-percent CV on all stocks. The measures 
in this action adjust the process we use for predicting the level of 
ASM coverage necessary in a given year to achieve the 30-percent CV. 
The filtering alternative does not exempt stocks from meeting the 30-
percent CV standard. Instead, it enacts the Council's policy preference 
to not use stocks that are healthy and less than fully utilized to 
predict for the target ASM coverage level for the upcoming year. We are 
still required to set coverage at a level that is sufficient to achieve 
the 30-percent CV standard for all stocks and would set a target rate 
sufficient to achieve this standard and meet the program goals and 
objectives.
    Comment 34: Oceana and TNC question NMFS's ability to effectively 
apply filtering criteria given uncertainty in stock status and catch 
data. TNC noted that it is inappropriate to set coverage levels based 
on a current assessment's understanding of stock status when it is 
likely the stock status will change with next assessment.
    Response: Consistent with National Standard 2, we base our 
management decisions, including determinations of stock status and 
annual catch limits, on the most recent assessment information, which 
is considered the best scientific information available. Because the 
information from the stock assessments and catch data is used as the 
basis for most other management decisions for groundfish stocks, 
including annual quota setting and implementation of proactive and 
reactive accountability measures for each stock, it is entirely 
appropriate to also base evaluation of the filtering criteria on this 
information. We cannot base management decisions on the potential that 
a future stock assessment may indicate that stock status may change. 
Further, neither commenter provided data to support the assertion that 
the information we use to make management decisions are so uncertain or 
of such poor quality as to render it unusable. For these reasons, we 
have determined it is consistent with National Standard 2 to evaluate 
the filtering criteria using the most recent available catch data and 
most recent stock assessment information.
    The filtering alternative is designed to be conservative. It does 
not exempt stocks from coverage necessary to meet the 30-percent CV 
requirement. Rather, it removes healthy stocks with low utilization and 
low discards as predictors for the target ASM coverage level. In 
addition, target ASM coverage levels are evaluated and updated on an 
annual basis in order to incorporate the most recent available data. 
This means that, if new stock status or catch information indicates 
that a stock no longer meets all of the criteria, then the stock must 
be used as a predictor for target ASM coverage levels for the upcoming 
fishing year. For example, if, in setting the coverage level for 2017, 
2015 redfish catch data indicated that over 75 percent of the 
groundfish sub-ACL was caught, or more than 10 percent of 2015 catch 
were comprised of discards, the stock would not be removed a predictor 
for the 2017 ASM target coverage level. Further, we are required to set 
target coverage at a level that is sufficient to achieve the 30-percent 
CV standard and other groundfish monitoring program objectives.
    Comment 35: TNC asserts that declining target coverage levels since 
2010 are especially concerning, given that from 2010 to 2014, realized 
coverage levels have been less than the target set at the beginning of 
the year.
    Response: We disagree with the TNC's concern. Though realized 
coverage has been less than the target coverage in past fishing years, 
we have still consistently achieved the 30-percent CV requirement for 
the vast majority of groundfish stocks in each fishing year. While a 
target ASM coverage level is expected to generate a 30-percent CV on 
discard estimates, there is no guarantee that the required coverage 
level will be met or result in a 30-percent CV across all stocks due to 
changes in fishing effort and observed fishing activity that may happen 
in a given fishing year. Due to fluctuations in fishing activity over 
the year, it is difficult to deploy observers throughout the year and 
ensure that target coverage levels are attained. The realized level of 
coverage was below the target each year, though only slightly in the 
2014 fishing year. Despite this, since the start of the ASM program in 
2010, the realized annual ASM coverage levels have been more than 
adequate to achieve the 30-percent CV requirement for a vast majority 
of the 20 groundfish stocks. Only two stocks had a realized CV above 30 
over the past 5 years; and on only two other occasions has a stock 
approached a CV of 30 during this time. In the 2013 fishing year, SNE/
MA yellowtail flounder had a realized CV of 31.45; and in the 2014 
fishing year, redfish had a CV of 41.69. Given the biological diversity 
of the northeast multispecies stocks, the range of quotas, and the 
varying vessels and gears engaged in the fishery, this record is an 
indicator of success. In 2014, the high CV for redfish is attributed to 
a single anomalous trip, which reinforces the value of filtering stocks 
in future years. If we set the target ASM coverage level for the 2016 
fishing year at 41 percent based on that one redfish trip in 2014, we 
would be unnecessarily tripling our and the industry's costs in a vain 
attempt to capture a rare event that is unlikely to recur and likely 
not representative of the groundfish fishery, and would not appreciably 
increase our ability to effectively monitor the sector fishery.
    Comment 36: Oceana and EDF commented that the changes in this 
action should have been included in an FMP amendment instead of a 
framework because they are substantial and entirely inconsistent with 
the goals and objectives of the Northeast Multispecies FMP.
    Response: We disagree that sector monitoring requirements cannot be 
revised through a framework action. Sector monitoring requirements, 
including coverage levels and the performance standard, are listed 
under sector administration provisions in Amendment 16, which is listed 
as a frameworkable measure in section 4.8.2 of the Amendment 16 
environmental impact statement (EIS). The regulations at Sec.  
648.90(a)(2)(iii) list ASM requirements among the measures that may be 
modified through the biennial review process, as well as AMs, changes 
to other administrative measures, and any other measures currently 
included in the Northeast Multispecies FMP.

[[Page 26441]]

These changes are elaborations on Amendment 16's goals and objectives 
for determining appropriate monitoring levels. They do not 
fundamentally alter the goal of verifying area fished, catch, and 
discards, by gear type or the requirement to achieve the goals of 
economic efficiency or minimizing to the extent practicable adverse 
impacts on fishing communities. Similar changes in Framework 48 were 
found to be appropriately accomplished through a framework adjustment 
in Oceana, Inc. v. Pritzker, 26 F. 3d 33 (D.D.C. 2014).
    We also disagree that these changes are inconsistent with the goals 
and objectives of the Northeast Multispecies FMP. As noted in the 
proposed rule and this final rule, Framework 55 does not change the 30-
percent CV requirement or the monitoring program goals and objectives, 
and only adjusts the method used to set target coverage levels to meet 
this requirement. The Council deemed the regulations necessary to 
accomplish these adjustments as consistent with their intent in 
Framework 55. Thus, we have determined that these changes are lawful 
under the combination of allowable framework provisions of the 
Northeast Multispecies FMP and section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens 
Act which authorizes NMFS to implement regulations necessary to ensure 
that Council measures are carried out in a manner consistent with the 
Act.
    Comment 37: Oceana and EDF make a number of claims regarding the 
NEPA analysis for this action. They claim that the reduction in 
monitoring resulting from the ASM program changes in Framework 55 will 
have a significant impact on the environment, and thus should have been 
analyzed in an EIS instead of an EA. Regarding the EA's compliance with 
NEPA, the commenters raise the following concerns: The EA fails to 
consider a reasonable range of alternatives, including other monitoring 
options such as electronic monitoring; the EA fails to consider 
cumulative environmental impacts; the EA fails to adequately assess how 
changes in the realized CVs may impact assessment error, projections, 
and scientific and/or management uncertainty.
    Response: We disagree with the commenters' assertion that Framework 
55 violated NEPA because an EIS was not prepared. Consistent with NEPA, 
Council for Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations, and NOAA 
administrative policy, NMFS and the Council collaborated to prepare an 
EA to evaluate the significance of the environmental impacts expected 
as a result of the measures in Framework 55. According to the CEQ 
regulations, and all available guidance on the subject, an EIS need 
only be prepared when an EA or other related analysis identifies 
significant effects on the environment or if the facts available to the 
action agency cannot support the conclusion required to make a finding 
of no significant impact (FONSI). The Framework 55 EA fully evaluated 
the expected direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts likely to result 
from the implementation of the action. The results of this assessment 
are provided in section 8.2 of the EA, which supports the FONSI, signed 
on April 13, 2016. The commenters claim that reducing monitoring levels 
materially reduces our ability to monitor groundfish catch limits, but 
provided no evidence, nor any claims, that the conclusion in the FONSI 
are not supported by the facts presented in the EA for this finding.
    We also disagree that the EA fails to consider the cumulative 
environmental impacts of Framework 55. Section 7.6 of the EA explicitly 
provides a discussion of the expected cumulative impacts associated 
with this action. We have determined that this treatment of the 
cumulative impacts is consistent with CEQ regulations and current NOAA 
policy.
    The overall sector monitoring program is not changed by the 
measures in Framework 55. Specifically, the requirement to set the 
target ASM coverage levels to achieve a 30-percent CV on discard 
estimates for groundfish stocks is not changed. We have determined that 
the modifications to the method used to determine the target ASM 
coverage level are reasonable and should result in target coverage 
levels that will meet the 30-percent CV requirement. While we have 
determined that a 2016 target ASM coverage level of 14 percent can be 
expected to meet the 30-percent CV target, we note again that this 
coverage level is not set in perpetuity. This means that, in future 
fishing years, higher or lower coverage levels could result from the 
method approved in this action, and we are still required to set target 
coverage levels at a rate that are expected to achieve the 30-percent 
CV standard. In addition, this action does not approve any other 
notable changes to the total sector monitoring program (e.g., other 
monitoring and reporting requirements). Given that the limited scope of 
the changes to the sector monitoring program approved in Framework 55, 
we have determined that the FONSI is well supported.
    Comment 38: Several commenters make claims regarding the timing of 
this action. Oceana and EDF assert that a 15-day comment period was too 
short to allow the public a meaningful opportunity to comment. Oceana 
suggested extending the comment period. EDF claims that Magnuson-
Stevens Act requires NMFS to immediately (within 5 days of transmittal 
by the Council) initiate an evaluation of proposed regulations, and 
make determination within 15 days. They claim that the proposed rule 
should have been published in the Federal Register on March 14, 20 days 
after submission by the Council on February 19th, instead of on March 
21. They also make the contradictory claim that, because NMFS published 
the proposed rule less than 1 month following Council submission, that 
there was too little time for NMFS to have conducted its own 
environmental analysis of the proposed changes to the Northeast 
Multispecies FMP.
    Finally, EDF claims that the Agency may have pre-judged the outcome 
of the EA in order to ensure that Framework 55 measures would be 
published in time for May 1. They note that 1 month before Framework 55 
was formally submitted, NMFS argued in a preliminary injunction hearing 
in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire that harm 
to the plaintiff was not significant because of the likelihood that 
NMFS would approve Framework 55 measures and reduce monitoring levels.
    Response: We disagree that the 15-day comment period was not enough 
time to allow commenters to provide meaningful comments. The Council 
initiated Framework 55 at its June 2015, meeting and developed 
alternatives over several meetings including their September and 
December meetings, as well as the September 3, 2015, and the November 
18, 2015, Groundfish Oversight Committee meetings. The alternatives 
were also discussed at numerous Groundfish PDT meetings from July-
November 2015. Representatives from EDF and Oceana were present at the 
December Council meeting, when the Council took final action on the ASM 
alternatives in Framework 55. The analysis presented at the December 
meeting included biological and economic analyses of the alternatives. 
The alternatives described in the Framework 55 EA and presented in the 
proposed rule are unchanged from those adopted by the Council in 
December. Council presentations and documents throughout the 
development of Framework 55 included a clear outline of the expected 
timing of the Council and rulemaking process. The public was well aware 
that the intent was to implement these measures in time for the start 
of the 2016 groundfish fishing year on May 1, 2016. Therefore,

[[Page 26442]]

we conclude that the public, including Oceana and EDF, had more than 
adequate opportunity to consider and prepare comments on the ASM 
program adjustments in anticipation of the proposed rulemaking, in 
spite of the 15-day comment period.
    We agree that there is a Magnuson-Stevens Act requirement to 
initiate an evaluation of proposed regulations for implementing or 
modifying FMPs or amendments, to determine whether they are consistent 
with the FMP and applicable law within 15 days, and to publish such 
regulations for a public comment period of 15 to 60 days. We published 
the proposed rule within the bounds of the comment period provided for 
in that provision and the final rule is expected to be published well 
in advance of the outside time limit specified in the same provision. 
We believe the publication timeline has provided a meaningful 
opportunity for full and fair public comment and participation.
    Each year since 2013, we have published the target coverage level 
that we expect is sufficient to achieve the Northeast Multispecies 
FMP's monitoring goals. This target rate was determined using internal 
administrative standards we developed to ensure coverage was at a rate 
based on past experience where we could reasonably expect to achieve 
these goals. Prior to the Council's adoption of the measures in 
Framework 55 or approval of this final rule, we developed two of the 
adjustments to our administration of the ASM program that were also 
proposed as part of Framework 55. We would have been required to apply 
these administrative adjustments in the absence of Framework 55 
measures as part of default changes had Framework 55 not been published 
in time for the beginning of the fishing year. Specifically, we planned 
to stop using our internal standard of monitoring 80 percent of 
discarded pounds at a 30-percent CV. We also planned to use multiple 
years of information to set the target ASM coverage level. Because 
these were changes to our internal mechanisms for administering the ASM 
program, they were outside of the Council process and did not require 
public comment. As we were considering these changes and expecting to 
implement them in time for the new fishing year, we worked with the 
Council to evaluate these changes in the context of a framework 
adjustment for the purpose of transparency, and to allow the public the 
maximum opportunity to participate in the development and evaluation of 
these changes. The measures in Framework 55 were always subject to our 
approval or disapproval under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Our intent to 
make a sub-set of administrative adjustments did not pre-determine what 
impacts may occur and the assessment of those potential impacts of all 
of the Framework 55 measures. It also did not foreclose the Council's 
consideration of other alternatives included in Framework 55, their 
impacts, and an assessment of how they all interacted. Last, we 
expressed our concern that these adjustments complied with the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act, its National Standards, and the groundfish FMP's 
goals and objectives. For example, in our proposed rule we specifically 
requested comments on whether the Council's proposed revisions to the 
groundfish ASM program met the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens 
Act, its National Standards, and the groundfish FMP to engage the 
public in our evaluation of the proposed measures.
    Comment 39: One individual commented that industry should pay for 
monitoring.
    Response: As described in the proposed rule, Amendment 16 requires 
industry to pay for ASM. For the 2010 and 2011 fishing year, there was 
no requirement for industry-funded ASM. NMFS assumed industry's 
monitoring costs for industry after the industry-funded ASM requirement 
became effective in the 2012 fishing year, and until March 2016. 
Sectors have been paying for ASM costs since March 2016, and 2016 will 
be the first full fishing year where industry will be responsible for 
its costs for ASM.
    Comment 40: Two commercial fishermen commented in opposition to 
having small boat commercial fishermen pay for ASM, especially those 
fishing for dogfish and skate.
    Response: We share the commenter's concern about the financial 
burden of industry-funded ASM. Nonetheless, ASM coverage is critical to 
monitoring sector ACE and meeting the goals and objectives described in 
Amendment 16 and Framework 48. The ASM requirement applies to all 
vessels participating in sectors, regardless of vessel size.
    We agree that our limited monitoring resources should be focused on 
sector trips with groundfish catch. This action approves a measure to 
exempt extra-large mesh gillnet trips in SNE and Inshore GB Broad Stock 
Areas from ASM coverage requirement, as well as a sector exemption to 
allow these same vessel to target dogfish in existing dogfish exemption 
areas. These trips have low groundfish catch, and primarily target non-
groundfish species such as dogfish and skate. As noted above, these 
trips will still be subject to NMFS-funded NEFOP coverage requirements, 
and all groundfish catch on these trips will still be deducted from a 
sector's ACE. We will evaluate these trips on an annual basis to ensure 
that groundfish catch is still minimal enough to continue exempting 
these trips for ASM coverage requirements.
    Comment 41: One recreational fisherman commented in opposition to 
requiring industry-funded monitors on recreational vessels when 
commercial vessels are the problem.
    Response: The industry-funded ASM program only applies to limited 
access commercial groundfish vessels enrolled in the sector program. 
There are currently no ASM coverage requirements in the Northeast 
Multispecies FMP for recreational groundfish trips.

Other Framework 55 Measures

    Comment 42: AFM, SHS, and EDF supported the formation of 
Sustainable Harvest Sector II.
    Response: We are approving the formation of Sustainable Harvest 
Sector II in this action.
    Comment 43: SHS and EDF supported the proposed modification to the 
sector approval process. SHS commented that streamlining the approval 
process will allow industry to more quickly adapt to regulatory 
changes.
    Response: We agree, and are approving this alternative as proposed. 
This measure maintains the Council's authority to approve of new 
sectors and the opportunity for public participation in the sector 
approval process, while reducing the total time necessary for sector 
approval.
    Comment 44: The Council commented that, though clear in the 
proposed regulatory text, the text in the preamble to the proposed rule 
does not make clear that sector applications need to be simultaneously 
submitted to the Council and NMFS.
    Response: We agree with the Council that the process is correctly 
described in the regulatory text, and have adjusted to description of 
this provision in section ``7. Other Framework 55 Measures'' to clarify 
the Council's intent.
    Comment 45: AFM and EDF commented in support of the modification to 
the definition of haddock separator trawl gear.
    Response: We agree. This measure will improve enforceability of 
this selective trawl gear. We intend to delay the effectiveness of this 
measure by 6

[[Page 26443]]

months to allow industry to replace separator panels.
    Comment 46: EDF commented in support of removing the permanent 
prohibition on recreational possession of GOM cod.
    Response: We agree. This measure returns the authority to the 
Regional Administrator to set the recreational bag limit for GOM cod. 
This will provide greater flexibility for setting annual management 
measures that will help the recreational fishery achieve, but not 
exceed, its quota for GOM cod. We have approved recreational possession 
limits for GOM cod for 2016 in a separate, concurrent rulemaking.
    Comment 47: AFM, SHS, NSC, the SGA, and EDF commented in support of 
allowing sectors to ``convert'' their eastern GB cod allocation into 
western GB cod allocation. SHS noted the current mechanism that allows 
sectors to convert eastern GB haddock allocation into western GB 
haddock allocation, and that it is an effective tool.
    Response: We agree with the commenters, and are implementing this 
measure as proposed. We anticipate that this measure will maximize 
flexibility for fishing vessels operating on GB. Eastern GB cod is a 
management unit of the total GB stock that is used to manage the shared 
U.S./Canada portion of this stock. As a result, the analysis supporting 
this measure concluded that there would be negligible biological impact 
to the stock. In our approval, we recommend that the Council 
occasionally review the measure in the future to ensure that it is 
still necessary and appropriate, particularly if there is a change in 
the stock assessment or the perception of stock status in the future.

Sector Measures for the 2016 Fishing Year

    Comment 48: The GB Fixed Gear Sector supported the proposed sector 
exemption to target dogfish, noting that the exemption supports the 
current behavior of the fleet, and will maximize viability and 
profitability.
    Response: We are granting this exemption as proposed. This 
exemption will allow greater opportunities for sector vessels to target 
non-groundfish species, which may help mitigate some of the negative 
economic impacts of recent catch limit reductions. As noted earlier in 
this final rule, allowing sectors to participate in these exempted 
fisheries for dogfish while simultaneously being excluded from ASM 
coverage on extra-large mesh sector trips is intended to maximize the 
viability and profitability of their businesses. We will continue to 
closely monitor catch from any trips fishing under this exemption to 
ensure that they continue to have low groundfish catch.
    Comment 49: NSC commented in support of the Northeast Fishery 
Sector XII sector operations plan.
    Response: We agree, and are approving the NEFS XII 2016 operations 
plan in this action.
    Comment 50: In light of the significant quota reductions for 
several key groundfish stocks, AFM supports the maximum 10-percent 
carryover allowed by law. They noted that significant precaution is 
built into the ABC and ACL recommendations, and that there is no 
biological justification for less than the 10-percent carryover.
    Response: Framework 55 did not consider adjustments to the sector 
carryover provision, and these types of adjustments are beyond the 
scope and authority relating to this action. Framework 53, which was 
approved and implemented at the start of the 2015 fishing year, 
modified the sector carryover provision that was approved and 
implemented in Amendment 16. This change was in response to a 2013 
court ruling in Conservation Law Foundation v. Pritzker, et al. (Case 
No. 1:13-CV-0821-JEB). Details of this court ruling, and the 
corresponding changes to the sector carryover provision, are provided 
in the final rules for Framework 50 (78 FR 2617; May 3, 2013) and 
Framework 53 (80 FR 25110; May 1, 2015).
    Sectors may still carry over up to 10 percent of their unused 
allocation as long as this amount, plus the total ACL for the upcoming 
fishing year, does not exceed the ABC. If the full 10-percent carryover 
possible would exceed the ABC, the Northeast Multispecies FMP requires 
that we reduce the available carryover for each sector. This provision 
limits the amount of carry-over to ensure that the ABC is not exceeded 
for a stock. For 2016, total potential catch would exceed the 2016 ABC 
for all groundfish stocks, except for GOM and GB haddock, if sectors 
carried over the maximum 10-percent of unused allocation allowed. As a 
result, we expect we will need to adjust the maximum amount of unused 
allocation that a sector can carry forward from 2015 to 2016 (down from 
10 percent). The final adjustment will depend on each sector's final 
2015 catch. As noted in the preamble, we will make adjustments as soon 
after May 1 as possible.

2016 Fishing Year Annual Measures Under Regional Administrator 
Authority

    Comment 51: The Council requested clarification regarding the 
proposed GOM cod trip limit for the common pool and questioned why the 
trip limit is proposed to decline by 50 percent when the ACL is 
proposed to increase in 2016.
    Response: We attempt to set trip limits that will allow fishing 
access for an entire trimester while preventing any overages from 
occurring. In 2015, the initial GOM cod trip limit was 50 lb (22.5 kg) 
per DAS, up to 200 lb (91 kg) per trip, for Category A DAS vessels. The 
initial trip limit for Handgear A and B permits was 50 lb (22.5 kg) and 
25 lb (11.3 kg) per trip, respectively. Even at these low limits, by 
late May, about half of the Trimester 1 quota had been harvested. 
Therefore, in early June, we prohibited retention for all common pool 
vessels to reduce the likelihood of an overage and an area closure. 
However, by mid-June, the Trimester 1 quota was exceeded due to catch 
that occurred prior to the trip limit reduction. We were required to 
close portions of the GOM Cod Trimester TAC Area through the end of 
August as a result of the overage. The 2016 common pool sub-ACL for GOM 
cod is only expected to increase by approximately 2.5 mt from 2015, 
which translates to a marginal increase to the TAC for each trimester. 
Thus, for 2016, we are setting the initial trip limit more 
conservatively compared to the initial 2015 trip limit to prevent area 
closures and allow continued access to healthier stocks, such as GOM 
haddock and pollock. We will monitor common pool catch in-season, and 
if necessary or warranted, will make adjustments to the common pool 
trip limits implemented in this rule.
    Comment 52: One commercial fisherman commented that the witch 
flounder trip limit will lead to increase in discards for the stock, 
and that the low catch limit is not consistent with landings seen on 
the waters. The commenter did not provide suggestions for an 
alternative trip limit.
    Response: We disagree that the witch flounder trip limit is too 
low. The overall 2016 witch flounder catch limit is a 41-percent 
reduction compared to 2015. As a result, the 2015 trip limit of 1,000 
lb (454 kg) per trip is likely too high to prevent overages of the 
common pool quota. The 250-lb (113-kg) trip limit implemented in this 
rule is intended to provide continued access to other healthy 
groundfish stocks by preventing premature closure of the trimester TAC 
for witch flounder. We

[[Page 26444]]

will monitor common pool catch in-season, and if necessary or 
warranted, will make adjustments to the common pool trip limits 
implemented in this rule.
    Comment 53: One commercial fisherman commented that the CC/GOM 
yellowtail flounder trip limits are too low, but did not suggest an 
alternative trip limit. The commenter also noted that the daily trip 
limit listed incorrectly in proposed rule as 75 lb/day (34 kg/day), 
when it should have been 750 lb/day (340 kg/day).
    Response: The commenter correctly identified our error in the CC/
GOM yellowtail flounder trip limit in the proposed rule. The trip limit 
is corrected in this final rule.
    Comment 54: Two commercial fishermen opposed the 100-lb (45-kg) 
trip limit for GOM haddock, particularly in light of the recreational 
bag limit of 15 fish per day. One commenter suggested that the common 
pool trip limit should be 200 lb (91 kg) per trip.
    Response: The recreational fishery receives an allocation for GOM 
haddock, and annual recreational management measures are set to ensure 
the fishery achieves, but does not exceed, its allocation. A 
description of the 2016 recreational management measures, their 
rationale, and supporting analyses, is provided in the final rule 
implementing those measures, and is not repeated here.
    After re-evaluating the common pool allocation, and in response to 
public comment, we are also setting the initial GOM haddock trip limit 
at 200 lb (91 kg) per DAS, up to 600 lb (272 kg) per trip. This 
increase is warranted given the increase to the 2016 GOM haddock common 
pool sub-ACL compared to 2015, as described further in section ``9. 
2016 Fishing Year Annual Measures Under Regional Administrator 
Authority.'' We will monitor common pool catch in-season, and if 
necessary or warranted, will make adjustments to the common pool trip 
limits implemented in this rule.
    Comment 55: Two commercial fishermen opposed the common pool 
trimester TAC system. One noted that the distribution of the quota 
among trimesters should be adjusted.
    Response: Framework 55 did not consider adjustments to the 
trimester TAC system and these types of adjustments are beyond the 
scope and authority relating to this action. The trimester allocation 
of the common pool sub-ACL was developed as part of Amendment 16, and 
was based on landings through fishing year 2009. These distributions 
have been unchanged since the implementation of Amendment 16. Any 
changes to the existing common pool measures would have to be developed 
through the Council process in a future management action. However, the 
Council could reconsider common pool management measures, including the 
trimester TAC distribution, at any time provided these measures still 
meet necessary conservation requirements.

Changes From the Proposed Rule

    This final rule contains a number of minor adjustments from the 
proposed rule. We clarify a discrepancy in the status determination 
criteria for GB cod and Atlantic halibut. This rule corrects errors in 
the CC/GOM yellowtail flounder common pool trip limit and the 2016 
sector carry-over table, adds inadvertently omitted default 
specifications for GB yellowtail flounder, and correct the GB cod 
groundfish catch limits for 2017 and 2018. We are also implementing a 
higher initial 2016 GOM haddock common pool trip limit than announced 
in the proposed rule.

Classification

    Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the 
NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that the management 
measures implemented in this final rule are necessary for the 
conservation and management of the Northeast groundfish fishery and 
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 (E.O.) 12866.
    This final rule does not contain policies with Federalism or 
``takings'' implications as those terms are defined in E.O. 13132 and 
E.O. 12630, respectively.
    The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries finds good cause, under 5 
U.S.C. 553(d)(3), to waive the 30-day delayed effectiveness of this 
action. This action sets 2016 catch limits for all groundfish stocks, 
and adopts several other measures to improve the management of the 
groundfish fishery. This final rule must be in effect at the beginning 
of the 2016 fishing year to fully capture the conservation and economic 
benefits of Framework 55 and sector administrative measures.
    This rulemaking incorporates information from updated stock 
assessments for all 20 groundfish stocks. The development of Framework 
55 was timed to incorporate the results of the 2015 groundfish stock 
assessments, which were finalized in October 2015. As a result, this 
rulemaking could not be completed further before this date. Therefore, 
in order to have this action effective at the beginning of the 2016 
fishing year, which begins on May 1, 2016, it is necessary to waive the 
30-day delayed effectiveness of this rule.
    If this action is delayed, the coverage level for the industry-
funded ASM program would be 17 percent beginning on May 1, 2016, based 
on default measures for 2016 published in a separate rulemaking. When 
combined with the default groundfish specifications (set at 35 percent 
of the 2015 allocations), a delay in the implementation of these 
measures would result in direct economic loss for the groundfish fleet 
due to the high costs of ASM and the low default groundfish 
specifications, which may restrict fishing effort or temporarily alter 
business plans. In addition, this action approves two new sectors for 
operation on May 1, 2016. These sectors would be unable to operate and 
their vessels would be unable to fish until this action is finalized, 
which would result in direct economic loss for these vessels.
    The groundfish fishery already faced substantial catch limit 
reductions for many key groundfish stocks over the past 5 years, and 
this rule implements additional catch limit reductions. However, the 
negative economic impacts of implementing the default catch limits on 
May 1 would exceed any negative economic impacts anticipated from this 
action. Any further disruption to the fishery that would result from a 
delay in this final rule could worsen the severe economic impacts to 
the groundfish fishery. While this action includes several catch limit 
decreases for several stocks in poor condition, it also includes catch 
limits increases for a number of healthy groundfish stocks. These 
increases in catch limits for healthy groundfish stocks may help 
mitigate the economic impacts of the reductions in catch limits for 
other key groundfish stocks.
    The allocation changes for GOM haddock and GOM cod in this action 
would allow for increases in the recreational possession limits for 
both stocks through a separate, concurrent rulemaking. A delay in this 
action would delay setting recreational measures for the 2016 fishing 
year and the economic benefits that these measures would provide. 
Additionally, recreational fishermen book fishing trips months in 
advance for the upcoming fishing year. Thus, delays in finalizing 
recreational measures result in additional negative impacts on the 
recreational fishing industry due to uncertainty and the inability to 
book trips.

[[Page 26445]]

    Overall, a delay in implementation of this action would greatly 
diminish any benefits of these specifications and other approved 
measures. For these reasons, a 30-day delay in the effectiveness of 
this rule is impracticable and contrary to the public interest.

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    Section 604 of the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 604, requires Federal agencies to 
prepare a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) for each final 
rule. The FRFA describes the economic impact of this action on small 
entities. The FRFA includes a summary of significant issues raised by 
public comments, the analyses contained in Framework 55 and its 
accompanying Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review/Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), the IRFA summary in the 
proposed rule, as well as the summary provided below. A statement of 
the necessity for and for the objectives of this action are contained 
in Framework 55 and in the preamble to this final rule, and is not 
repeated here.

A Summary of the Significant Issues Raised by the Public in Response to 
the IRFA, a Summary of the Agency's Assessment of Such Issues, and a 
Statement of Any Changes Made in the Final Rule as a Result of Such 
Comments

    Our responses to all of the comments received on the proposed rule, 
including those that raised significant issues with the proposed 
action, or commented on the economic analyses summarized in the IRFA, 
can be found in the Comments and Responses section of this rule. As 
outlined in that section, significant issues were raised by the public 
with respect to the GB cod catch limits for 2016-2018 and the combined 
suite of groundfish ASM program adjustment. Comment 5 discussed that 
the GB cod catch limit, as well as catch limits for other key 
groundfish stocks, are expected to constrain the commercial groundfish 
fishery. Comment 26 discusses compares economic impacts of the No 
Action ASM alternative to the combined suite of ASM program 
adjustments, and the economic analysis in the IRFA. Comments 27 and 28 
discuss alternatives to the proposed changes to the ASM program that 
were not considered in this action, namely electronic monitoring and an 
alternative approach for allocating ASM coverage. Detailed responses 
are provided to each of these specific comments and are not repeated 
here. There were no other comments directly related to the IRFA; the 
Chief Counsel for the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration (SBA) did not file any comments. No changes to the 
proposed rule measures were necessary as a result of these public 
comments.

Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the 
Rule Would Apply

    The SBA defines a small business as one that is:
     Independently owned and operated;
     Not dominant in its field of operation;
     Has annual receipts that do not exceed--
    [cir] $20.5 million in the case of commercial finfish harvesting 
entities (NAIC \1\ 114111)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) is 
the standard used by Federal statistical agencies in classifying 
business establishments for the purpose of collecting, analyzing, 
and publishing statistical data related to the U.S. business 
economy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    [cir] $5.5 million in the case of commercial shellfish harvesting 
entities (NAIC 114112)
    [cir] $7.5 million in the case of for-hire fishing entities (NAIC 
114119); or
     Has fewer than--
    [cir] 750 employees in the case of fish processors; or
    [cir] 100 employees in the case of fish dealers.
    This final rule impacts commercial and recreational fish harvesting 
entities engaged in the groundfish fishery, the small-mesh multispecies 
and squid fisheries, the midwater trawl herring fishery, and the 
scallop fishery. Individually-permitted vessels may hold permits for 
several fisheries, harvesting species of fish that are regulated by 
several different FMPs, even beyond those impacted by this action. 
Furthermore, multiple-permitted vessels and/or permits may be owned by 
entities affiliated by stock ownership, common management, identity of 
interest, contractual relationships, or economic dependency. For the 
purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis, the ownership 
entities, not the individual vessels, are considered to be the 
regulated entities.
    Ownership entities are defined as those entities with common 
ownership personnel as listed on the permit application. Only permits 
with identical ownership personnel are categorized as an ownership 
entity. For example, if five permits have the same seven persons listed 
as co-owners on their permit application, those seven persons would 
form one ownership entity that holds those five permits. If two of 
those seven owners also co-own additional vessels, these two persons 
would be considered a separate ownership entity.
    On June 1 of each year, NMFS identifies ownership entities based on 
a list of all permits for the most recent complete calendar year. The 
current ownership dataset used for this analysis was created on June 1, 
2015, based on calendar year 2014 and contains average gross sales 
associated with those permits for calendar years 2012 through 2014.
    In addition to classifying a business (ownership entity) as small 
or large, a business can also be classified by its primary source of 
revenue. A business is defined as being primarily engaged in fishing 
for finfish if it obtains greater than 50 percent of its gross sales 
from sales of finfish. Similarly, a business is defined as being 
primarily engaged in fishing for shellfish if it obtains greater than 
50 percent of its gross sales from sales of shellfish.
    A description of the specific permits that are likely to be 
impacted by this action is provided below, along with a discussion of 
the impacted businesses, which can include multiple vessels and/or 
permit types.

Regulated Commercial Fish Harvesting Entities

    Table 20 describes the total number of commercial business entities 
potentially regulated by this action. As of June 1, 2015, there were 
1,359 commercial business entities potentially regulated by this 
action. These entities participate in, or are permitted for, the 
groundfish, small-mesh multispecies, squid, herring midwater trawl, and 
scallop fisheries. For the groundfish fishery, this action directly 
regulates potentially affected entities through catch limits and other 
management measures designed to achieve the goals and objectives of the 
Northeast Multispecies FMP. For the non-groundfish fisheries, this 
action includes allocations for groundfish stocks caught as bycatch in 
these fisheries. For each of these fisheries, there are accountability 
measures that are triggered if their respective allocations are 
exceeded. As a result, the likelihood of triggering an accountability 
measure is a function of changes to the ACLs each year.

 Table 20--Commercial Fish Harvesting Entities Regulated by This Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Classified
                       Type                          Total     as small
                                                    number    businesses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primarily finfish................................       385          385
Primarily shellfish..............................       480          462

[[Page 26446]]

 
Primarily for hire...............................       297          297
No Revenue.......................................       197          197
                                                  ----------------------
  Total..........................................     1,359        1,341
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Limited Access Groundfish Fishery
    This action will directly impact entities engaged in the limited 
access groundfish fishery. The limited access groundfish fishery 
consists of those enrolled in the sector program and those in the 
common pool. Both sectors and the common pool are subject to catch 
limits and accountability measures that prevent fishing in a respective 
stock area when the entire catch limit has been caught. Additionally, 
common pool vessels are subject to DAS restrictions and trip limits. 
All permit holders are eligible to enroll in the sector program; 
however, many vessels remain in the common pool because they have low 
catch histories of groundfish stocks, which translate into low PSCs. 
Low PSCs limit a vessel's viability in the sector program. In general, 
businesses enrolled in the sector program rely more heavily on sales of 
groundfish species than vessels enrolled in the common pool.
    As of June 1, 2015 (just after the start of the 2015 fishing year), 
there were 1,068 individual limited access multispecies permits. Of 
these, 627 were enrolled in the sector program, and 441 were in the 
common pool. For fishing year 2014, which is the most recent complete 
fishing year, 717 of these limited access permits had landings of any 
species, and 273 of these permits had landings of groundfish species.
    Of the 1,068 individual limited access multispecies permits 
potentially impacted by this action, there are 661 distinct ownership 
entities. Of these, 649 are categorized as small entities, and 12 are 
categorized as large entities. However, these totals may mask some 
diversity among the entities. Many, if not most, of these ownership 
entities maintain diversified harvest portfolios, obtaining gross sales 
from many fisheries and not dependent on any one. However, not all are 
equally diversified. This action is most likely to affect those 
entities that depend most heavily on sales from harvesting groundfish 
species. There are 61 entities that are groundfish-dependent (obtain 
more than 50 percent of gross sales from groundfish species), all of 
which are small, and all but one of which are finfish commercial 
harvesting businesses.
Limited Access Scallop Fisheries
    The limited access scallop fisheries include Limited Access (LA) 
scallop permits and Limited Access General Category (LAGC) scallop 
permits. LA scallop businesses are subject to a mixture of DAS 
restrictions and dedicated area trip restrictions. LAGC scallop 
businesses are able to acquire and trade LAGC scallop quota, and there 
is an annual cap on quota/landings. The scallop fishery receives an 
allocation for GB and SNE/MA yellowtail flounder and southern 
windowpane flounder. If these allocations are exceeded, accountability 
measures are implemented in a subsequent fishing year. These 
accountability measures close certain areas of high groundfish bycatch 
to the scallop fishery, and the length of the closure depends on the 
magnitude of the overage.
    Of the total commercial business entities potentially affected by 
this action (1,359), there are 169 scallop fishing entities. The 
majority of these entities are defined as shellfish businesses (166). 
However, three of these entities are defined as finfish businesses, all 
of which are small. Of the 169 total scallop fishing entities, 154 
entities are classified as small entities.
Midwater Trawl Fishery
    There are five categories of permits for the herring fishery. Three 
of these permit categories are limited access, and vary based on the 
allowable herring possession limits and areas fished. The remaining two 
permit categories are open access. Although there is a large number of 
open access permits issued each year, these categories are subject to 
fairly low possession limits for herring, account for a very small 
amount of the herring landings, and derive relatively little revenue 
from the fishery. Only the midwater trawl herring fishery receives an 
allocation of GOM and GB haddock. Once the entire allocation for either 
haddock stock has been caught, midwater trawl vessels may not fish for 
herring or haddock in the respective area for the remainder of the 
fishing year. Additionally, if the midwater trawl fishery exceeds its 
allocation, the overage is deducted from its allocation in the 
following fishing year.
    Of the total commercial business entities potentially regulated by 
this action (1,359), there are 63 herring fishing entities. Of these, 
39 entities are defined as finfish businesses, all of which are small. 
There are 24 entities that are defined as shellfish businesses, and 18 
of these are considered small. For the purposes of this analysis, squid 
is classified as shellfish. Thus, because there is some overlap with 
the herring and squid fisheries, it is likely that these shellfish 
entities derive most of their revenues from the squid fishery.
Small-Mesh Fisheries
    The small-mesh exempted fisheries allow vessels to harvest species 
in designated areas using mesh sizes smaller than the minimum mesh size 
required by the Northeast Multispecies FMP. To participate in the 
small-mesh multispecies (whiting) fishery, vessels must hold either a 
limited access multispecies permit or an open access multispecies 
permit. Limited access multispecies permit holders can only target 
whiting when not fishing under a DAS or a sector trip, and while 
declared out of the fishery. A description of limited access 
multispecies permits was provided above. Many of these vessels target 
both whiting and longfin squid on small-mesh trips, and, therefore, 
most of them also have open access or limited access Squid, Mackerel, 
and Butterfish (SMB) permits. As a result, SMB permits were not handled 
separately in this analysis.
    The small-mesh fisheries receive an allocation of GB yellowtail 
flounder. If this allocation is exceeded, an accountability measure is 
triggered for a subsequent fishing year. The accountability measure 
requires small-mesh vessels to use selective trawl gear when fishing on 
GB. This gear restriction is only implemented for 1 year as a result of 
an overage, and is removed as long as additional overages do not occur.
    Of the total commercial harvesting entities potentially affected by 
this action, there are 1,007 small-mesh entities. However, this is not 
necessarily informative because not all of these entities are active in 
the whiting fishery. Based on the most recent information, 223 of these 
entities are considered active, with at least 1 lb (0.45 kg) of whiting 
landed. Of these entities, 167 are defined as finfish businesses, all 
of which are small. There are 56 entities that are defined as shellfish 
businesses, and 54 of these are considered small. Because there is 
overlap with the whiting and squid fisheries, it is likely that these 
shellfish entities derive most of their revenues from the squid 
fishery.

Regulated Recreational Party/Charter Fishing Entities

    The charter/party permit is an open access groundfish permit that 
can be requested at any time, with the limitation that a vessel cannot 
have a

[[Page 26447]]

limited access groundfish permit and an open access party/charter 
permit concurrently. There are no qualification criteria for this 
permit. Charter/party permits are subject to recreational management 
measures, including minimum fish sizes, possession restrictions, and 
seasonal closures.
    During calendar year 2015, 425 party/charter permits were issued. 
Of these, 271 party/charter permit holders reported catching and 
retaining any groundfish species on at least one for-hire trip. A 2013 
report indicated that, in the northeast U.S., the mean gross sales was 
approximately $27,650 for a charter business and $13,500 for a party 
boat. Based on the available information, no business approached the 
$7.5 million large business threshold. Therefore, the 425 potentially 
regulated party/charter entities are all considered small businesses.

Description of the Projected Reporting, Record-Keeping, and Other 
Compliance Requirements

    This action contains a change to an information collection 
requirement, which has been approved by the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) under OMB Control Number 0648-0605: Northeast Multispecies 
Amendment 16 Data Collection. This action adjusts the ACE transfer 
request requirement implemented through Amendment 16. This rule adds a 
new entry field to the ACE transfer request form to allow a sector to 
indicate how many pounds of eastern GB cod ACE it intends to re-
allocate to the Western U.S./Canada Area. This change is necessary to 
allow a sector to apply for a re-allocation of eastern GB ACE in order 
to increase fishing opportunities in the Western U.S./Canada Area. 
Currently, all sectors use the ACE transfer request form to initiate 
ACE transfers with other sectors, or to re-allocate eastern GB haddock 
ACE to the Western U.S./Canada Area, via an online or paper form to the 
Regional Administrator. The change only adds a single field to this 
form, and does not affect the number of entities required to comply 
with this requirement. Therefore, the change is not expected to 
increase the time or cost burden associated with the ACE transfer 
request requirement. Public reporting burden for this requirement 
includes the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data 
sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and 
reviewing the collection of information.
    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is 
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty 
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the 
requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act, unless that collection of 
information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.

Description of the Steps the Agency Has Taken To Minimize the 
Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities Consistent With the 
Stated Objectives of Applicable Statutes

    The economic impact of each measure is discussed in more detail in 
sections 7.4 and 8.11 of the Framework 55 EA and are not repeated here. 
Although small entities are defined based on gross sales of ownership 
groups, not physical characteristics of the vessel, it is reasonable to 
assume that larger vessels are more likely to be owned by large 
entities. The economic impacts of this action are anticipated to result 
in aggregate gross revenue losses of approximately $8 million for the 
2016 fishing year, compared to predicted revenues for the 2015 fishing 
year. However, the impacts of the approved catch limits would not be 
uniformly distributed across vessels size classes and ports. Some 
vessel size classes and ports are predicted to have 50- to 80-percent 
declines in revenues from groundfish.
    Because predicted losses are expected to primarily affect small 
businesses, this action has the potential to place small entities at a 
competitive disadvantage relative to large entities. This is mainly 
because large entities may have more flexibility to adjust to, and 
accommodate, the measures. However, as discussed in more detail below, 
the additional declines in gross revenues expected as a result of this 
action will pose serious difficulties for all groundfish vessels and 
their crew.

Status Determination Criteria

    This action updates the numerical estimates of the status 
determination criteria for all groundfish stocks in order to 
incorporate the results of the 2015 stock assessments. For many stocks, 
these updates result in lower values of MSY. For some of these, the 
lower values of MSY result in lower ACLs in the short-term, which is 
expected to have negative economic impacts (i.e., lower net revenues). 
However, the updates to the status determination criteria are expected 
to have positive stock benefits by helping to prevent overfishing. 
Thus, in the long-term, the changes to status determination criteria 
are expected to result in higher and more sustainable landings when 
compared to the No Action option. All of the revisions are based on the 
2015 stock assessments, and are therefore based on the best scientific 
information available.
    Status determination criteria are formulaic based on the results of 
a stock assessment. As a result, the only other alternative considered 
for this action was the No Action option, which would not update the 
status determination criteria for any groundfish stocks based on the 
2015 stock assessments. This option would not incorporate the best 
scientific information available, and would not be consistent with 
Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements, and, as a result, was not selected. 
This option would not have any immediate economic impacts. However if 
this option resulted in overfishing in the long-term, then it would 
have severe negative economic impacts for the fisheries affected by 
this action.

Groundfish Annual Catch Limits

    This action sets catch limits for all 20 groundfish stocks. For 19 
of the stocks, there is only a single catch limit alternative to the No 
Action alternative, described in Table 5 in the preamble. For witch 
flounder, there are three non-selected alternatives to the adopted ABC 
of 460 mt, namely 399 mt, 500 mt, and the No Action alternative. In 
each of these witch flounder alternatives, except for the No Action 
alternative, all other groundfish stock allocations would remain the 
same as those described in Table 5. All of the non-selected action 
alternatives assume a 14-percent target ASM coverage level for 2016. 
The No Action alternative assumes a 41-percent target ASM coverage 
level for 2016.
    For the commercial groundfish fishery, the approved catch limits 
(460 mt witch flounder ABC) are expected to result in a 10-percent 
decrease in gross revenues on groundfish trips, or $8 million, compared 
to predicted gross revenues for the 2015 fishing year. The impacts of 
the approved catch limits would not be uniformly distributed across 
vessels size classes and ports. Vessels in the 30-50 ft (9-15 m) 
category are expected to see gross revenue increases of 2 percent. 
Vessels in the 50-75 ft (15-23 m) size class are expected to see 
revenue increases of 19 percent. The largest vessels (75 ft (23 m) and 
greater) are predicted to incur the largest decreases in gross revenues 
revenue decreases of 30 percent relative to 2015, due primarily to 
reductions in several GB and SNE/MA stocks (e.g., GB cod, GB winter 
flounder, SNE/MA yellowtail flounder, SNE/MA winter flounder).
    Southern New England ports are expected to be negatively impacted, 
with New Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island predicted to incur revenue 
losses

[[Page 26448]]

of 100 percent, 80 percent, and 62 percent, respectively, relative to 
2015. These large revenue losses are also due to reductions in GB and 
SNE/MA stocks. Maine and Massachusetts are also predicted to incur 
revenue losses of 16 percent and 6 percent, respectively, as a result 
of the approved catch limits, while New Hampshire is expected to have 
small increases in gross revenues of up to 8 percent. For major home 
ports, New Bedford is predicted to see a 47-percent decline in 
groundfish revenues relative to 2015, and Point Judith expected to see 
a 58-percent decline. Boston and Gloucester, meanwhile, are predicted 
to have groundfish revenue increases of 31 and 29 percent, 
respectively, compared to 2015.
    Two of the three non-selected alternatives would have set all 
groundfish allocations at the levels described in Table 5, with the 
exception of the witch flounder allocation. In the alternative that 
considered a witch flounder ABC of 399 mt, gross revenues were 
predicted to be the same as the approved catch limit (460-mt witch 
flounder ABC), namely a 10-percent decrease in gross revenues on 
groundfish trips, or $8 million, compared to predicted gross revenues 
for the 2015 fishing year. The 399-mt alternative was also expected to 
provide the same changes in gross revenue by vessels size class. In the 
alternative that considered a witch flounder ABC of 500 mt, gross 
revenues were predicted to be slightly lower than the approved catch 
limit, namely an 11-percent decrease in gross revenues on groundfish 
trips, or $9 million, compared to predicted gross revenues for fishing 
year 2015. Vessels in the 30-50 ft (9-15 m) category were expected to 
see gross revenue increases of 4 percent. Vessels in the 50-75 ft (15-
23 m) size class were expected to see revenue increases of 15 percent. 
The largest vessels (75 ft (23 m) and greater) were predicted to incur 
the largest decreases in gross revenues revenue decreases of 28 percent 
relative to 2015. State and port-level impacts are also similar across 
the action alternatives.
    Under the No Action option, groundfish vessels would be required to 
operate under default specifications of catch limits at 35 percent of 
the levels used last fishing year and would have only have 3 months 
(May, June, and July) to operate in the 2016 fishing year before the 
default specifications expire. Once the default specifications expire, 
there would be no ACL for a number of the groundfish stocks, and the 
fishery would be closed for the remainder of the fishing year. This 
would result in greater negative economic impacts for vessels compared 
to the proposed action due to lost revenues as a result of being unable 
to fish. The adopted action is predicted to result in approximately $69 
million in gross revenues from groundfish trips. Roughly 92 percent of 
this revenue would be lost if no action was taken to specify catch 
limits. Further, if no action was taken, the Magnuson-Stevens Act 
requirements to achieve optimum yield and consider the needs of fishing 
communities would be violated.
    Each of the 2016 ACL alternatives show a decrease in gross revenue 
when compared to the 2015 fishing year. When compared against each 
other, the economic analysis of the various witch flounder ABC 
alternatives did not show any gain in gross revenue at the fishery 
level, or any wide difference in vessel and port-level gross revenue, 
as the witch flounder ABC increased. The economic analysis consistently 
showed other stocks (GB cod, GOM cod, and SNE/MA yellowtail flounder) 
would be more constraining than witch flounder, which may partially 
explain the lack of predicted revenue increases with higher witch 
flounder ABCs. In addition, there are other assumptions in the economic 
analysis that may mask sector and vessel level impacts that could 
result from alternatives with lower witch flounder ABCs. Ultimately, 
the adopted alternative (460-mt witch flounder ABC) is expected to 
mitigate potential economic impacts to fishing communities compared to 
both the No Action alternative and the 399-mt witch flounder ABC 
alternative, while reducing the biological concerns of an increased 
risk of overfishing compared to the 500-mt witch flounder ABC 
alternative.
    The catch limits approved in this action are based on the latest 
stock assessment information, which is considered the best scientific 
information available, and the applicable requirements in the Northeast 
Multispecies FMP and the Magnuson-Stevens Act. With the exception of 
witch flounder, the only other possible alternatives to the catch 
limits in this action that would mitigate negative impacts would be 
higher catch limits. Alternative, higher catch limits, however, are not 
permissible under the law because they would not be consistent with the 
goals and objectives of the Northeast Multispecies FMP, or the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act, particularly the requirement to prevent 
overfishing. The Magnuson-Stevens Act and case law prevent 
implementation of measures that conflict with conservation 
requirements, even if it means negative impacts are not mitigated. The 
catch limits in this action are the highest allowed given the best 
scientific information available, the SSC's recommendations, and 
requirements to end overfishing and rebuild fish stocks. The only other 
catch limits that would be legal would be lower than those in this 
action, which would not mitigate the economic impacts of the approved 
catch limits.

Groundfish At-Sea Monitoring Program

    This action approves a set of four alternatives that, in 
combination, result in a 2016 target ASM coverage level of 14 percent. 
The four selected alternatives will: (1) Remove ASM coverage for extra-
large mesh gillnet trips fishing in Broad Stock Areas 2 and/or 4; (2) 
remove the administrative standard that 80 percent of discards be 
estimated at a 30-percent CV; (3) use 3 years of discard information to 
predict ASM coverage levels; and (4) base the target coverage level on 
the predictions for stocks that would be at a higher risk for an error 
in the discard estimate. The No Action alternative would have resulted 
in a 2016 ASM coverage level of 41 percent.
    The combination of ASM alternatives would result in a lower level 
of ASM coverage (14 percent) relative to the No Action alternative (41 
percent) thereby resulting in a reduction in cost to sectors. Selecting 
the alternatives in combination has the maximum economic impact 
mitigation compared to No Action. Assuming NEFOP coverage of 4 percent 
for the 2016 fishing year, industry would be responsible for paying for 
ASM coverage on an estimated 10 percent of trips under the combined ASM 
alternatives, and an estimated 37 percent of trips under the No Action 
alternative. Assuming 20,000 days absent, and a cost of $710 per ASM 
seaday, the cost of ASM to sectors would be $1.4 million 
(20,000*.10*$710). This would represent cost savings of $3.9 million 
relative to the No Action alternative ($5.3 million). The $710 per ASM 
seaday is based on NMFS cost estimates for the ASM program. If sectors 
are able to negotiate lower per seaday rates for ASM coverage with 
service providers, these figures may be overestimates.
    Each of the four selected alternatives, if approved in isolation, 
would have also resulted in a lower ASM coverage level relative to the 
No Action alternative. Using the effort and ASM cost assumptions noted 
above, removing ASM coverage for extra-large mesh gillnet trips fishing 
in Broad Stock Areas 2 and/or 4 would result in a cost savings of 
$64,610 relative to the No Action alternative. Remove the

[[Page 26449]]

administrative standard that 80 percent of discards be estimated at a 
30-percent CV would result in 2016 ASM costs of $4.7 million, an 
estimated $0.6 million decrease relative to the No Action alternative. 
Using 3 years of discard information to predict ASM coverage levels 
would result in 2016 ASM costs of $1.8 million, a savings of $3.5 
million relative to No Action. Finally, basing the target coverage 
level on the predictions for stocks that would be at a higher risk for 
an error in the discard estimate would in ASM costs of $3.1 million, an 
estimated $2.2 million decrease in ASM costs relative to the No Action 
alternative.

Formation of Sustainable Harvest Sector II

    This action approves the formation of a new sector, Sustainable 
Harvest Sector II, for operation for the 2016 fishing year. The No 
Action alternative was the only alternative to the approved action, and 
would not approve the formation of Sustainable Harvest Sector II. 
Allowing the formation of the new sector increases flexibility for 
groundfish fishery participants within the sector management system, 
and is thus anticipated to have positive economic impacts.

Modification of the Sector Approval Process

    This action modifies the sector approval process such that a 
Council framework adjustment or amendment is no longer needed to 
approve a new sector. The No Action alternative was the only 
alternative to the approved action, and would maintain the existing 
process for sector approval. Modifying the sector approval process 
decreases the administrative cost of approving a new sector, and allows 
more time for new sectors to prepare operations plans and analysis to 
support the formation of a new sector. The additional time to prepare 
operations plans may have minor economic benefits to fishery 
participants.

Modification of the Definition of the Haddock Separator Trawl

    This action modifies the current definition of the haddock 
separator trawl to require that the separator panel contrasts in color 
to the portions of the net that it separates. An estimated 46 unique 
vessels had at least one trip that used a haddock separator trawl from 
2013-2015. The costs for labor and installation of a new separator 
panel are estimated to range from $560 to $1,400 per panel. The No 
Action alternative would not modify the current definition of the 
haddock separator trawl. The approved action is expected to expedite 
Coast Guard vessel inspections when compared to the No Action 
alternative, which could improve enforceability of this gear type and 
reduce delays in fishing operations while inspections occur. In order 
to minimize impact of this measure, we are delaying the effective date 
of this requirement by 6 months to allow affected fishermen time to 
replace their separator panels with contrasting netting.

Removal of GOM Cod Recreational Possession Limit

    For the recreational fishery, the removal prohibition on GOM cod 
possession, coupled with measures in the recreational rule, are 
expected to result in short-term positive economic impacts. The 
measures implemented for 2016 in that rule are expected to result in an 
increase in the number of trips taken by anglers, and increased catch, 
while staying within the recreational quotas for 2016. Under the No 
Action alternative, vessels would be prohibited from harvesting GOM 
cod, which would have negative economic impacts compared to the 
selected alternative.

Distribution of Eastern/Western GB Cod Sector Allocation

    The action allows sectors to convert their eastern GB cod 
allocation to western GB cod allocation and provide sectors additional 
flexibility to harvest more of their total GB cod allocation. Only the 
No Action alternative and the selected alternative were considered. 
Compared to the No Action alternative, this measure is expected to have 
positive economic impacts on groundfish-dependent small entities that 
participate in the sector program due to increased operational 
flexibility. This measure is also expected to prevent the Western U.S./
Canada Area from being closed to a sector prematurely, before the 
sector harvests all of its GB cod allocation, which will ultimately 
prevent foregone yield in the fishery. Given the sizable decreases in 
the GB cod catch limit for 2016, the ability of sectors to convert 
their eastern GB cod allocation to western GB cod may be of critical 
importance for allowing members to maintain fishing operations on 
Georges Bank through 2016. In the absence of GB cod allocation, sectors 
members are not permitted to fish in the Inshore and Offshore Georges 
Bank broad stock areas.

Small Entity Compliance Guide

    Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness 
Act of 1996 states that, for each rule or group of related rules for 
which an agency is required to prepare a FRFA, the agency shall publish 
one or more guides to assist small entities in complying with the rule, 
and shall designate such publications as ``small entity compliance 
guides.'' The agency shall explain the actions a small entity is 
required to take to comply with a rule or group of rules. As part of 
this rulemaking process, a small entity compliance guide will be sent 
to all holders of Federal permits issued for the Northeast multispecies 
fisheries, as well as the scallop and herring fisheries that receive an 
allocation of some groundfish stocks. In addition, copies of this final 
rule and guides (i.e., information bulletins) are available from NMFS 
at the following Web site: http://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648

    Fisheries, Fishing, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

    Dated: April 25, 2016.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, NMFS amends 50 CFR part 648 
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.  648.14, revise paragraph (k)(16)(iii)(B) to read as 
follows:
* * * * *
    (k) * * *
    (16) * * *
    (iii) * * *
    (B) Fail to comply with the requirements specified in Sec.  
648.81(f)(5)(v) when fishing in the areas described in Sec.  
648.81(d)(1), (e)(1), and (f)(4) during the time periods specified.
* * * * *

0
3. In Sec.  648.85, revise paragraph (a)(3)(iii)(A) to read as follows:


Sec.  648.85  Special management programs.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (iii) * * *
    (A) Haddock Separator Trawl. A haddock separator trawl is defined 
as a groundfish trawl modified to a vertically-oriented trouser trawl 
configuration, with two extensions arranged one over the other, where a 
codend shall be attached only to the

[[Page 26450]]

upper extension, and the bottom extension shall be left open and have 
no codend attached. A horizontal large-mesh separating panel 
constructed with a minimum of 6.0-inch (15.2-cm) diamond mesh must be 
installed between the selvedges joining the upper and lower panels, as 
described in paragraphs (a)(3)(iii)(A) and (B) of this section, 
extending forward from the front of the trouser junction to the aft 
edge of the first belly behind the fishing circle. The horizontal 
large-mesh separating panel must be constructed with mesh of a 
contrasting color to the upper and bottom extensions of the net that it 
separates.
    (1) Two-seam bottom trawl nets. For two seam nets, the separator 
panel will be constructed such that the width of the forward edge of 
the panel is 80-85 percent of the width of the after edge of the first 
belly of the net where the panel is attached. For example, if the belly 
is 200 meshes wide (from selvedge to selvedge), the separator panel 
must be no wider than 160-170 meshes wide.
    (2) Four-seam bottom trawl nets. For four seam nets, the separator 
panel will be constructed such that the width of the forward edge of 
the panel is 90-95 percent of the width of the after edge of the first 
belly of the net where the panel is attached. For example, if the belly 
is 200 meshes wide (from selvedge to selvedge), the separator panel 
must be no wider than 180-190 meshes wide. The separator panel will be 
attached to both of the side panels of the net along the midpoint of 
the side panels. For example, if the side panel is 100 meshes tall, the 
separator panel must be attached at the 50th mesh.
* * * * *
0
4. In Sec.  648.87:
0
a. Revise paragraphs (a)(1) and (2), (b)(1)(i)(B)(2), (b)(1)(v)(B) 
introductory text, (b)(1)(v)(B)(1)(i),;
0
b. Add paragraph (b)(1)(v)(B)(1)(ii);
0
c. Revise paragraph (b)(4)(i)(G);
0
d. Add paragraphs (c)(2)(i)(A) and (B) and (c)(4); and
0
e. Revise paragraphs (d) and (e)(3)(iv).
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  648.87  Sector allocation.

    (a) Procedure for approving/implementing a sector allocation 
proposal. (1) Any person may submit a sector allocation proposal for a 
group of limited access NE multispecies vessels to NMFS. The sector 
allocation proposal must be submitted to the Council and NMFS in 
writing by the deadline for submitting an operations plan and 
preliminary sector contract that is specified in paragraph (b)(2) of 
this section. The proposal must include a cover letter requesting the 
formation of the new sector, a complete sector operations plan and 
preliminary sector contract, prepared as described in paragraphs (b)(2) 
and (b)(3) of this section, and appropriate analysis that assesses the 
impact of the proposed sector, in compliance with the National 
Environmental Policy Act.
    (2) Upon receipt of a proposal to form a new sector allocation, and 
following the deadline for each sector to submit an operations plan, as 
described in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, NMFS will notify the 
Council in writing of its intent to consider a new sector allocation 
for approval. The Council will review the proposal(s) and associated 
NEPA analyses at a Groundfish Committee and Council meeting, and 
provide its recommendation on the proposed sector allocation to NMFS in 
writing. NMFS will make final determinations regarding the approval of 
the new sectors based on review of the proposed operations plans, 
associated NEPA analyses, and the Council's recommendations, and in a 
manner consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act. NMFS will only 
approve a new sector that has received the Council's endorsement.
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (B) * * *
    (2) Re-allocation of haddock or cod ACE. A sector may re-allocate 
all, or a portion, of its haddock or cod ACE specified to the Eastern 
U.S./Canada Area, pursuant to paragraph (b)(1)(i)(B)(1) of this 
section, to the Western U.S./Canada Area at any time during the fishing 
year, and up to 2 weeks into the following fishing year (i.e., through 
May 14), unless otherwise instructed by NMFS, to cover any overages 
during the previous fishing year. Re-allocation of any ACE only becomes 
effective upon approval by NMFS, as specified in paragraphs 
(b)(1)(i)(B)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section. Re-allocation of 
haddock or cod ACE may only be made within a sector, and not between 
sectors. For example, if 100 mt of a sector's GB haddock ACE is 
specified to the Eastern U.S./Canada Area, the sector could re-allocate 
up to 100 mt of that ACE to the Western U.S./Canada Area.
    (i) Application to re-allocate ACE. GB haddock or GB cod ACE 
specified to the Eastern U.S./Canada Area may be re-allocated to the 
Western U.S./Canada Area through written request to the Regional 
Administrator. This request must include the name of the sector, the 
amount of ACE to be re-allocated, and the fishing year in which the ACE 
re-allocation applies, as instructed by the Regional Administrator.
    (ii) Approval of request to re-allocate ACE. NMFS shall approve or 
disapprove a request to re-allocate GB haddock or GB cod ACE provided 
the sector, and its participating vessels, are in compliance with the 
reporting requirements specified in this part. The Regional 
Administrator shall inform the sector in writing, within 2 weeks of the 
receipt of the sector's request, whether the request to re-allocate ACE 
has been approved.
    (iii) Duration of ACE re-allocation. GB haddock or GB cod ACE that 
has been re-allocated to the Western U.S./Canada Area pursuant to this 
paragraph (b)(1)(i)(B)(2) is only valid for the fishing year in which 
the re-allocation is approved, with the exception of any requests that 
are submitted up to 2 weeks into the subsequent fishing year to address 
any potential ACE overages from the previous fishing year, as provided 
in paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this section, unless otherwise instructed 
by NMFS.
* * * * *
    (v) * * *
    (B) Independent third-party monitoring program. A sector must 
develop and implement an at-sea or electronic monitoring program that 
is satisfactory to, and approved by, NMFS for monitoring catch and 
discards and utilization of sector ACE, as specified in this paragraph 
(b)(1)(v)(B). The primary goal of the at-sea/electronic monitoring 
program is to verify area fished, as well as catch and discards by 
species and gear type, in the most cost-effective means practicable. 
All other goals and objectives of groundfish monitoring programs at 
Sec.  648.11(l) are considered equally-weighted secondary goals. The 
details of any at-sea or electronic monitoring program must be 
specified in the sector's operations plan, pursuant to paragraph 
(b)(2)(xi) of this section, and must meet the operational standards 
specified in paragraph (b)(5) of this section. Electronic monitoring 
may be used in place of actual observers if the technology is deemed 
sufficient by NMFS for a specific trip type based on gear type and area 
fished, in a manner consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act. 
The level of coverage for trips by sector vessels is specified in 
paragraph (b)(1)(v)(B)(1) of this section. The at-sea/electronic 
monitoring program shall be reviewed and approved by the Regional 
Administrator as part of a sector's operations plans in a manner 
consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act. A service

[[Page 26451]]

provider providing at-sea or electronic monitoring services pursuant to 
this paragraph (b)(1)(v)(B) must meet the service provider standards 
specified in paragraph (b)(4) of this section, and be approved by NMFS 
in a manner consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act.
    (1) * * *
    (i) At-sea/electronic monitoring. Coverage levels must be 
sufficient to at least meet the coefficient of variation specified in 
the Standardized Bycatch Reporting Methodology at the overall stock 
level for each stock of regulated species and ocean pout, and to 
monitor sector operations, to the extent practicable, in order to 
reliably estimate overall catch by sector vessels. In making its 
determination, NMFS shall take into account the primary goal of the at-
sea/electronic monitoring program to verify area fished, as well as 
catch and discards by species and gear type, in the most cost-effective 
means practicable, the equally-weighted secondary goals and objectives 
of groundfish monitoring programs detailed at Sec.  648.11(l), the 
National Standards and requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and 
any other relevant factors. NMFS will determine the total target 
coverage level (i.e., combined NEFOP coverage and at-sea/electronic 
monitoring coverage) for the upcoming fishing year using the criteria 
in this paragraph. Annual coverage levels will be based on the most 
recent 3-year average of the total required coverage level necessary to 
reach the required coefficient of variation for each stock. For 
example, if data from the 2012 through 2014 fishing years are the most 
recent three complete fishing years available for the fishing year 2016 
projection, NMFS will use data from these three years to determine 2016 
target coverage levels. For each stock, the coverage level needed to 
achieve the required coefficient of variation would be calculated first 
for each of the 3 years and then averaged (e.g., (percent coverage 
necessary to meet the required coefficient of variation in year 1 + 
year 2 + year 3)/3). The coverage level that will apply is the maximum 
stock-specific rate after considering the following criteria. For a 
given fishing year, stocks that are not overfished, with overfishing 
not occurring according to the most recent available stock assessment, 
and that in the previous fishing year have less than 75 percent of the 
sector sub-ACL harvested and less than 10 percent of catch comprised of 
discards, will not be used to predict the annual target coverage level. 
A stock must meet all of these criteria to be eliminated as a predictor 
for the annual target coverage level for a given year.
    (ii) A sector vessel that declares its intent to exclusively fish 
using gillnets with a mesh size of 10-inch (25.4-cm) or greater in 
either the Inshore GB Stock Area, as defined at Sec.  648.10(k)(3)(ii), 
and/or the SNE Broad Stock Area, as defined at Sec.  648.10(k)(3)(iv), 
is not subject to the coverage level specified in this paragraph 
(b)(1)(v)(B)(1) of this section provided that the trip is limited to 
the Inshore GB and/or SNE Broad Stock Areas and that the vessel only 
uses gillnets with a mesh size of 10-inches (25.4-cm) or greater. When 
on such a trip, other gear may be on board provided that it is stowed 
and not available for immediate use as defined in Sec.  648.2. A sector 
trip fishing with 10-inch (25.4-cm) mesh or larger gillnets will still 
be subject to the annual coverage level if the trip declares its intent 
to fish in any part of the trip in the GOM Stock area, as defined at 
Sec.  648.10(k)(3)(i), or the Offshore GB Stock Area, as defined at 
Sec.  648.10(k)(3)(iii).
* * * * *
    (4) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (G) Evidence of adequate insurance (copies of which shall be 
provided to the vessel owner, operator, or vessel manager, when 
requested) to cover injury, liability, and accidental death to cover 
at-sea monitors (including during training); vessel owner; and service 
provider. NMFS will determine the adequate level of insurance and 
notify potential service providers;
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (A) Fippennies Ledge Area. The Fippennies Ledge Area is bounded by 
the following coordinates, connected by straight lines in the order 
listed:

                          Fippennies Ledge Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Point                     N. latitude    W. longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.......................................    42[deg]50.0'    69[deg]17.0'
2.......................................    42[deg]44.0'    69[deg]14.0'
3.......................................    42[deg]44.0'    69[deg]18.0'
4.......................................    42[deg]50.0'    69[deg]21.0'
1.......................................    42[deg]50.0'    69[deg]17.0'
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (B) [Reserved]
* * * * *
    (4) Any sector may submit a written request to amend its approved 
operations plan to the Regional Administrator. If the amendment is 
administrative in nature, within the scope of and consistent with the 
actions and impacts previously considered for current sector 
operations, the Regional Administrator may approve an administrative 
amendment in writing. The Regional Administrator may approve 
substantive changes to an approved operations plan in a manner 
consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act and other applicable 
law. All approved operations plan amendments will be published on the 
regional office Web site and will be provided to the Council.
    (d) Approved sector allocation proposals. Eligible NE multispecies 
vessels, as specified in paragraph (a)(3) of this section, may 
participate in the sectors identified in paragraphs (d)(1) through (25) 
of this section, provided the operations plan is approved by the 
Regional Administrator in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section 
and each participating vessel and vessel operator and/or vessel owner 
complies with the requirements of the operations plan, the requirements 
and conditions specified in the letter of authorization issued pursuant 
to paragraph (c) of this section, and all other requirements specified 
in this section. All operational aspects of these sectors shall be 
specified pursuant to the operations plan and sector contract, as 
required by this section.
    (1) GB Cod Hook Sector.
    (2) GB Cod Fixed Gear Sector.
    (3) Sustainable Harvest Sector.
    (4) Sustainable Harvest Sector II.
    (5) Sustainable Harvest Sector III.
    (6) Port Clyde Community Groundfish Sector.
    (7) Northeast Fishery Sector I.
    (8) Northeast Fishery Sector II.
    (9) Northeast Fishery Sector III.
    (10) Northeast Fishery Sector IV.
    (11) Northeast Fishery Sector V.
    (12) Northeast Fishery Sector VI.
    (13) Northeast Fishery Sector VII.
    (14) Northeast Fishery Sector VIII.
    (15) Northeast Fishery Sector IX.
    (16) Northeast Fishery Sector X.
    (17) Northeast Fishery Sector XI.
    (18) Northeast Fishery Sector XII.
    (19) Northeast Fishery Sector XIII.
    (20) Tristate Sector.
    (21) Northeast Coastal Communities Sector.
    (22) State of Maine Permit Banking Sector.
    (23) State of Rhode Island Permit Bank Sector.
    (24) State of New Hampshire Permit Bank Sector.
    (25) State of Massachusetts Permit Bank Sector.
    (e) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (iv) Reallocation of GB haddock or GB cod ACE. Subject to the terms 
and conditions of the state-operated permit

[[Page 26452]]

bank's MOAs with NMFS, a state-operated permit bank may re-allocate 
all, or a portion, of its GB haddock or GB cod ACE specified for the 
Eastern U.S./Canada Area to the Western U.S./Canada Area provided it 
complies with the requirements in paragraph (b)(1)(i)(B)(2) of this 
section.
* * * * *


Sec.  648.89  [Amended]

0
5. In Sec.  648.89, remove and reserve paragraph (f)(3)(ii).

[FR Doc. 2016-10051 Filed 4-29-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-22-P