[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 45 (Monday, March 9, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 12394-12421]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-05383]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 648

[Docket No. 150105004-5190-01]
RIN 0648-BE75


Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 
Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northeast 
Groundfish Fishery; Framework Adjustment 53

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

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes approval of, and regulations to 
implement, Framework Adjustment 53 to the Northeast Multispecies 
Fishery Management Plan. This rule would set fishing years 2015-2017 
catch limits for several groundfish stocks, modify management measures 
for Gulf of Maine cod, and adopt other measures to improve the 
management of the groundfish fishery. This action is necessary to 
respond to updated scientific information and achieve the goals and 
objectives of the Fishery Management Plan. The proposed 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: Comments must be received by March 24, 2015.

[[Page 12395]]


ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2015-0020, 
by either of the following methods:
    <bullet> Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public 
comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal.
    1. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2015-0020;
    2. Click the ``Comment Now!'' icon and complete the required 
fields; and
    3. Enter or attach your comments.
    <bullet> Mail: Submit written comments to John K. Bullard, Regional 
Administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service, 55 Great Republic 
Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope, 
``Comments on the Proposed Rule for Groundfish Framework Adjustment 
53.''
    Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other 
address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, 
may not be considered by us. All comments received are a part of the 
public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on 
www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying 
information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business 
information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily 
by the sender will be publicly accessible. We will accept anonymous 
comments (enter ``N/A'' in the required fields if you wish to remain 
anonymous).
    Copies of Framework Adjustment 53, including the draft 
Environmental Assessment, the Regulatory Impact Review, and the Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis prepared by the New England Fishery 
Management Council in support of this action 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sarah Heil, Fishery Policy Analyst, 
phone: 978-281-9257; email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#87d4e6f5e6efa9cfe2eeebc7e9e8e6e6a9e0e8f1"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e6b58794878ec8ae838f8aa688898787c8818990">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents

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

1. Summary of Proposed Measures

    This action would implement the management measures in Framework 
Adjustment 53 (Framework 53) to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery 
Management Plan (FMP). The Council deemed the proposed regulations 
consistent with, and necessary to implement, Framework 53, in a 
February 25, 2015, letter from Council Chairman E.F. ``Terry'' 
Stockwell to Regional Administrator John Bullard. Framework 53 proposes 
to:
    <bullet> Revise the status determination criteria for several 
groundfish stocks;
    <bullet> Set fishing years 2015-2017 catch limits for several 
groundfish stocks;
    <bullet> Set fishing year 2015 shared U.S./Canada quotas for 
transboundary Georges Bank (GB) stocks;
    <bullet> Revise management measures for Gulf of Maine (GOM) cod to 
provide additional protection for the stock;
    <bullet> Establish a mechanism to set default catch limits in the 
event a future management action is delayed; and
    <bullet> Modify the provision that allows groundfish sectors to 
carryover unused quota in response to a recent court ruling.
    This action also proposes a number of other measures that are not 
part of Framework 53, but that may be considered and implemented under 
our authority specified in the FMP. We are proposing these measures in 
conjunction with the Framework 53 proposed measures for expediency 
purposes, and because these measures are related to the catch limits 
proposed as part of Framework 53. The additional measures proposed in 
this action are listed below.
    <bullet> Management measures for the common pool fishery--this 
action proposes fishing year 2015 trip limits for the common pool 
fishery. We have the authority to set management measures for the 
common pool fishery that will help ensure the fishery achieves, but 
does not exceed, its catch limits.
    <bullet> Possible accountability measure for northern windowpane 
flounder--this action announces the possibility that an accountability 
measure for northern windowpane flounder could be implemented for 
fishing year 2015 if the fishing year 2014 catch limit for this stock 
is exceeded. We are announcing this to provide as much notice as 
possible to groundfish vessels that would be affected by these 
measures, if implemented, in 2015.
    <bullet> Other regulatory corrections--we propose several revisions 
to the regulations to correct references, remove unnecessary text, and 
make other minor edits. Each proposed correction is described in the 
section ``10. Regulatory Corrections Under Regional Administrator 
Authority.''

2. Status Determination Criteria

    The Northeast Fisheries Science Center conducted stock assessments 
in 2014 for GOM cod, GOM haddock, GOM winter flounder, GB yellowtail 
flounder, GB winter flounder, and pollock. In response to these 
assessments, this action proposes to revise status determination 
criteria, as necessary, and provide updated numerical estimates of 
these criteria, in order to incorporate the results of the most recent 
stock assessments. Table 1 provides the updated numerical estimates of 
the status determination criteria, and Table 2 summarizes changes in 
stock status based on the new stock assessments conducted in 2014.
    Updated stock status information is provided in this rule for all 
of the stocks that had a new assessment in 2014. However, only the 
status determination criteria for GB yellowtail flounder is proposed to 
change relative to the status determination criteria currently 
specified in the FMP. As described in more detail below, status 
determination relative to reference points is no longer possible for GB 
yellowtail flounder, and is proposed to be unknown.

                          Table 1--Numerical Estimates of Status Determination Criteria
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Biomass target
                     Stock                         SSBMSY or        Maximum fishing mortality        MSY (mt)
                                                  Proxy (mt)        threshold (FMSY or Proxy)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    M = 0.2 Model.............................          47,184  0.18............................           7,753

[[Page 12396]]

 
GOM Cod:
    Mramp Model...............................          69,621  0.18............................          11,388
GOM Haddock...................................           4,108  0.46............................             955
GOM Winter Flounder...........................             n/a  0.23 exploitation rate..........             n/a
GB Yellowtail Flounder........................             n/a  n/a.............................             n/a
GB Winter Flounder............................           8,100  0.44............................           3,200
Pollock.......................................          76,900  0.42 (equivalent to F5	7 = 0.27)          14,800
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SSB = Spawning Stock Biomass; MSY = Maximum Sustainable Yield; F = Fishing Mortality; M = Natural Mortality
Note. An explanation of the two assessment models for GOM cod is provided in the section ``4. Fishing Years 2015-
  2017 Catch Limits.''


                                   Table 2--Summary of Changes to Stock Status
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Previous assessment                       2014 Assessment
              Stock              -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Overfishing?         Overfished?        Overfishing?         Overfished?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GOM Cod.........................  Yes...............  Yes...............  Yes...............  Yes
GOM Haddock.....................  Yes...............  No \1\............  No................  No
GOM Winter Flounder.............  No................  Unknown...........  No................  Unknown
GB Yellowtail Flounder..........  Yes...............  Yes...............  Unknown...........  Unknown
GB Winter Flounder..............  No................  No................  No................  No
Pollock.........................  No................  No................  No................  No
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Stock was approaching an overfished condition.

Georges Bank Yellowtail Flounder Status Determination Criteria

    GB yellowtail flounder is jointly managed with Canada, and the 
Transboundary Resources Assessment Committee (TRAC) conducts an annual 
assessment of this stock. In recent years, there has been a strong 
retrospective pattern in the approved assessment model for GB 
yellowtail flounder. This retrospective pattern causes the model to 
overestimate stock biomass and underestimate fishing mortality. Recent 
stock assessments for GB yellowtail flounder have been unable to 
determine the cause of the retrospective pattern. Additionally, 
attempts to address the retrospective pattern in the existing 
assessment model were only temporarily successful, and the magnitude of 
the retrospective pattern has increased in recent years.
    In July 2013, a World Conference on Stock Assessment Methods, 
hosted by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, 
explored alternative assessment models for GB yellowtail flounder that 
may address the retrospective pattern. However, the workshop was not 
able to provide any alternative modeling solutions. Instead, the 
workshop concluded that the poor performance of the assessment model 
was likely due to issues in the underlying data. As a result, the TRAC 
conducted a diagnostic benchmark assessment in April 2014. This 
diagnostic benchmark was intended to further explore possible causes of 
the model's poor performance through examination of all of the 
available data sources, as well as to develop a method for providing 
catch advice that does not rely on an analytical assessment model 
(i.e., an empirical approach).
    During the subsequent annual TRAC assessment in June 2014, the TRAC 
agreed to no longer use the assessment model for GB yellowtail flounder 
to evaluate stock status or provide catch advice. This decision was 
based on the poor performance of the assessment model in recent years, 
conclusions from the April 2014 diagnostic benchmark, as well as 
inconsistencies in the underlying data. As a replacement for the 
assessment model, the TRAC agreed to use the empirical approach 
developed at the diagnostic benchmark as the basis for providing 
management advice. This empirical approach does not provide historical 
estimates of biomass, fishing mortality rates, or recruitment 
estimates. As a result, the TRAC concluded that status determination 
relative to reference points is not possible because reference points 
cannot be defined. Additional details on recent GB yellowtail flounder 
assessments, including the 2014 diagnostic benchmark, can be found at: 
http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/saw/trac/.
    Although status determination relative to reference points is 
unknown, the best scientific information available indicates that GB 
yellowtail flounder stock status is poor. The changes to the status 
determination criteria that are proposed in this action do not affect 
the rebuilding plan for this stock, which has an end date of 2032. 
Although biomass estimates are not currently available, to ensure that 
rebuilding progress is made, catch limits will continue to be set at 
levels at which the TRAC and the Council's Scientific and Statistical 
Committee (SSC) determine will prevent overfishing. Additionally, at 
whatever point the stock assessment for GB yellowtail flounder can 
provide numerical estimates of status determination criteria, those 
estimates will be used to evaluate progress towards the existing 
rebuilding targets.

3. Fishing Year 2015 U.S./Canada Quotas

Management of Transboundary Georges Bank Stocks

    Eastern GB cod, eastern GB haddock, and GB yellowtail flounder are 
jointly managed with Canada under the U.S./Canada Resource Sharing 
Understanding. Each year, the Transboundary Management Guidance 
Committee (TMGC), which is a government-industry committee made up of 
representatives from the United States and Canada, recommends a shared 
quota for each stock based on the most recent stock information and the 
TMGC's harvest strategy. The TMGC's harvest strategy for setting catch 
levels is to maintain a low to neutral risk (less

[[Page 12397]]

than 50 percent) of exceeding the fishing mortality limit for each 
stock. The harvest strategy also specifies that when stock conditions 
are poor, fishing mortality should be further reduced to promote stock 
rebuilding. The shared quotas are allocated between the United States 
and Canada based on a formula that considers historical catch (10-
percent weighting) and the current resource distribution (90-percent 
weighting).
    For GB yellowtail flounder, the SSC also recommends an acceptable 
biological catch (ABC) for the stock, which is typically used to inform 
the U.S. TMGC's discussions with Canada for the annual shared quota. 
Although the stock is jointly managed with Canada, and the TMGC 
recommends annual shared quotas, the United States may not set catch 
limits that would exceed the SSC's recommendation. The SSC does not 
recommend ABCs for eastern GB cod and haddock because they are 
management units of the total GB cod and haddock stocks. The SSC 
recommends overall ABCs for the total GB cod and haddock stocks. The 
shared U.S./Canada quota for eastern GB cod and haddock is accounted 
for in these overall ABCs, and must be consistent with the SSC's 
recommendation for the total GB stocks.

2015 U.S./Canada Quotas

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

 Table 3--Proposed Fishing Year 2015 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..............................................             650          37,000             354
U.S. Quota......................................................       124 (19%)    17,760 (48%)       248 (70%)
Canada Quota....................................................       526 (81%)    19,240 (52%)       106 (30%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed 2015 U.S. quotas for eastern GB cod and GB yellowtail 
flounder would be a 20-percent and 25-percent reduction, respectively, 
compared to 2014. These reductions are due to both recent biomass 
declines and small reductions in the amount of the shared quota that is 
allocated to the United States. The proposed U.S. quota for eastern GB 
haddock would be a 70-percent increase compared to 2014, which is a 
result of both increased stock biomass and an increase in the amount 
allocated to the United States. For a more detailed discussion of the 
TMGC's 2015 catch advice, see the TMGC's guidance document at: http://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/sustainable/species/multispecies/index.html. Additionally, the proposed 2015 catch limit 
for GB yellowtail flounder is discussed in more detail in the section 
``4. Fishing Years 2015-2017 Catch Limits.''
    The regulations implementing the U.S./Canada Resource Sharing 
Understanding require that any overages of the U.S. quota for eastern 
GB cod, eastern GB haddock, or GB yellowtail flounder be deducted from 
the U.S. quota in the following fishing year. If fishing year 2014 
catch information indicates that the U.S. fishery exceeded its quota 
for any of the shared stocks, we will reduce the respective U.S. quota 
for fishing year 2015 in a future management action, as close to May 1, 
2015, as possible. If any fishery that is allocated a portion of the 
U.S. quota exceeds its allocation, and causes an overage of the overall 
U.S. quota, the overage reduction would only be applied to that 
fishery's allocation in the following fishing year. This ensures that 
catch by one component of the fishery does not negatively affect 
another component of the fishery.

4. Fishing Years 2015-2017 Catch Limits

Summary of the Proposed Catch Limits

    The catch limits proposed in this action can be found in Tables 4 
through 11. A brief summary of how these catch limits were developed is 
provided below. More details on the proposed catch limits for each 
groundfish stock can be found in Appendix III to the Framework 53 
Environmental Assessment (see ADDRESSES for information on how to get 
this document).
    Framework 53 proposes to adopt fishing years 2015-2017 catch limits 
for GOM cod, GOM haddock, GOM winter flounder, GB winter flounder, GB 
yellowtail flounder (2015-2016 only), and pollock based on the 2014 
assessments for these stocks. In addition, this action proposes to 
update the 2015 catch limits for GB cod and haddock based on the 
proposed U.S./Canada quotas for the portions of these stocks managed 
jointly with Canada. For all other stocks, the overall catch limits 
included in this rule are the same as those previously adopted in 
Framework 50 and Framework 51, although small changes have been made to 
the distribution of these catch limits to the various components of the 
fishery.
    For a number of stocks, the catch limits proposed in this action 
are substantially lower than the catch limits set for the 2014 fishing 
year. Compared to 2014, the proposed catch limits would be a 75-percent 
reduction for GOM cod, a 53-percent reduction for GOM winter flounder, 
and a 44-percent for GB winter flounder. The proposed GOM haddock catch 
limit would be a 114-percent increase compared to 2014, and the 
proposed pollock catch limit would be relatively similar to 2014. The 
GOM haddock and pollock catch limits could provide additional fishing 
opportunities for groundfish vessels to help mitigate some of the 
economic impacts of the catch limit reductions proposed for other key 
groundfish stocks. However, the proposed reductions are expected to be 
very restrictive for groundfish vessels, particularly small inshore 
vessels, which could minimize these benefits.
    There are no catch limits proposed for fishing years 2016 or 2017 
for most groundfish stocks. Stock assessment updates for all groundfish 
stocks are scheduled for September 2015, and, based on these assessment 
updates, catch limits will be set in a future action for fishing years 
2016-2018. Given the timing of the stock assessments, the management 
action for the 2016 fishing year is not expected to be completed by the 
start of the fishing year. As a result, this action proposes default 
catch limits that would be implemented on May 1,

[[Page 12398]]

2016, to help prevent disruption to the fishery (see the section ``6. 
Default Catch Limits'').

Overfishing Limits and Acceptable Biological Catches

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

         Table 4--Proposed Fishing Years 2015-2017 Overfishing Limits and Acceptable Biological Catches
                                                [mt, live weight]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               2015                  2016                  2017
                Stock                 -----------------------------------------------------------------
                                          OFL      U.S. ABC     OFL      U.S. ABC     OFL      U.S. ABC
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GB Cod...............................      4,191      1,980  .........  .........  .........  .........
GOM Cod..............................        514        386        514        386        514        386
GB Haddock...........................     56,293     24,366  .........  .........  .........  .........
GOM Haddock..........................      1,871      1,454      2,270      1,772      2,707      2,125
GB Yellowtail Flounder...............  .........        248  .........        354  .........  .........
SNE/MA Yellowtail Flounder...........      1,056        700  .........  .........  .........  .........
CC/GOM Yellowtail Flounder...........      1,194        548  .........  .........  .........  .........
American Plaice......................      2,021      1,544  .........  .........  .........  .........
Witch Flounder.......................      1,846        783  .........  .........  .........  .........
GB Winter Flounder...................      3,242      2,010      3,383      2,107      3,511      2,180
GOM Winter Flounder..................        688        510        688        510        688        510
SNE/MA Winter Flounder...............      4,439      1,676  .........  .........  .........  .........
Redfish..............................     16,845     11,974  .........  .........  .........  .........
White Hake...........................      6,237      4,713      6,314      4,645  .........  .........
Pollock..............................     21,538     16,600     21,864     16,600     24,598     16,600
N. Windowpane Flounder...............        202        151  .........  .........  .........  .........
S. Windowpane Flounder...............        730        548  .........  .........  .........  .........
Ocean Pout...........................        313        235  .........  .........  .........  .........
Atlantic Halibut.....................        198        100  .........  .........  .........  .........
Atlantic Wolffish....................         94         70  .........  .........  .........  .........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SNE/MA = Southern New England/Mid-Atlantic; 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.

Gulf of Maine Cod

Assessment Summary and Catch Projections
    A stock assessment update for GOM cod was completed in 2014. This 
assessment was an update of the existing 2012 benchmark assessment, 
which approved two assessment models for GOM cod. One assessment model 
(base case model) assumes that natural mortality is 0.2. The second 
assessment model (M<INF>ramp</INF> model) assumes that natural 
mortality has increased from 0.2 to 0.4 in recent years, although the 
2012 benchmark assessment did not conclude that natural mortality would 
remain at 0.4 indefinitely. As a result, biological reference points 
for GOM cod are based on a natural mortality assumption of 0.2. Under 
both assessment models, GOM cod is overfished and overfishing is 
occurring. There was a retrospective pattern in both the 2012 benchmark 
assessment and the 2014 assessment update, although it was not large 
enough to warrant making any specific adjustment to address this bias. 
The 2014 assessment results indicated that the 2012 benchmark 
overestimated spawning stock biomass and underestimated fishing 
mortality. Detailed summaries of the 2012 benchmark assessment and the 
2014 assessment update are available from the Northeast Fisheries 
Science Center at: http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/saw/reports.html and 
http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/crd/crd1414/, respectively.
    Based on the two stock assessment models, there are three different 
catch projections that were considered for providing catch advice:
    1. Natural mortality is 0.2 (base case model);
    2. Natural mortality increased to 0.4, but returns to 0.2 in 2014 
(M<INF>ramp</INF> model); and
    3. Natural mortality increased to 0.4, and will remain 0.4 for the 
remainder of the rebuilding program for GOM cod (2024) 
(M<INF>ramp</INF> model).
    The first two catch projections indicate that rebuilding is 
possible under catch limits that are consistent with the fishing 
mortality rate required to rebuild the stock by the rebuilding end date 
of 2024 (F<INF>rebuild</INF>). However, the remaining projection from 
the M<INF>ramp</INF> model suggests that rebuilding to the current 
biological reference points is not possible if natural mortality 
remains at 0.4. Natural mortality would have to return to 0.2 by 2016 
in order for the stock to rebuild by 2024. There are some 
inconsistencies between this catch projection, which assumes natural 
mortality remains at 0.4, and the existing reference points, which are 
based on a natural mortality rate of 0.2. There are also several 
sources of uncertainties around the natural mortality rate that are 
important to note when evaluating the available catch projections. All 
of these uncertainties were discussed in detail in the available

[[Page 12399]]

reports from the stock assessment, the Council's Groundfish Plan 
Development Team, and the SSC, but a brief summary is provided below.
    First, there are uncertainties around whether the natural mortality 
rate has actually increased to 0.4. Both the 2012 benchmark assessment 
and the SSC's peer review of the 2014 assessment update noted that no 
definitive or conclusive evidence has been presented to support the 
assumption that natural mortality has increased. One motivation for 
applying an increased natural mortality rate was to try to reduce the 
retrospective pattern in the assessment model. The 2012 benchmark 
assessment also concluded that, because the retrospective pattern was 
worse in the assessment model that assumed a natural mortality of 0.2, 
the increased natural mortality rate of 0.4 could be partially 
disguising unaccounted fishing mortality. Despite these uncertainties, 
no peer review body has concluded that either natural mortality 
scenario is more plausible than the other. As a result, both assessment 
models were advanced for providing management advice.
    Second, if natural mortality has increased to 0.4, there is 
uncertainty around when, and if, it would return to 0.2. The 2012 
benchmark assessment concluded that if natural mortality has increased 
in recent years, it is unlikely to be a permanent change. However, in 
subsequent SSC meetings, some SSC members noted that it is unlikely the 
natural mortality rate would suddenly return to the lower rate, 
particularly coincident with the end of the assessment time series.
    Because the 2012 benchmark assessment did not conclude that natural 
mortality would remain at 0.4 indefinitely, the biological reference 
points currently specified in the FMP assume a natural mortality rate 
of 0.2. However, given the uncertainties around the natural mortality 
rate, the SSC has had considerable discussion about the implications of 
an increased natural mortality rate on the biological reference points 
for GOM cod. The SSC debated whether the biomass target 
(B<INF>MSY</INF>) should be lowered under a scenario where natural 
mortality has increased, and, if so, whether the maximum fishing 
mortality threshold (F<INF>MSY</INF>) should be increased. Ultimately, 
the SSC was not able to reach agreement on the appropriate response for 
estimating B<INF>MSY</INF> and F<INF>MSY</INF> under a scenario when 
natural mortality has increased. In addition, although the SSC 
discussed the various scenarios and implications for biological 
reference points, it concluded that any deviation from the biological 
reference points established at the 2012 benchmark assessment would not 
be appropriate outside of the benchmark assessment process.
Gulf of Maine Cod Catch Advice
    The SSC recommended an OFL of 514 mt for fishing years 2015-2017, 
which was calculated by averaging the 2015 catches at F<INF>MSY</INF> 
from the three catch projections. The SSC recommended a 3-year constant 
OFL to help offset some of the uncertainties in the catch projections. 
Thus, for 2016 and 2017, the recommended OFL is increasingly further 
below the catch at F<INF>MSY</INF> that is indicated from the catch 
projections. In support of its OFL recommendation, the SSC also noted 
that it used the results from each of the catch projections because all 
of the various natural mortality scenarios were plausible.
    The SSC initially recommended a provisional ABC of 200 mt for 
fishing years 2015-2017. This recommendation was based on the 
F<INF>rebuild</INF> approach that is specified by the default ABC 
control rule. An ABC of 200 mt was the midpoint between the 
F<INF>rebuild</INF> catch for the scenario in which natural mortality 
is 0.2 and the scenario in which natural mortality increases, but 
returns to 0.2. This provisional ABC recommendation did not include the 
F<INF>rebuild</INF> catch for the projection that assumes natural 
mortality remains at 0.4, and that suggests rebuilding is not possible. 
This catch projection was not included in the ABC alternatives that the 
Groundfish Plan Development Team initially presented to the SSC because 
it was not considered to be consistent with the existing biological 
reference points, which assume a natural mortality rate of 0.2.
    During the development of the provisional ABC recommendation of 200 
mt, there was considerable discussion on the rebuilding potential for 
GOM cod. Although two of the catch projections indicate that rebuilding 
could occur, both the Groundfish Plan Development Team and the SSC 
noted concerns for the prospects of rebuilding GOM cod within the 10 
year timeframe. The projections that indicate rebuilding can occur by 
2024 require steady, sustained stock growth (approximately 40 percent 
growth each year). However, both technical bodies noted that these 
growth rates have rarely been observed, and that it seems unlikely this 
growth would occur.
    The default ABC control rule specifies that, if a stock cannot 
rebuild in the specified rebuilding period, even with no fishing, the 
ABC should be based on incidental bycatch, including a reduction in the 
bycatch rate. Thus, given the available catch projections, 
uncertainties around the natural mortality rate, and past performance 
of catch projections, the SSC considered incidental bycatch information 
to help develop its final ABC recommendation. Based on analysis 
presented by the Groundfish Plan Development Team, the SSC determined 
that the overall incidental catch of GOM cod was approximately 500-600 
mt under the current operating conditions of the fishery.
    After consideration of incidental bycatch information, and given 
the noted uncertainties, the SSC recommended an ABC of 386 mt, which 
was calculated by taking 75 percent of the OFL. The SSC noted that its 
ABC recommendation was well below the OFL. Updated catch projections 
indicate that, if catch equals the proposed ABC of 386 mt in 2015, the 
probability of overfishing would range from 6 percent to 33 percent. 
Additionally, the SSC's recommendation is above the ABC associated with 
F<INF>rebuild</INF>, but below the average of the ABCs at 75 percent of 
F<INF>MSY</INF> for the three catch projections (405 mt). The SSC noted 
that an ABC of 386 mt would not compromise the ability of the stock to 
rebuild, and that catch projections still indicate a biomass increase 
under this scenario.
    To help offset some of the uncertainty in catch projections, the 
SSC recommended a constant catch for the next 3 years. However, the SSC 
noted that the September 2015 stock assessment update for GOM cod will 
provide the opportunity to update its recommendation for the 2016 
fishing year. Although not repeated in its report for this action, 
during the development of catch limits for 2013-2015, the SSC did note 
that presenting two models for GOM cod helped to better understand the 
nature and extent of scientific uncertainty. As discussed in this rule, 
presenting two assessment models does introduce difficulties in 
developing catch advice. However, overall, the SSC's final 
recommendation was an attempt to balance the various catch projections, 
natural mortality scenarios, and uncertainties in the assessment 
information with the various provisions of the control rule. Further, 
although the proposed ABC is not based on an F<INF>rebuild</INF> 
approach, the FMP and National Standard 1 give deference to the SSC to 
recommend ABCs that are departures from the established control rules. 
In such situations, the SSC must use the best scientific information 
available and provide amble justification on why the control rule is 
not the best approach for the particular circumstances.

[[Page 12400]]

NMFS Concerns on Gulf of Maine Cod Catch Limit

    We have several concerns for the proposed ABC that are highlighted 
below. We are requesting specific comment on these concerns, 
particularly on how the proposed ABC would sufficiently offset the 
noted uncertainties and effectively control fishing mortality.
    Due to several sources of uncertainty, groundfish catch projections 
tend to be overly optimistic and routinely overestimate stock growth 
and underestimate fishing mortality. As a result, for a number of 
groundfish stocks, even catches that were substantially lower than the 
projected catch resulted in fishing mortality rates that did not meet 
the intended targets. A number of PDT reports and assessment documents 
note this past performance, and that this performance should be taken 
into account when setting ABCs.
    The 2014 assessment results for GOM cod indicate that, in each year 
of the previous rebuilding plan (2004-2013), fishing mortality exceeded 
the target rate. Thus, past performance indicates that projected catch 
does not result in the desired fishing mortality and stock growth does 
not occur as expected. Additionally, there was a retrospective error in 
the assessment model for both the 2012 benchmark assessment and the 
2014 assessment update. If this retrospective pattern continues, then 
the catch projections could be overly optimistic and their starting 
assumptions (e.g., current stock biomass) could be wrong. When 
considering performance of the initial rebuilding program for GOM cod 
and catch projections, effectively controlling fishing mortality is 
essential for rebuilding efforts.
    The SSC noted that an ABC of 386 mt is still well below the OFL to 
account for uncertainty. However, the buffer between the recommended 
OFL and ABC (25 percent) is relatively similar to the buffer that would 
occur under a typical scenario using 75 percent of F<INF>MSY</INF>. In 
addition, the recommended ABC of 386 mt is only slightly below the 
average ABC based on 75 percent of F<INF>MSY</INF> for the three catch 
projections (405 mt). In its justification for an ABC of 386 mt, the 
SSC also noted that this would be a substantial reduction (75 percent) 
from the status quo ABC of 1,550 mt. This substantial reduction is 
necessary based on the 2014 assessment results that indicated a catch 
of 1,550 mt could result in a fishing mortality rate that is five times 
the target rate. In light of the past performance for GOM cod, we are 
requesting specific comment on whether the proposed ABC would 
sufficiently offset the uncertainties and effectively control fishing 
mortality.
    As noted earlier, updated catch projections indicate rebuilding 
could occur by 2024 under an ABC of 386 mt. However, an ABC larger than 
F<INF>rebuild</INF> may necessitate lower ABCs later in the rebuilding 
timeline. Additionally, the SSC noted that an ABC of 386 mt would not 
compromise the stock's ability to rebuild based on the available catch 
projections. However, this aspect of the SSC's recommendation appears 
to differ from its conclusion that GOM cod seems unlikely to rebuild in 
10 years given existing stock conditions. This difference highlights an 
important difficulty in evaluating the proposed ABC. As discussed 
earlier, there is some uncertainty around the likelihood of rebuilding 
the stock within 10 years, which were noted by both the Groundfish Plan 
Development Team and the SSC. However, neither technical body concluded 
that these uncertainties represent a foregone conclusion that this 
stock, unequivocally, cannot rebuild by 2024. We are requesting 
specific comment on how the proposed ABC would likely affect stock 
rebuilding, particularly compared to an ABC based on an 
F<INF>rebuild</INF> approach.
    One factor that may help offset some of these concerns is that 
updated stock assessment information will be available in 2015, and in 
time to re-specify GOM cod catch limits for fishing year 2016. This 
updated information would also likely provide additional information on 
the rebuilding potential for GOM cod and the stock's response to recent 
catch limit reductions. Thus, although this action proposes a 3-year 
constant ABC, the catch limits adopted are expected to be in place for 
only 1 year. We also note that despite various uncertainties, no peer 
review body has concluded that any scenario is more plausible than 
another, and many of the uncertainties cannot be fully addressed until 
the next benchmark assessment is completed. Until then, catch limits 
for GOM cod must, to the extent possible, balance the two assessment 
models, various natural mortality assumptions, and other uncertainties 
in the available information. The proposed ABC appears to do this; 
however, we are requesting specific comments on whether the proposed 
ABC sufficiently incorporates all of the available information.
    Although not specifically mentioned in the SSC's recommendation, 
the proposed ABC is expected to have substantial economic impacts on 
groundfish vessels, which are summarized in the section ``Economic 
Impacts of the Proposed Measures'' later in this preamble. These 
impacts are expected to be disproportionately distributed among the 
groundfish fleet. The largest revenue reductions are expected for 
vessels less than 50 ft (15 m), and those fishing from Gloucester, MA, 
and New Hampshire ports. Given current stock conditions, and all of the 
noted uncertainties in the stock assessment information, the proposed 
ABC would likely mitigate economic impacts, as much as possible, 
compared to other ABC alternatives that the SSC reviewed.
    Due to the low catch limit proposed for GOM cod, we have some 
concerns regarding apportionment of catch and the incentive to 
misreport catch on unobserved trips. We noted these same concerns in 
our 2014 interim action for GOM cod. Additionally, this issue was 
discussed during the development of Framework 53, and is noted in 
various analyses prepared by the Council in support of this action. Due 
to these concerns, we are considering the possibility of additional 
reporting requirements (e.g., daily Vessel Monitoring System catch 
reports) for commercial groundfish vessels. We are not specifically 
proposing any additional requirements in this action; we are 
highlighting these concerns because they relate to the proposed 
specifications. We intend to further consult with the Council on this 
issue to explore whether additional reporting requirements could help 
address the noted concerns.

Annual Catch Limits

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

[[Page 12401]]

    Once the U.S. ABC is divided, sub-annual catch limits (sub-ACLs) 
are set by reducing the amount of the ABC distributed to each component 
of the fishery to account for management uncertainty. Management 
uncertainty is the likelihood that management measures will result in a 
level of catch greater than expected. For each stock and fishery 
component, management uncertainty is estimated using the following 
criteria: Enforceability and precision of management measures, adequacy 
of catch monitoring, latent effort, and catch of groundfish in non-
groundfish fisheries. The total ACL is the sum of all of the sub-ACLs 
and ACL sub-components, and is the catch limit for a particular year 
after accounting for both scientific and management uncertainty. 
Landings and discards from all fisheries (commercial and recreational 
groundfish fisheries, state waters, and non-groundfish fisheries) are 
counted against the ACL for each stock.
Sector and Common Pool Allocations
    For stocks allocated to sectors, the commercial groundfish sub-ACL 
is further divided into the non-sector (common pool) sub-ACL and the 
sector sub-ACL, based on the total vessel enrollment in sectors and the 
cumulative Potential Sector Contributions (PSCs) associated with those 
sectors. The preliminary sector and common pool sub-ACLs proposed in 
this action are based on fishing year 2015 PSCs and fishing year 2014 
sector rosters. 2015 sector rosters will not be finalized until May 1, 
2015, because individual permit holders have until the end of the 2014 
fishing year to drop out of a sector and fish in the common pool 
fishery for 2015. Therefore, it is possible that the sector and common 
pool catch limits proposed in this action may change due to changes in 
the sector rosters. If changes to the sector rosters occur, updated 
catch limits will be published as soon as possible in the 2015 fishing 
year to reflect the final sector rosters as of May 1, 2015. Sector 
specific allocations for each stock can be found in the proposed rule 
for 2015 Sector Operations Plans and Contracts.
Common Pool Total Allowable Catches
    The common pool sub-ACL for each stock (except for SNE/MA winter 
flounder, windowpane flounder, ocean pout, Atlantic wolffish, and 
Atlantic halibut) is further divided into trimester total allowable 
catches (TACs). The distribution of the common pool sub-ACLs into 
trimesters was adopted by Amendment 16 to the FMP and is based on 
recent landing patterns. Once we project that 90 percent of the 
trimester TAC is caught for a stock, the trimester TAC area for that 
stock is closed for the remainder of the trimester to all common pool 
vessels fishing with gear capable of catching the pertinent stock. Any 
uncaught portion of the TAC in Trimester 1 or Trimester 2 will be 
carried forward to the next trimester. Overages of the Trimester 1 or 
Trimester 2 TAC will be deducted from the Trimester 3 TAC. Any overages 
of the total common pool sub-ACL will be deducted from the following 
fishing year's common pool sub-ACL for that stock. Uncaught portions of 
the Trimester 3 TAC may not be carried over into the following fishing 
year. Table 8 summarizes the common pool trimester TACs proposed in 
this action.
    Incidental catch TACs are also specified for certain stocks of 
concern (i.e., stocks that are overfished or subject to overfishing) 
for common pool vessels fishing in the special management programs 
(i.e., special access programs (SAPs) and the Regular B Days-at-Sea 
(DAS) Program), in order to limit the catch of these stocks under each 
program. Tables 9 through 11 summarize the proposed Incidental Catch 
TACs for each stock and the distribution of these TACs to each special 
management program.
Closed Area I Hook Gear Haddock Special Access Program
    Overall fishing effort by both common pool and sector vessels in 
the Closed Area I Hook Gear Haddock SAP is controlled by an overall TAC 
for GB haddock, which is the target species for this SAP. The maximum 
amount of GB haddock that may be caught in any fishing year is based on 
the amount allocated to this SAP for the 2004 fishing year (1,130 mt), 
and adjusted according to the growth or decline of the western GB 
haddock biomass in relationship to its size in 2004. Based on this 
formula, the proposed GB Haddock TAC for this SAP is 2,448 mt for the 
2015 fishing year. Once this overall TAC is caught, the Closed Area I 
Hook Gear Haddock SAP will be closed to all groundfish vessels for the 
remainder of the fishing year.

                                                                        Table 5--Proposed Fishing Year 2015 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.......................................................        1,886        1,787        1,753           34  ............  ...........  ...........  ...........           20           79
GOM Cod......................................................          366          328          202            5           121  ...........  ...........  ...........           26           13
GB Haddock...................................................       23,204       21,759       21,603          156  ............          227  ...........  ...........          244          975
GOM Haddock..................................................        1,375        1,329          949            9           372           14  ...........  ...........           11           21
GB Yellowtail Flounder.......................................          240          195          192            3  ............  ...........           38            5           na            2
SNE/MA Yellowtail Flounder...................................          666          557          457          102  ............  ...........           66  ...........           14           28
CC/GOM Yellowtail Flounder...................................          524          458          442           16  ............  ...........  ...........  ...........           38           27
American Plaice..............................................        1,470        1,408        1,381           27  ............  ...........  ...........  ...........           31           31
Witch Flounder...............................................          751          610          598           12  ............  ...........  ...........  ...........           23          117
GB Winter Flounder...........................................        1,952        1,891        1,876           15  ............  ...........  ...........  ...........           na           60
GOM Winter Flounder..........................................          489          392          375           18  ............  ...........  ...........  ...........           87           10
SNE/MA Winter Flounder.......................................        1,607        1,306        1,149          157  ............  ...........  ...........  ...........          117          184
Redfish......................................................       11,393       11,034       10,974           60  ............  ...........  ...........  ...........          120          239
White Hake...................................................        4,484        4,343        4,311           32  ............  ...........  ...........  ...........           47           94
Pollock......................................................       15,878       13,720       13,628           92  ............  ...........  ...........  ...........          996        1,162
N. Windowpane Flounder.......................................          144           98           na           98  ............  ...........  ...........  ...........            2           44

[[Page 12402]]

 
S. Windowpane Flounder.......................................          527          102           na          102  ............  ...........          183  ...........           55          186
Ocean Pout...................................................          220          195           na          195  ............  ...........  ...........  ...........            2           24
Atlantic Halibut.............................................           97           64           na           64  ............  ...........  ...........  ...........           30            3
Atlantic Wolffish............................................           65           62           na           62  ............  ...........  ...........  ...........            1            3
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                                        Table 6--Proposed 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GOM Cod......................................................          366          328          202            5           121  ...........  ...........  ...........           26           13
GOM Haddock..................................................        1,675        1,620        1,155           12           453           16  ...........  ...........           13           26
GB Yellowtail Flounder.......................................          343          278          274            4  ............  ...........           55            7           na            4
GB Winter Flounder...........................................        2,046        1,982        1,967           15  ............  ...........  ...........  ...........           na           63
GOM Winter Flounder..........................................          489          392          375           18  ............  ...........  ...........  ...........           87           10
White Hake...................................................        4,420        4,280        4,249           31  ............  ...........  ...........  ...........           46           93
Pollock......................................................       15,878       13,720       13,628           92  ............  ...........  ...........  ...........          996        1,162
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                                        Table 7--Proposed Fishing Year 2017 Catch Limits
                                                                                        [mt, live weight]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                       Total
                              Stock                                  Total ACL      groundfish      Preliminary     Preliminary    Recreational   Midwater trawl   State waters     Other sub-
                                                                                      fishery         sector        common pool       fishery         fishery      sub-component     component
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GOM Cod.........................................................             366             328             202               5             121  ..............              26              13
GOM Haddock.....................................................           2,009           1,943           1,386              14             543              20              15              31
GB Winter Flounder..............................................           2,117           2,051           2,035              16  ..............  ..............              na              65
GOM Winter Flounder.............................................             489             392             375              18  ..............  ..............              87              10
Pollock.........................................................          15,878          13,720          13,628              92  ..............  ..............             996           1,162
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                          Table 8--Proposed Fishing Years 2015-2017 Common Pool Trimester TACs
                                                                    [mt, live weight]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    2015                                     2016                                   2017
              Stock              -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Trimester 1   Trimester 2   Trimester 3  Trimester 1  Trimester 2  Trimester 3  Trimester 1  Trimester 2  Trimester 3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GB Cod..........................          8.6          12.7          13.1
GOM Cod.........................          1.3           1.7           1.8           1.3          1.7          1.8          1.3          1.7          1.8
GB Haddock......................         42.0          51.3          62.2
GOM Haddock.....................          2.56          2.47          4.46          3.1          3.0          5.4          3.7          3.6          6.5
GB Yellowtail Flounder..........          0.6           0.9           1.6           0.9          1.4          2.3
SNE/MA Yellowtail Flounder......         21.4          37.7          42.8
CC/GOM Yellowtail Flounder......          5.5           5.5           4.7
American Plaice.................          6.6           9.9          11.0
Witch Flounder..................          3.4           3.8           5.2
GB Winter Flounder..............          1.2           3.5          10.1           1.2          3.7         10.5          1.3          3.8         10.9
GOM Winter Flounder.............          6.5           6.6           4.4           6.5          6.6          4.4          6.5          6.6          4.4
Redfish.........................         14.9          18.5          26.2
White Hake......................         12.0           9.8           9.8          11.9          9.7          9.7
Pollock.........................         25.7          32.1          33.9          25.7         32.1         33.9         25.7         32.1         33.9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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--Proposed Common Pool Incidental Catch TACs for Fishing Years 2015-2016
                                                [mt, live weight]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Percentage of
                              Stock                                 common pool        2015            2016
                                                                      sub-ACL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GB Cod..........................................................               2            0.69              na
GOM Cod.........................................................               1            0.05            0.05
GB Yellowtail Flounder..........................................               2            0.06            0.09
CC/GOM Yellowtail Flounder......................................               1            0.16              na

[[Page 12403]]

 
American Plaice.................................................               5            1.37              na
Witch Flounder..................................................               5            0.62              na
SNE/MA Winter Flounder..........................................               1            1.57              na
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


          Table 10--Percentage of Incidental Catch TACs Distributed to Each Special Management Program
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Closed area I
                              Stock                                Regular B DAS     hook gear     Eastern US/CA
                                                                      program       haddock SAP     haddock SAP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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--Proposed Fishing Years 2015-2016 Incidental Catch TACs for Each Special Management Program
                                                                    [mt, live weight]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Regular B DAS program          Closed area I hook gear       Eastern U.S./Canada haddock
                                                         --------------------------------           haddock SAP                         SAP
                          Stock                                                          ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               2015            2016            2015            2016            2015            2016
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GB Cod..................................................            0.34              na            0.11              na            0.23              na
GOM Cod.................................................            0.05            0.05
GB Yellowtail Flounder..................................            0.03            0.05  ..............  ..............            0.03            0.05
CC/GOM Yellowtail Flounder..............................            0.16              na
American Plaice.........................................            1.37              na
Witch Flounder..........................................            0.62              na
SNE/MA Winter Flounder..................................            1.57              na
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Gulf of Maine Cod Protection Measures

    This action proposes to re-configure the GOM rolling closures and 
prohibit possession of GOM cod for the recreational fishery. A summary 
of the proposed changes to the GOM rolling closures is provided in 
Table 12. This action would add closures in the winter (November-
January), May, and June, and would remove all closures in April, and 
one closure in June. Additionally, this action proposes to remove a 
number of other rolling closures, although sector vessels have been 
exempt from these areas since 2010.
    These closures would apply to all commercial vessels, except for 
commercial vessels that are fishing with exempted gear, as defined in 
Sec.  648.2, or in an exempted fishery. Exempted gear is deemed to be 
not capable of catching groundfish and currently includes: Pelagic hook 
and line, pelagic longline, spears, rakes, diving gear, cast nets, 
tongs, harpoons, weirs, dipnets, stop nets, pound nets, pelagic 
gillnets, pots and traps, shrimp trawls (with a properly configured 
grate), and surfclam and ocean quahog dredges. Based on the current 
list of approved exempted fisheries defined in Sec.  648.80, the 
proposed protection closures would not apply to vessels fishing in the 
Midwater Trawl Gear Exempted Fishery, the Purse Seine Gear Exempted 
Fishery, the Raised Footrope Trawl Exempted Whiting Fishery, the Small 
Mesh Area II Exemption Area, or the Scallop Dredge Exemption Area. As 
adopted in Amendment 16 to the FMP, sector vessels would continue to be 
exempt from the closures in March and October. The March and October 
closures would also not apply to Handgear A vessels, regardless of 
whether the vessel was fishing in the common pool or in a sector.
    The proposed GOM cod closures are intended to protect spawning GOM 
cod, reduce fishing mortality on GOM cod, and provide additional 
fishing opportunities for groundfish vessels to target healthy 
groundfish stocks. These closures are an additional tool the Council is 
using to protect GOM cod, and are complementary to its requirement for 
setting catch limits that will prevent overfishing and help rebuild the 
stock. Based on the available information, and as noted in the 
Council's analysis, protecting spawning GOM cod could help improve the 
chances of successful spawning events, and, as a result, help prevent 
failures of future year classes. Ultimately, the biological objectives 
of these closures are intended to help prevent further biomass declines 
and improve the likelihood of rebuilding GOM cod. As part of the 
proposed measure, the Council also adopted a provision that the 
closures would be subject to review when the GOM cod spawning stock 
biomass reaches the minimum biomass threshold (50 percent of 
SSB<INF>MSY</INF>).

[[Page 12404]]



    Table 12--Proposed Re-Configuration of the Gulf of Maine Rolling
                                Closures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Current GOM rolling    Proposed GOM cod
            Month                 closures \1\       protection closures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
May.........................  All Vessels: 132,     All Vessels: 125
                               133, 138, 139, 140.   north of
                                                     42[deg]20', 132,
                                                     133, 138, 139, 140.
                              Non-Sector Vessels:
                               124, 125, 129, 130,
                               131, 136, 137, 138.
June........................  All Vessels: 139,     All Vessels: 125
                               140, 145, 146, 147.   north of
                                                     42[deg]20', 132,
                                                     139, 140, 146, 147.
                              Non-Sector Vessels:
                               132, 133, 142, 143,
                               144.
July........................  None................  None.
August......................  None................  None.
September...................  None................  None.
October.....................  Non-Sector Vessels:   Non-Sector Vessels:
                               124, 125.             124, 125.
November....................  Non-Sector Vessels:   All Vessels: Portion
                               124, 125.             of 124, 125.
December....................  None................  All Vessels: Portion
                                                     of 124, 125.
January.....................  None................  All Vessels: Portion
                                                     of 124, 125.
February....................  None................  None.
March.......................  Non-Sector Vessels:   Non-Sector Vessels:
                               121, 122, 123.        121, 122, 123.
April.......................  All Vessels: 124,     None.
                               125, 132, 133.
                              Non-Sector Vessels:
                               121, 122, 123, 129,
                               130, 131.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This table includes the current rolling closures implemented in the
  FMP; it does not incorporate area closures that NMFS implemented for
  2014 under emergency authority.
Note. Handgear A vessels are exempt from the same closures as sector
  vessels.

    Recreational vessels would not be subject to the GOM cod protection 
closures, and could continue to fish in these areas. Instead, this 
action proposes to prohibit possession of GOM cod for all private and 
party/charter recreational vessels. This is intended to provide 
recreational vessels the opportunity to target other healthy groundfish 
stocks, while reducing the incentive to target GOM cod in order to 
reduce fishing mortality on this stock by the recreational fishery. 
Recent catch projections indicate that the recreational fishery would 
still exceed its allocation for GOM cod in the 2015 fishing year due to 
bycatch, even with the prohibition on possession that is proposed in 
this action. Therefore, in a separate rulemaking, we will implement 
additional recreational measures under our discretionary authority to 
implement proactive accountability measures to help ensure the 
recreational fishery does not exceed its allocation in 2015.
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P

[[Page 12405]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09MR15.005

BILLING CODE 3510-22-C

Summary of NMFS Concerns on Gulf of Maine Cod Protection Measures

    We have some concerns for the proposed re-configuration of the GOM 
area closures. First, the supporting analysis prepared by the Council 
for this action indicates that the added closures in May and June may 
provide little additional benefit because little fishing activity has 
typically occurred in these times and areas. Additionally, the areas 
proposed to be open in April are historically important areas for 
spawning cod, and some information indicates the core of the GOM cod 
stock is concentrated in these areas. The analysis indicates that 
removing April

[[Page 12406]]

closures could allow fishing effort to shift into areas of high cod 
concentration when vessels are targeting other stocks, like GOM 
haddock. Given the expected low GOM cod allocation, it is difficult to 
predict how groundfish vessels will operate in 2015, and any potential 
effort shifts may be minimal with such a restrictive GOM cod catch 
limit. However, if the removal of the April rolling closures does 
result in an effort shift into areas of high cod concentration, 
benefits from additional winter closures could be diminished if fishing 
mortality increases in April.
    The current April rolling closures provide some secondary benefits 
for other groundfish stocks that spawn in the spring. Framework 53 
analysis indicates that removing April closures would provide less 
spawning protection for GOM winter flounder, CC/GOM yellowtail 
flounder, plaice, and GOM haddock. Although this spawning protection is 
a secondary benefit of the current April closures, the expected impact 
should be considered carefully. For a number of these stocks, the most 
recent stock assessment information indicates biomass declines. Also 
important to note is that, in 2014, we implemented the second 10-year 
rebuilding program for plaice due to inadequate rebuilding progress.
    The Council's analysis also summarizes some of the available 
research on GOM cod spawning. This information indicates that fishing 
on spawning cod may affect spawning activity beyond just the removal of 
fish. Fishing activity may disrupt spawning signals, and, as a result, 
can reduce spawning success. In addition, because spawning fish are 
stressed, these fish may be less likely to survive capture and release 
than under normal conditions, or may have reduced egg production 
following release. Considering all of this supporting information, 
allowing exempted fisheries and recreational vessels in these 
protection closures could diminish the additional spawning protection 
that these closures are intended to provide.
    Based on all of these considerations, we are concerned that the 
proposed protection closures may not fully meet the Council's intended 
objectives. The Council initially identified enhancing spawning 
protection as a goal for the Omnibus Habitat Amendment 2. However, 
because this amendment was not anticipated to be completed quickly 
enough, and due to concern for the low GOM cod stock size, the Council 
prioritized GOM cod spawning protection for Framework 53. During the 
development of Framework 53, the Council identified additional 
objectives for the GOM area closures beyond just spawning protection. 
However, complete analysis of the impacts of the proposed protection 
closures was not available when the Council took final action on 
Framework 53. As a result, it may have been difficult for the Council 
to evaluate the likelihood that the proposed measures would meet its 
intended objectives. Because much of the supporting analysis was not 
available when the Council adopted the proposed protection closures, we 
are requesting specific comments on the extent to which the proposed 
closures would fully meet all of the Council's stated objectives, as 
well as the biological tradeoffs related to the proposed changes to the 
GOM area closures for winter (November-January) and April.
    Although we have some concerns, largely for the removal of April 
closures, this action would provide important spawning protection 
during the winter, which the status quo measures do not provide. The 
Council's analysis indicates that the proposed changes would protect an 
additional 35 percent of the winter spawning biomass and 8 percent less 
of the spring spawning biomass. Available information does not indicate 
whether the winter or spring spawning biomass is more important 
relative to overall contribution to cod recruitment. However, some 
analysis indicates that the winter spawning component may be much 
smaller than the spring component, although the reasons for this are 
unknown. The available GOM cod spawning research suggests that once a 
specific spawning aggregation is lost, there is little indication that 
the aggregation could recolonize. As a result, the proposed winter 
closures could provide essential protection for the winter component, 
and help prevent further depletion of this component. At least in the 
short-term, the addition of winter closures proposed in this action 
appears to be more beneficial than the status quo measures.
    Further, the economic impacts analysis of the proposed closures 
indicates that these measures may provide some additional economic 
opportunities compared to the existing rolling closures. Although the 
analysis indicates that the economic benefits may be small, we 
recognize that, given the low catch limits for many groundfish stocks, 
even small increases in fishing opportunities are meaningful. This is 
particularly true for small vessels and the ports that would be most 
impacted by this action, and the proposed closures could help increase 
the viability of some inshore vessels. As noted in the analysis, it is 
difficult to quantify the economic impacts of the proposed protection 
closures. As a result, we are requesting specific comment on these 
anticipated impacts, including the economic trade-offs that would occur 
under the proposal to close new areas in the winter and open previously 
closed areas in April.
    The proposed protection measures include a provision that the 
closures would be subject to review once the minimum biomass threshold 
for GOM cod is met. However, the Council could review and modify these 
closures at any time. For all of the reasons mentioned above, 
protecting spawning aggregations is one way to help prevent further 
biomass declines and improve the likelihood of rebuilding GOM cod. 
Given the poor status of GOM cod, and the possibility of additional 
research on GOM cod spawning, reviewing these closures as additional 
stock information becomes available is likely more important than 
waiting for the minimum biomass threshold to be met.
    Assessment updates for all 20 groundfish stocks are scheduled for 
September 2015. If the results of the next GOM cod assessment indicate 
the stock has declined further, then additional action may be 
warranted. The Council would likely need to review the GOM cod 
protection measures, and any updated stock information, and consider 
expanding protection closures, particularly for the month of April, or 
other areas of high cod concentration.

6. Default Catch Limits

Mechanism for Setting Default Catch Limits

    This action proposes to establish a mechanism for setting default 
catch limits in the event a future management action is delayed. If 
final catch limits have not been implemented by the start of the 
fishing year on May 1, then default catch limits would be implemented. 
The default catch limits would be set at 35 percent of the previous 
year's catch limit, as long as this value does not exceed the Council's 
recommendation for the upcoming fishing year. If this value exceeds the 
Council's recommendation, the default catch limits would be reduced to 
an amount equal to the Council's recommendation for the upcoming 
fishing year.
    The default catch limits would be in place from May 1 through July 
31, unless a final rule including permanent catch limits is implemented 
prior to July 31 that replaces the default catch limits. If final catch 
limits are not implemented

[[Page 12407]]

by the end of the default specifications period, then no catch limits 
would be in place beginning on August 1. Under this scenario, 
commercial groundfish vessels would be unable to fish until final catch 
limits and allocations were implemented for the fishing year. All catch 
occurring while default catch limits are in place would be attributed 
to the appropriate fishery allocation and the final catch limits for 
the fishing year.
    The default catch limits would be distributed to the various 
components of the fishery based on the distribution adopted by the 
Council for the previous fishing year. Additionally, this proposed 
measure would not change any of the existing accountability measures 
for any fishery. For example, if a sector catches its entire allocation 
of redfish specified for the default specifications time period, it 
would be prohibited from fishing in the redfish stock area until final 
specifications were set, or it received additional allocation for this 
stock. The midwater trawl fishery is the only non-groundfish fishery 
with an inseason accountability measure for its allocation of GOM and 
GB haddock. When the GOM or GB haddock catch cap specified for the 
default specifications period is caught, the directed herring fishery 
would be closed for all herring vessels fishing with midwater trawl 
gear for the remainder of the default specifications time period, 
unless final specifications were set prior to July 31. For other non-
groundfish fisheries that receive an allocation (e.g., scallop, small-
mesh), this proposed measure would not affect current operations 
because these fisheries do not have inseason accountability measures.
    If default catch limits are implemented for any fishing year, 
groundfish sectors would not be subject to the 20 percent holdback of 
the prior year's allocation. This holdback provision was implemented in 
Amendment 16 to the FMP to allow time for processing end-of-year 
transfers and determine whether any overage reductions are necessary. 
However, the holdback provision would not be necessary under default 
catch limits because additional precaution has already been built in 
with the 65-percent reduction from the previous year's catch limits.
    Although most FMPs implement default catch limits that are equal to 
the previous year's catch limits, a more precautionary approach is 
proposed for default groundfish catch limits. In recent years, there 
have been a number of substantial reductions in groundfish catch 
limits, up to 80 percent. Given the frequency of large reductions, 
default catch limits equal to the previous year's catch limits could 
increase the risk of overfishing during the time period which default 
catch limits are implemented. As a result, reducing the default catch 
limits from the previous year's catch limits would help ensure that 
overfishing does not occur during the default time period.
    This measure is largely intended to prevent disruption to the 
groundfish fishery in the event a management action is delayed. Sector 
vessels are not allowed to fish in a stock area unless their sector has 
received an allocation for the respective stock. As a result, if catch 
limits are not implemented by the start of the groundfish fishing year 
on May 1 in any year, then sector vessels would not be allowed to fish. 
This would cause severe disruption to the groundfish fishery and could 
result in foregone yield. Any revenue reductions that may occur during 
a gap in specifications could worsen the severe economic impacts that 
have resulted from recent groundfish catch limit reductions.

Default Catch Limits for Fishing Year 2016

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

                                                   Table 13--Fishing Year 2016 Default Specifications
                                                                    [mt, live weight]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                            Preliminary
                          Stock                              U.S. ABC        Total ACL    Groundfish sub-   Preliminary     common pool   Midwater trawl
                                                                                                ACL       sector sub-ACL      sub-ACL         fishery
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GB Cod..................................................             693             660             625             614              12  ..............
GB Haddock..............................................           8,528           8,121           7,616           7,563              53              79
SNE/MA Yellowtail Flounder..............................             245             232             151             124              27  ..............
CC/GOM Yellowtail Flounder..............................             192             184             161             155               5  ..............
American Plaice.........................................             540             514             492             483               9  ..............
Witch Flounder..........................................             274             263             213             209               4  ..............
SNE/MA Winter Flounder..................................             587             563             457             402              56  ..............
Redfish.................................................           4,191           3,988           3,862           3,846              16  ..............
N. Windowpane Flounder..................................              53              50              35              na              35  ..............
S. Windowpane Flounder..................................             192             184              36              na              36  ..............
Ocean Pout..............................................              82              77              68              na              68  ..............
Atlantic Halibut........................................              35              34              22              na              22  ..............
Atlantic Wolffish.......................................              25              23              22              na              22  ..............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 12408]]


                Table 14--Fishing Year 2016 Default Common Pool Trimester Total Allowable Catches
                                                [mt, live weight]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Stock                                 Trimester 1     Trimester 2     Trimester 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GB Cod..........................................................             3.0             4.4             4.5
GB Haddock......................................................            14.2            17.4            21.1
SNE/MA Yellowtail Flounder......................................             5.7            10.1            11.5
CC/GOM Yellowtail Flounder......................................             1.9             1.9             1.6
American Plaice.................................................             2.2             3.3             3.7
Witch Flounder..................................................             1.2             1.3             1.8
Redfish.........................................................             4.0             5.0             7.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7. Sector Carryover

Proposed Change to Sector Carryover Provision

    This action proposes to modify the provision that allows sectors to 
carryover unused allocations from the previous year, which was 
initially implemented in Amendment 16 to the FMP. Currently, sectors 
can carry over up to 10 percent of their unused allocation into the 
next fishing year. However, this action proposes to reduce the maximum 
available carryover possible if up to 10 percent of the unused sector 
sub-ACL, plus the total ACL for the upcoming fishing year, exceeds the 
ABC. This proposed change does not modify any other part of the 
carryover provisions previously implemented.
    The proposed change is in response to a recent Court ruling in 
Conservation Law Foundation v. Pritzker, et al. (Case No. 1:13-CV-0821-
JEB) that determined sector carryover combined with the total ACL for 
the upcoming fishing year, or total potential catch, could not exceed 
the ABC. Previously, under the sector carryover provision adopted in 
Amendment 16, any available sector carryover that was caught was not 
counted against the ACLs, or the sector's allocation, in determining 
whether accountability measures would be implemented. However, during 
the development of catch limits for the 2013 fishing year, it became 
apparent that, if carryover (up to 10 percent of 2012 sector 
allocation) was caught in conjunction with the much lower catch limits 
being put in place for 2013, overages of the ACL, ABC, and, for one 
stock the OFL, would occur. As a result, we implemented a rule in May 
2013, under our authority specified in section 305(d) of the Magnuson-
Stevens Act, to clarify how sector carryover catch would be counted in 
evaluating if accountability measures were triggered because ACLs had 
been exceeded (78 FR 26172; May 3, 2013 and 78 FR 53363; August 29, 
2013).
    This measure is intended to reduce the risk of catches exceeding 
the ABCs that the SSC recommends. Although our rule clarified that 
sectors would be held accountable for all carryover caught for fishing 
years 2014 and beyond, we did not adjust the provision that allows 
sectors to carryover up to 10 percent of their unused allocations into 
the following fishing year. As a result, ``total potential catch'' 
could exceed the ABC, although accountability measures would still have 
been implemented if an overage occurred. However, consistent with the 
court ruling, this action proposes to reduce the maximum available 
carryover down from 10 percent to ensure that total potential catch 
does not exceed the ABC. For example, if 10 percent of sector carryover 
from the previous year plus the total ACL for the upcoming year was 
expected to exceed the ABC by 50 mt, then we would reduce the available 
carryover for each sector. The overall reduction of available carryover 
would be equal to 50 mt, and this amount would be applied to each 
sector proportional to the total PSCs of the vessels/permits enrolled 
in the sector.

Sector Carryover From Fishing Year 2014 to 2015

    Based on the catch limits proposed in Framework 53, we evaluated 
whether the total potential catch in fishing year 2015 would exceed the 
proposed ABC if sectors carried over the maximum 10 percent of unused 
allocation allowed from 2014 to 2015 (Table 15). Under this scenario, 
total potential catch would exceed the 2015 ABC for all groundfish 
stocks, except for GOM haddock. As a result, we expect we will need to 
adjust the maximum amount of unused allocation that a sector can carry 
forward from 2014 to 2015 (down from 10 percent). However, it is 
possible that not all sectors will have 10 percent of unused allocation 
at the end of the 2014 fishing year. We will make the final adjustment 
to the maximum carryover possible for each sector based on final 2014 
catch for the sectors, each sector's total unused allocation, and 
proportional to the cumulative PSCs of vessels/permits participating in 
the sector. We will announce this adjustment as close to May 1, 2015, 
as possible.
    Based on the proposed ABCs, the de minimis carryover amount for the 
2015 fishing year will be set at the default one percent of the 2015 
overall sector sub-ACL. The overall de minimis amount will be applied 
to each sector based on the cumulative PSCs of vessels/permits 
participating in that sector. If the overall ACL for any allocated 
stock is exceeded for the 2015 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, occurred.

                                    Table 15--Evaluation of Maximum Carryover Allowed From Fishing Year 2014 to 2015
                                                                    [mt, live weight]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     Potential       Total potential       Difference
                                                                                                 carryover (10% of  catch (2015 total    between total
                          Stock                              2015 U.S. ABC      2015 Total ACL    2014 Sector sub-   ACL + potential    potential catch
                                                                                                        ACL)            carryover)          and ABC
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GB Cod...................................................              1,980              1,886                174              2,060                 80
GOM Cod..................................................                386                366                 81                447                 61
GB Haddock...............................................             24,366             23,204              1,705             24,909                543

[[Page 12409]]

 
GOM Haddock..............................................              1,454              1,375                 43              1,418                -36
SNE Yellowtail Flounder..................................                700                666                 46                712                 12
CC/GOM Yellowtail Flounder...............................                548                524                 46                570                 22
Plaice...................................................              1,544              1,470                136              1,605                 61
Witch Flounder...........................................                783                751                 60                811                 28
GB Winter Flounder.......................................              2,010              1,952                336              2,287                277
GOM Winter Flounder......................................                510                489                 68                558                 48
SNE/MA Winter Flounder...................................              1,676              1,607                106              1,714                 38
Redfish..................................................             11,974             11,393              1,052             12,445                471
White Hake...............................................              4,713              4,484                425              4,909                196
Pollock..................................................             16,600             15,878              1,314             17,192                592
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note. Carryover of GB yellowtail flounder is not allowed because this stock is jointly managed with Canada.

8. 2015 Annual Measures Under Regional Administrator Authority

    The 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 
proposed rule includes a description of these management measures that 
are being considered for the 2015 fishing year in order to provide an 
opportunity for the public to comment on whether the proposed measures 
are appropriate. These measures are not part of Framework 53, and were 
not specifically proposed by the Council. We are proposing them in 
conjunction with Framework 53 measures in this action for expediency 
purposes, and because they relate to the catch limits proposed in 
Framework 53.

Common Pool Trip Limits

    Tables 16 and 17 provide a summary of the current common pool trip 
limits for fishing year 2014 and the trip limits proposed for fishing 
year 2015. The proposed 2015 trip limits were developed after 
considering changes to the common pool sub-ACLs and sector rosters from 
2014 to 2015, proposed trimester TACs for 2015, catch rates of each 
stock during 2014, and other available information.
    The default cod trip limit is 300 lb (136 kg) for Handgear A 
vessels and 75 lb (34 kg) for Handgear B vessels. If the GOM or GB cod 
landing limit for vessels fishing on a groundfish DAS drops below 300 
lb (136 kg), then the respective Handgear A cod trip limit must be 
reduced to the same limit. Similarly, the Handgear B trip limit must be 
adjusted proportionally (rounded up to the nearest 25 lb (11 kg)) to 
the DAS limit. This action proposes a GOM cod landing limit of 50 lb 
(23 kg) per DAS for vessels fishing on a groundfish DAS, which is 85 
percent lower than the default limit specified in the regulations for 
these vessels (800 lb (363 kg) per DAS). As a result, the proposed 
Handgear A trip limit for GOM cod is reduced to 50 lb (23 kg) per trip, 
and the proposed Handgear B trip limit for GOM cod is reduced 
proportionally to 25 lb (11 kg) per trip.
    Vessels with a Small Vessel category permit can possess up to 300 
lb (136 kg) of cod, haddock, and yellowtail, combined, per trip. For 
fishing year 2015, we are proposing that the maximum amount of GOM cod 
and haddock (within the 300-lb (136-kg) trip limit) be set equal to the 
possession limits applicable to multispecies DAS vessels (see Table 
16). This adjustment is necessary to ensure that the trip limit 
applicable to the Small Vessel category permit is consistent with 
reductions to the trip limits for other common pool vessels, as 
described above.

      Table 16--Proposed Fishing Year 2015 Common Pool Trip Limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Current 2014 trip    Proposed 2015 trip
            Stock                     limit                 limit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GB Cod (outside Eastern U.S./   2,000 lb (907 kg)/DAS, up to 20,000 lb
 Canada Area).                              (9,072 kg)/trip
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GB Cod (inside Eastern U.S./  500 lb (227 kg)/DAS,  100 lb (45 kg)/DAS,
 Canada Area).                 up to 5,000 lb        up to 500 lb (227
                               (2,268 kg)/trip.      kg)/trip.
GOM Cod.....................  200 lb (91 kg)/trip.  50 lb (23 kg)/DAS,
                                                     up to 200 lb (91
                                                     kg)/trip.
GB Haddock..................  10,000 lb (4,536 kg)/ 25,000 lb (11,340
                               trip.                 kg)/trip.
GOM Haddock.................  25 lb (11 kg)/trip..  50 lb (23 kg)/DAS,
                                                     up to 200 lb (91
                                                     kg)/trip.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GB Yellowtail Flounder......              100 lb (45 kg)/trip
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SNE/MA Yellowtail Flounder..  250 lb (113 kg)/DAS,  2,000 lb (907 kg)/
                               up to 500 lb (227     DAS, up to 6,000 lb
                               kg)/trip.             (2,722 kg)/trip.
CC/GOM Yellowtail Flounder..  1,000 lb (454 kg)/    1,500 lb (680 kg)/
                               trip.                 DAS up to 3,000 lb
                                                     (1,361 kg)/trip.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
American plaice.............                   Unlimited
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Witch Flounder..............  500 lb (227 kg)/trip  1,000 lb (454 kg)/
                                                     trip.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 12410]]

 
GB Winter Flounder..........            1,000 lb (454 kg)/trip
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GOM Winter Flounder.........            1,000 lb (454 kg)/trip
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SNE/MA Winter Flounder......    3,000 lb (1,361 kg)/DAS, up to 6,000 lb
                                            (2,722 kg)/trip
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Redfish.....................                   Unlimited
------------------------------------------------------------------------
White hake..................  1,000 lb (454 kg)/    1,500 lb (680 kg)/
                               trip.                 trip.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pollock.....................           10,000 lb (4,536 kg)/trip
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atlantic Halibut............                  1 fish/trip
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Windowpane Flounder.........             Possession Prohibited
Ocean Pout..................
Atlantic Wolffish...........
------------------------------------------------------------------------


  Table 17--Proposed Fishing Year 2015 Cod Trips Limits for Handgear A,
              Handgear B, and Small Vessel Category Permits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Current 2014 trip    Proposed 2015 trip
           Permit                     limit                 limit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Handgear A GOM Cod..........  200 lb (91 kg)/trip.  50 lb (23 kg)/trip.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Handgear A GB Cod...........             300 lb (136 kg)/trip
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Handgear B GOM Cod..........  25 lb (11 kg)/trip..  25 lb (11 kg)/trip.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Handgear B GB Cod...........              75 lb (34 kg)/trip
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small Vessel Category.......     300 lb (136 kg) of cod, haddock, and
                                      yellowtail flounder combined
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Maximum of 200 lb     Maximum of 50 lb (23
                               (91 kg) of GOM cod    kg) of GOM cod and
                               and 25 lb (11 kg)     50 lb (23 kg) of
                               of GOM haddock        GOM haddock within
                               within the 300-lb     the 300-lb combined
                               combined trip limit.  trip limit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Closed Area II Yellowtail Flounder/Haddock Special Access Program

    This action proposes to allocate zero trips for common pool vessels 
to target yellowtail flounder within the Closed Area II Yellowtail 
Flounder/Haddock SAP for fishing year 2015. Vessels could still fish in 
this SAP in 2015 to target haddock, but must fish with a haddock 
separator trawl, a Ruhle trawl, or hook gear. Vessels would not be 
allowed to fish in this SAP using flounder nets. This SAP is open from 
August 1, 2015, through January 31, 2016.
    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 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 proposed fishing year 2015 GB yellowtail flounder 
groundfish sub-ACL of 429,240 lb (194,700 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 2015 GB yellowtail flounder 
allocation.

9. Possible 2015 Northern Windowpane Flounder Accountability Measure

    If inseason catch estimates for the 2014 fishing year indicate that 
the total ACL has been exceeded for northern windowpane flounder, we 
are required to implement an accountability measure for fishing year 
2015. As described below, inseason catch estimates do not indicate the 
total ACL has been exceeded yet; however, catch estimates are 
approaching the total ACL. In order to give notice to groundfish 
vessels as early as possible, we are announcing the possibility of an 
accountability measure being triggered for the 2015 fishing year and 
implemented through the final rule of this action. As additional catch 
estimates become available, we will update groundfish vessels. The 
final rule to this action will announce whether or not an 
accountability measure has been triggered.
    For data reported through February 24, 2015, the commercial 
groundfish fishery has caught an estimated 140 mt of northern 
windowpane flounder, which is 97 percent of the total ACL (144 mt). 
Fishing year 2014 catch reports can be found here: http://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/ro/fso/MultiMonReports.htm. With 
2 months remaining in the fishing year, it is possible that catch could 
exceed the total ACL. However, northern windowpane flounder is a 
discard-only stock, so the current catch estimate could decrease if the 
discard rate substantially changes for the remainder of the 2014 
fishing year.
    If an accountability measure is triggered as a result of a 2014 
overage, common pool and sector vessels fishing

[[Page 12411]]

on a groundfish trip with trawl gear will be required to use one of the 
approved selective gears when fishing in the AM areas (haddock 
separator trawl, Ruhle trawl, or rope separator trawl). There would be 
no restrictions on common pool or sector vessels fishing with longline 
or gillnet gear. In addition, because northern windowpane is not 
allocated to any non-groundfish fishery, the accountability measure 
would not affect any non-groundfish vessels. Based on the current catch 
estimates, it is not known which gear-restricted areas would be 
implemented, and this will depend on the magnitude of any overage. If 
the overage is less than 20 percent, only the small gear restricted 
area would be implemented; however, if the overage is more than 20 
percent, the large gear restricted area would be implemented. An 
overview of the windowpane accountability measure can be found here: 
http://www.nero.noaa.gov/sfd/sfdmulti.html. As a reminder, sectors 
would not be able to request an exemption from these AMs.
    Current catch estimates indicate that fishing year 2014 catches of 
southern windowpane flounder are not likely to exceed the total ACL for 
this stock. As a result, we do not anticipate that any accountability 
measures would be implemented for southern windowpane flounder. 
However, this could change if catch estimates change dramatically for 
the remainder of the 2014 fishing year.

10. Regulatory Corrections Under Regional Administrator Authority

    The following changes are being proposed to the regulations to 
correct references, inadvertent deletions, and other minor errors.
    In Sec.  648.14(k)(7), the reference to the GOM Cod Spawning 
Protection Area (Whaleback) would be corrected. This change was 
overlooked in a previous FMP action.
    In Sec.  648.14(k)(12) and (13), the introductory text would be 
revised to clarify that it is unlawful for any person to do any of the 
general restrictions listed in these paragraphs.
    In Sec.  648.87(b)(1)(i)(C)(2), the reference to the sector AM 
provision would be corrected.
    In Sec.  648.89(b)(1), this rule would remove an unnecessary 
acronym and add the default minimum size for cod caught inside the GOM 
Regulated Mesh Area to the table. Currently, this default minimum size 
is located in a separate paragraph, so this change is intended to 
improve readability for the public.
    In Sec.  648.89(f)(1), this rule would remove reference to special 
provisions for recreational catch evaluation for fishing years 2010 and 
2011. These provisions are no longer relevant, and so would be removed.
    In Sec.  648.90(a)(2)(i), this rule would remove reference to a 
special provision implemented for the biennial review for 2008 and 
2009. These provisions are no longer relevant, and so would be removed.
    In Sec.  648.90(a)(2)(viii), this rule would correct a reference 
that was overlooked during the implementation of a previous FMP action.
    In Sec.  648.90(a)(5)(i), this rule would correct a spelling error.

Classification

    Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 
Conservation and Management Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has 
made a preliminary determination that this proposed rule is consistent 
with Framework 53, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and 
other applicable law. In making the final determination, NMFS will 
consider the data, views, and comments received during the public 
comment period.
    This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for 
purposes of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866.
    This proposed rule does not contain policies with Federalism or 
``takings'' implications as those terms are defined in E.O. 13132 and 
E.O. 12630, respectively.
    An Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was prepared for 
this proposed rule, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 603. The IRFA describes the economic impact 
that this proposed rule would have on small entities, including small 
businesses, and also determines ways to minimize these impacts. The 
IRFA includes this section of the preamble to this rule and analyses 
contained in Framework 53 and its accompanying EA/RIR/IRFA. A copy of 
the full analysis is available from the Council (see ADDRESSES). A 
summary of the IRFA follows.

Statement of Objective and Need

    This action proposes management measures, including annual catch 
limits, for the multispecies fishery in order to prevent overfishing, 
rebuild overfished groundfish stocks, and achieve optimum yield in the 
fishery. A complete description of the action, why it is being 
considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained in 
Framework 53, and elsewhere in the preamble to this proposed rule, and 
are not repeated here.

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

    The Small Business Administration defines a small business as one 
that is:
    <bullet> Independently owned and operated;
    <bullet> not dominant in its field of operation;
    <bullet> has annual receipts that do not exceed--
    [cir] $20.5 million in the case of commercial finfish harvesting 
entities (NAICS \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 (NAICS 114112)
    [cir] $7.5 million in the case of for-hire fishing entities (NAICS 
114119); or
    <bullet> has fewer than--
    [cir] 500 employees in the case of fish processors
    [cir] 100 employees in the case of fish dealers.
    This proposed 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 the 
proposed 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 hold those five permits. If two of 
those seven owners also co-own additional vessels, that ownership 
arrangement would be considered a separate ownership entity for the 
purpose of this analysis.
    On June 1 of each year, ownership entities are identified based on 
a list of

[[Page 12412]]

all permits for the most recent complete calendar year. The current 
ownership data set used for this analysis is based on calendar year 
2013 and contains average gross sales associated with those permits for 
calendar years 2011 through 2013. 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 18 describes the total number of commercial business entities 
potentially regulated by the proposed action. As of May 1, 2014, there 
were 1,386 commercial business entities potentially regulated by the 
proposed action. These entities participate in, or are permitted for, 
the groundfish, small-mesh multispecies, herring midwater trawl and 
scallop fisheries. For the groundfish fishery, the proposed action 
directly regulates potentially affected entities through catch limits 
and other management measures designed to achieve the goals and 
objectives of the FMP. For the non-groundfish fisheries, the proposed 
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 18--Commercial Fish Harvesting Entities Regulated by the Proposed
                                 Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Classified as
               Type                    Total number     small businesses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primarily finfish.................                813                813
Primarily shellfish...............                573                549
                                   -------------------------------------
    Total.........................              1,386              1,362
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Limited Access Groundfish Fishery
    The proposed 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 would 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 May 1, 2014 (beginning of fishing year 2014), there were 
1,046 individual limited access permits. Of these, 613 were enrolled in 
the sector program, and 433 were in the common pool. For fishing year 
2013, which is the most recent complete fishing year, 708 of these 
limited access permits had landings of any species, and 360 of these 
permits had landings of groundfish species.
    Of the 1,046 individual limited access multispecies permits 
potentially impacted by this action, there are 868 distinct ownership 
entities. Of these, 855 are categorized as small entities, and 13 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 114 entities that are groundfish-dependent, all of 
which are small, and all of which are finfish commercial harvesting 
businesses. Of these groundfish-dependent entities, 102 have some level 
of participation in the sector program, and 12 operate exclusively in 
the common pool.
Limited Access Scallop Fisheries
    The limited access scallop fisheries include Limited Access (LA) 
scallop permits and Limited Access General Category (LGC) scallop 
permits. LA scallop businesses are subject to a mixture of DAS 
restrictions and dedicated area trip restrictions. LGC scallop 
businesses are able to acquire and trade LGC 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 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 (1,386), there are 171 scallop fishing entities. The 
majority of these entities are defined as shellfish businesses (167). 
However, four of these entities are defined as finfish businesses, all 
of which are small. Of the total scallop fishing entities, 149 entities 
are classified as small entities.
Midwater Trawl Fishery
    There are four 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 fourth permit 
category is open access. Although there is a large number of open 
access permits issued each year, this category is 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. The midwater trawl herring fishery receives an allocation of 
GOM and GB haddock. Once the entire allocation for either stock has 
been caught, the directed herring fishery is closed in the respective 
area for the remainder of the fishing year. Additionally, if the 
midwater trawl fishery exceeds its

[[Page 12413]]

allocation, the overage is deducted from its allocation in the 
following fishing year.
    Of the total commercial business entities potentially regulated by 
this action (1,386), there are 71 herring fishing entities. Of these, 
43 entities are defined as finfish businesses, all of which are small. 
There are 28 entities that are defined as shellfish businesses, and 21 
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 fishery allows 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 570 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, 25 of these 
entities are considered active, with at least 1 lb of whiting landed. 
Of these entities, 7 are defined as finfish businesses, all of which 
are small. There are 18 entities that are defined as shellfish 
businesses, and 17 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 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 2014, 732 party/charter permits were issued. 
Of these, 267 party/charter permit holders reported catching and 
retaining any groundfish species on at least one for-hire trip. In 
addition, 204 party/charter permit holders reported catching at least 
one cod in 2014. While all party/charter fishing businesses that catch 
cod may be affected by the proposed action, the recreational groundfish 
fishery only receives an allocation for the GOM stock. Of the 204 
party/charter businesses that reported to have caught cod, 106 reported 
catching cod in the GOM.
    A 2013 report indicated that, in the northeast United States, 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 267 potentially regulated party/charter entities are all 
considered small businesses.

Economic Impacts of the Proposed Measures and Alternatives and Measures 
Proposed To Mitigate Adverse Economic Impacts of the Proposed Action

    The economic impacts of each proposed measure are summarized below 
and are discussed in more detail in sections 7.4 and 8.11 of the 
Framework 53 Environmental Assessment. 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 proposed 
action is anticipated to result in aggregate gross revenue losses of 
approximately $4 million in fishing year 2015, compared to predicted 
revenues for fishing year 2014. These losses are expected to be 
absorbed primarily by small business. As a result, the proposed 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 proposed 
measures. However, as discussed in more detail below, the additional 
declines in gross revenues expected as a result of the proposed 
measures would pose serious difficulties for groundfish vessels, 
owners, and crew. Additionally, some ports are predicted to have 50-80 
percent declines in revenues from groundfish, and many vessels may be 
forced to relocate to Southern New England ports, or stop fishing 
altogether. The impacts of the proposed measures on shoreshide 
businesses are difficult to predict, but infrastructure and facilities 
supporting fishing operations may be forced to consolidate, or to stop 
operating.

Status Determination Criteria

    The proposed action would change the GB yellowtail flounder status, 
relative to reference points, to unknown. Further, the proposed action 
would update the numerical estimates of the status determination 
criteria for GOM cod, GOM haddock, GOM winter flounder, GB winter 
flounder, and pollock. These updates would result in lower values of 
MSY. For some of these, the lower values of MSY would result in lower 
ACLs in the short-term, which is expected to have negative economic 
impacts (i.e., lower net revenues). However, the proposed updates to 
the status determination criteria are expected to have positive stock 
benefits by helping to prevent overfishing. Thus, in the long-term, the 
proposed action is expected to result in higher and more sustainable 
landings when compared to the No Action option. All of the proposed 
revisions would be based on the 2014 assessments for the respective 
stocks, and would be based on the best scientific information 
available.
    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. This option would not incorporate the best 
scientific information available, and would not be consistent with 
Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements. 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 the proposed action.

[[Page 12414]]

Annual Catch Limits

    The proposed action to set catch limits for eastern GB cod and 
haddock, GOM cod, GOM haddock, GB yellowtail flounder, GOM winter 
flounder, and pollock has the potential to impact groundfish (including 
small-mesh), midwater trawl, and scallop-dependent small entities.
    For the commercial groundfish fishery, the proposed catch limits 
are expected to result in a 7-percent decrease in gross revenues on 
groundfish trips, or $6 million, compared to predicted gross revenues 
for fishing year 2014. However, as described later, the aggregate 
predicted revenues for 2015 also depend on the combination of other 
measures that would be adopted in this action. The negative impacts of 
the proposed catch limits would not be uniformly distributed across 
vessels size classes. Vessels in the 30-50 ft (9-15 m) category are 
predicted to incur the largest decrease in gross revenues compared to 
2014. Based only on the proposed catch limits, vessels in this category 
could incur revenue losses of 33 percent, and aggregate losses are 
expected to be more as a result of other measures proposed in this 
action. Larger vessel classes are not expected to be impacted as 
heavily by the catch limits proposed in this action. Based only on the 
proposed catch limits, 50-75 ft (15-23 m) vessels are predicted to 
incur losses of 16 percent, and the largest vessels (75 ft (23 m) and 
greater) are predicted to incur losses of 3 percent.
    On a home-port state level, New Hampshire would incur the largest 
decline (42 percent) in gross revenues from groundfish relative to 2014 
as a result of the proposed catch limits. However, in combination with 
other measures proposed in this action this revenue decline could reach 
50 percent. Maine and Massachusetts are also predicted to incur revenue 
losses of 16 percent and 8 percent, respectively, as a result of the 
proposed catch limits. Both New York and Rhode Island are expected to 
have small increases to gross revenues compared to 2014, up to a 33-
percent and 29-percent increase, respectively. For major home ports, 
Gloucester, MA, is expected to have the largest decline in gross 
revenue (up to 28 percent). New Bedford, MA, is expected to be the 
least affected, with predicted revenue losses of 6 percent compared to 
2014.
    For the scallop, midwater trawl, and small-mesh fisheries, the 
catch limits proposed in this action would include allocations for 
bycatch of groundfish species that occurs in these fisheries. The GB 
yellowtail flounder allocation for both the scallop and small-mesh 
fisheries would be a decrease in 2015 compared to 2014, which could 
increase the likelihood of triggering accountability measures. However, 
based on recent catch performance, accountability measures for GB 
yellowtail flounder have never been implemented for these fisheries as 
a result of an overage. Additionally, based on scallop management 
measures that are proposed for 2015, it is not expected that scallop 
effort will increase on GB relative to recent years. Although the 
proposed reduction for GB yellowtail flounder could have negative 
economic impacts, these fisheries are not expected to exceed their 
respective allocations in 2015, and no accountability measures are 
expected to be triggered.
    For the midwater trawl fishery, the proposed allocations for GOM 
and GB haddock are both expected to increase in 2015 relative to 2014. 
However, in fishing year 2013, the accountability measure for GB 
haddock was triggered. As a result, it is possible that this could 
occur again in 2015 depending on catch rates of herring and haddock. If 
the accountability measure for GB haddock is triggered, there could be 
negative economic impacts that result from foregone herring yield. The 
magnitude of these negative impacts would depend on how much herring 
quota remained at the time the accountability measure was implemented, 
and whether other herring management areas were open for directed 
herring fishing.
    The proposed catch limits are based on the latest stock assessment 
information, which is considered the best scientific information 
available, and the applicable requirements in the FMP and the Magnuson-
Stevens Act. The only other possible alternatives to the catch limits 
proposed 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 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 proposed 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 proposed in this action, which would not 
mitigate the economic impacts of the proposed catch limits.
    Under the No Action option, no catch limits would be specified for 
the U.S./Canada stocks, GB winter flounder, GOM winter flounder, or 
pollock. In this scenario, sector vessels would be unable to fish in 
the respective stock areas at the start of the 2015 fishing year if no 
allocations were specified. 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 proposed action 
is predicted to result in approximately $77 million in gross revenues 
from groundfish trips. All 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.
    If no catch limits were adopted in this action, it is not clear 
whether allocations for the scallop, midwater trawl, and small-mesh 
fisheries would be treated as zero. If so, then any catch of groundfish 
species would result in an overage of their allocations, which would 
trigger an accountability measure. This would have negative economic 
impacts on these fisheries, and the severity of these impacts would 
depend on the magnitude of the overage, and the corresponding 
accountability measures. However, if this is not treated as a sub-ACL 
of zero, then these fisheries would have unrestricted catch of 
groundfish species. Although this would have positive economic impacts 
for these fisheries in the short-term, any negative biological impacts 
that would result from unrestricted catch could result in lower catch 
limits in the future. This would have negative economic impacts on 
these fisheries, as well as the groundfish fishery.

Gulf of Maine Cod Spawning Closures

    Currently, the only spawning closure for GOM cod is the Whaleback 
Protection Area. The proposed action (No action) is expected to have 
economic impacts that are neutral to the status quo for the commercial 
and recreational groundfish fisheries. However, when compared to other 
alternatives that were considered in this action, the proposed action 
is predicted to result in lower gross revenues for the commercial 
fishery compared to alternatives that would have adopted additional 
spawning closures. Some of the closures considered for this action 
would have closed large areas of the

[[Page 12415]]

inshore GOM. Under this scenario, smaller inshore vessels would likely 
be unable to adapt to the closures and prosecute the GOM fishery due to 
vessel size limitations of fishing further offshore. As a result, these 
small inshore vessels that are unable to fish would lease quota to 
larger offshore vessels. The flow of quota to these larger offshore 
vessels, which are able to use it, is the primary reason why additional 
closures are predicted to result in higher gross revenues than the 
proposed action (No Action). However, although the aggregate gross 
revenues are predicted to be higher under additional closure scenarios, 
smaller inshore vessels would lose viability, and would likely not be 
able to prosecute the fishery during closures considered in this 
action. Thus, these alternatives would not have helped mitigate the 
anticipated disproportionate impact to small entities that would have 
resulted from these additional closures.
    For the recreational fishery, the economic impacts of other 
alternatives considered in this action would be extensive and severe. 
Approximately 75 percent of recreational landings of groundfish species 
are attributed to the spawning area closures that were considered in 
this action. Because the majority of landings are concentrated in these 
areas, it would likely be difficult for party/charter vessels to move 
to alternative areas to fish for groundfish species. Further, 
recreational vessels would likely not be able to adapt by fishing 
further offshore due to vessel size limitations. The total steam time 
to fish further offshore would also exceed the standard party/charter 
trip of 4 or 6 hours. Businesses that support the recreational fishing 
industry would also be largely impacted by the other closure 
alternatives that were considered in this action. As a result, the 
other alternatives to the proposed action would not mitigate economic 
impacts to the recreational fishing vessels and businesses.

Prohibition on Possession of Gulf of Maine Cod for the Commercial 
Fishery

    Currently, sector vessels are required to land all legal-sized GOM 
cod, and common pool vessels are subject to trip limits. The proposed 
action (No Action) is expected to result in economic impacts that are 
neutral to the status quo. The economic impacts of the other 
alternative considered (prohibition on possession) is difficult to 
predict. Anticipated gross revenues are predicted to be slightly higher 
if zero possession was adopted compared to the No Action. However, this 
increase is expected to occur largely because zero possession may 
create an incentive to behave differently on observed and unobserved 
trips. On observed trips, vessels would likely achieve very low discard 
rates of GOM cod. However, on unobserved trips, vessels would seek to 
maximize revenue of all species, regardless of GOM cod catch. As a 
result, although predicted revenues would be higher under the zero 
possession alternative, this option could result in greater uncertainty 
in the catch estimates. In the long-term, unaccounted for fishing 
mortality could compromise stock rebuilding efforts, which would have 
negative economic impacts on the fishery. As a result, the alternative 
to adopt zero possession would not mitigate economic impacts relative 
to the proposed action (No Action).

Gulf of Maine Cod Protection Measures

    This action proposes to re-configure the GOM rolling closures for 
commercial vessels and adopt a prohibition on possession of GOM cod for 
the recreational fishery. For the commercial groundfish fishery, the 
proposed action is expected to result in less severe negative economic 
impacts than the proposed catch limits alone. However, the negative 
economic impacts of the proposed action are expected to be greater 
compared to other alternatives considered that would adopt additional 
GOM cod spawning closures. As discussed above, the aggregate economic 
impacts of the spawning closures that were considered for this action 
are largely driven by the flow of quota from smaller inshore vessels, 
which would be unable to fish, to larger offshore vessels. Although the 
proposed action would have greater negative impacts compared to these 
other alternatives, the negative impacts to small vessels can be hidden 
by the predicted aggregate gross revenues. The proposed action would 
add closures in some months, while removing other closures, largely in 
the month of April. As a result, the proposed action is expected to 
improve the viability of the inshore fleet, and help mitigate the 
economic impacts of the proposed catch limits, compared to other 
closure alternatives considered in the action.
    The ability for the proposed action to provide increased spawning 
protection would largely dictate the long-term economic impacts of this 
action. If the proposed action enhances spawning protection, which 
translates into increased stock rebuilding, then the long-term economic 
impacts would be positive. However, if the proposed action does not 
enhance spawning protection or translate into increased stock 
rebuilding, then the long-term economic impacts would be similar to the 
status quo, or negative.
    For the recreational fishery, the proposed action (zero possession 
of GOM cod) is expected to result in negative economic opportunities 
due to the lost opportunity to land GOM cod. In the short-term, the 
proposed action would likely result in some recreational anglers not 
booking party/charter trips, which would have a negative impact on 
party/charter businesses, and other shoreside businesses that support 
the recreational fishery (e.g., bait and tackle shops, marinas). 
However, if the proposed action results in a decrease in fishing 
mortality relative to the status quo, then it could contribute to stock 
rebuilding. If this occurs, the long-term economic impacts of the 
proposed action would be positive. Further, in the long-term, the 
recreational fishery would benefit from the commercial closures 
discussed above if they successfully enhance spawning protection and 
increase stock rebuilding.

Default Groundfish Specifications

    The proposed action would establish a mechanism for setting default 
catch limits in the event a management action is delayed. This is 
expected to have positive economic benefits, primarily for sector 
vessels, compared to the No Action option. Sector vessels are not 
allowed to fish without an allocation, so if no catch limits are 
specified for the fishing year, there would be severe negative economic 
impacts to the groundfish fishery. The proposed action is expected to 
avoid this situation that would otherwise occur if no action was taken.
    The No Action option would not establish a mechanism for setting 
default catch limits

Sector Carryover

    The proposed action would modify the provision that allows sectors 
to carryover unused allocation from one fishing year into the next 
fishing year. The economic impacts of the proposed action are likely 
minor, and similar to the status quo. In any fishing year, if the 
maximum available sector carryover is reduced from 10 percent, this 
could have a negative economic impact. However, the proposed action 
does not modify the accountability measure for sectors that requires 
any overages, even overages that result from harvesting available 
carryover, must be paid back. As a result, the proposed action is not 
expected to largely change sector operations compared to the status 
quo.

[[Page 12416]]

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648

    Fisheries, Fishing, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

    Dated: March 3, 2015.
Eileen Sobeck,
Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries 
Service.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is proposed 
to be amended as follows:

PART 648--FISHERIES OF THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES

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

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

0
2. In Sec.  648.2:
0
a. Remove the definition for ``Gillnet gear capable of catching 
multispecies (for purposes of the interim action)''; and
0
b. Lift the suspension of the definition for ``Gillnet gear capable of 
catching multispecies'' and revise it to read as follows:


Sec.  648.2  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Gillnet gear capable of catching multispecies means all gillnet 
gear except pelagic gillnet gear specified at Sec.  648.81(f)(5)(ii) 
and pelagic gillnet gear that is designed to fish for and is used to 
fish for or catch tunas, swordfish, and sharks.
* * * * *


Sec.  648.10  [Amended]

0
3. In Sec.  648.10, remove paragraphs (k)(3)(i)(A) and (B).
0
4. In Sec.  648.14:
0
a. Lift suspension of paragraphs (k)(6)(i)(E), (k)(7)(i)(A) and (B), 
(k)(12)(v)(E) and (F), (k)(12)(v)(K) and (L), (k)(13)(i)(D)(1) through 
(4), (k)(13)(ii)(B) through (D), (k)(13)(ii)(K) through (M), 
(k)(14)(viii), and (k)(16)(iii)(A) through (C), and (k)(16)(iii)(D) and 
(F);
0
b. Remove paragraphs (k)(6)(i)(H), (k)(7)(i)(H) through (J), 
(k)(12)(v)(K) through (N), (k)(13)(i)(D)(5) and (6), (k)(13)(ii)(K) 
through (P), (k)(14)(xii), and (k)(16)(iii)(D) through (H); and
0
c. Revise paragraphs (k)(6)(i)(E), (k)(7)(i)(A) and (B), (k)(12)(i) 
introductory text, (k)(13)(i) introductory text, (k)(16) introductory 
text, and (k)(16)(iii)(A) and (B) to read as follows:


Sec.  648.14  Prohibitions.

* * * * *
    (k) * * *
    (6) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (E) Use, set, haul back, fish with, possess on board a vessel, 
unless stowed and not available for immediate use as defined in Sec.  
648.2, or fail to remove, sink gillnet gear and other gillnet gear 
capable of catching NE multispecies, with the exception of single 
pelagic gillnets (as described in Sec.  648.81(f)(5)(ii)), in the areas 
and for the times specified in Sec.  648.80(g)(6)(i) and (ii), except 
as provided in Sec.  648.80(g)(6)(i) and (ii), and Sec.  
648.81(f)(5)(ii), or unless otherwise authorized in writing by the 
Regional Administrator.
* * * * *
    (7) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (A) Enter, be on a fishing vessel in, or fail to remove gear from 
the EEZ portion of the areas described in Sec.  648.81(d)(1), (e)(1), 
(f)(4), and (g)(1), except as provided in Sec.  648.81(d)(2), (e)(2), 
(f)(5), (g)(2), and (i).
    (B) Fish for, harvest, possess, or land regulated species in or 
from the closed areas specified in Sec.  648.81(a) through (f) and (n), 
unless otherwise specified in Sec.  648.81(c)(2)(iii), (f)(5)(i), 
(f)(5)(iv), (f)(5)(viii) and (ix), (i), (n)(2)(i), or as authorized 
under Sec.  648.85.
* * * * *
    (12) * * *
    (i) It is unlawful for any person to:
* * * * *
    (13) * * *
    (i) It is unlawful for any person to:
* * * * *
    (16) Recreational and charter/party requirements. It is unlawful 
for the owner or operator of a charter or party boat issued a valid 
Federal NE multispecies permit, or for a recreational vessel, as 
applicable, unless otherwise specified in Sec.  648.17, to do any of 
the following if fishing under the recreational or charter/party 
regulations:
* * * * *
    (iii) * * *
    (A) Fail to comply with the applicable restrictions if transiting 
the GOM Regulated Mesh Area with cod on board that was caught outside 
the GOM Regulated Mesh Area.
    (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
5. In Sec.  648.80:
0
a. Lift suspension of paragraphs (a)(3)(vi), (a)(3)(viii), (a)(4)(iii), 
(a)(4)(ix), and (g)(6)(i) and (ii);
0
b. Remove paragraphs (a)(3)(viii) and (x), (a)(4)(ix) and (x), and 
(g)(6)(iii) and (iv); and
0
c. Revise paragraphs (g)(6)(i) and (ii) to read as follows:


Sec.  648.80  NE multispecies regulated mesh areas and restrictions on 
gear and methods of fishing.

* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (6) * * *
    (i) Requirements for gillnet gear capable of catching NE 
multispecies to reduce harbor porpoise takes. In addition to the 
requirements for gillnet fishing identified in this section, all 
persons owning or operating vessels in the EEZ that fish with sink 
gillnet gear and other gillnet gear capable of catching NE 
multispecies, with the exception of single pelagic gillnets (as 
described in Sec.  648.81(f)(5)(ii)), must comply with the applicable 
provisions of the Harbor Porpoise Take Reduction Plan found in Sec.  
229.33 of this title.
    (ii) Requirements for gillnet gear capable of catching NE 
multispecies to prevent large whale takes. In addition to the 
requirements for gillnet fishing identified in this section, all 
persons owning or operating vessels in the EEZ that fish with sink 
gillnet gear and other gillnet gear capable of catching NE 
multispecies, with the exception of single pelagic gillnets (as 
described in Sec.  648.81(f)(5)(ii)), must comply with the applicable 
provisions of the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan found in 
Sec.  229.32 of this title.
* * * * *
0
6. In Sec.  648.81:
0
a. Lift suspension of paragraphs (d)(1) through (4), (e)(1) and (2), 
(f)(1) and (2), and (g)(1)(i), and (o)(1)(iii), (iv), and (viii) 
through (x);
0
b. Remove paragraphs (d)(3) through (6), (e)(3) and (4), (g)(1)(vii), 
and (o); and
0
c. Revise paragraphs (d)(2), (e)(2), (f), (g)(2) introductory text, 
(g)(2)(i), and (i) to read as follows:


Sec.  648.81  NE multispecies closed areas and measures to protect EFH.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (2) Unless otherwise restricted under the EFH Closure(s) specified 
in paragraph (h) of this section, paragraph (d)(1) of this section does 
not apply to persons on fishing vessels or fishing vessels that meet 
the criteria in paragraphs (f)(5)(ii) through (v) of this section.
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (2) Unless otherwise restricted under paragraph (h) of this 
section, paragraph (e)(1) of this section does not apply to persons on 
fishing vessels or fishing vessels that meet the criteria in paragraphs 
(f)(5)(ii) through (v) of this section consistent with the requirements 
specified under Sec.  648.80(a)(5).
* * * * *

[[Page 12417]]

    (f) GOM Cod Protection Closures. (1) Unless otherwise allowed in 
this part, no fishing vessel or person on a fishing vessel may enter, 
fish in, or be in; and no fishing gear capable of catching NE 
multispecies may be in, or on board a vessel in GOM Cod Protection 
Closures I through V as described, and during the times specified, in 
paragraphs (f)(4)(i) through (v) of this section.
    (2) Any vessel subject to a GOM Cod Protection Closure may transit 
the area, provided it complies with the requirements specified in 
paragraph (i) of this section.
    (3) The New England Fishery Management Council shall review the GOM 
Cod Protection Closures Areas specified in this section when the 
spawning stock biomass for GOM cod reaches the minimum biomass 
threshold specified for the stock (50 percent of SSB<INF>MSY</INF>).
    (4) GOM Cod Protection Closure Areas. Charts depicting these areas 
are available from the Regional Administrator upon request.
    (i) GOM Cod Protection Closure I. From May 1 through May 31, the 
restrictions specified in paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section 
apply to GOM Cod Protection Closure I, which is the area bounded by the 
following coordinates connected in the order stated by straight lines:

                      GOM Cod Protection Closure I
                             [May 1-May 31]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Point                   N. latitude         W. longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CPCI 1.........................  43[deg]30' N         (\1\)
CPCI 2.........................  43[deg]30' N         69[deg]30' W
CPCI 3.........................  43[deg]00' N         69[deg]30' W
CPCI 4.........................  43[deg]00' N         70[deg]00' W
CPCI 5.........................  42[deg]30' N         70[deg]00' W
CPCI 6.........................  42[deg]30' N         70[deg]30' W
CPCI 7.........................  42[deg]20' N         70[deg]30' W
CPCI 8.........................  42[deg]20' N         (\2\) (\3\)
CPCI 1.........................  43[deg]30' N         (\1\) (\3\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The intersection of 43[deg]30' N latitude and the coastline of
  Maine.
\2\ The intersection of 42[deg]20' N latitude and the coastline of
  Massachusetts.
\3\ From Point 8 back to Point 1 following the coastline of the United
  States.

    (ii) GOM Cod Protection Closure II. From June 1 through June 30, 
the restrictions specified in paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section 
apply to GOM Cod Protection Closure II, which is the area bounded by 
the following coordinates connected in the order stated by straight 
lines:

                      GOM Cod Protection Closure II
                            [June 1-June 30]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Point                   N. latitude         W. longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CPCII 1........................  (\1\)                69[deg]30' W
CPCII 2........................  43[deg]30' N         69[deg]30' W
CPCII 3........................  43[deg]30' N         70[deg]00' W
CPCII 4........................  42[deg]30' N         70[deg]00' W
CPCII 5........................  42[deg]30' N         70[deg]30' W
CPCII 6........................  42[deg]20' N         70[deg]30' W
CPCII 7........................  42[deg]20' N         (\2\) (\3\)
CPCII 8........................  42[deg]30' N         (\4\) (\3\)
CPCII 9........................  42[deg]30' N         70[deg]30' W
CPCII 10.......................  43[deg]00' N         70[deg]30' W
CPCII 11.......................  43[deg]00' N         (\5\) (\6\)
CPCII 1........................  (\1\)                69[deg]30' W (\6\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The intersection of 69[deg]30' W longitude and the coastline of
  Maine.
\2\ The intersection of 42[deg]20' N latitude and the coastline of
  Massachusetts.
\3\ From Point 7 to Point 8 following the coastline of Massachusetts.
\4\ The intersection of 42[deg]30' N latitude and the coastline of
  Massachusetts.
\5\ The intersection of 43[deg]00' N latitude and the coastline of New
  Hampshire.
\6\ From Point 11 back to Point 1 following the coastlines of New
  Hampshire and Maine.

    (iii) GOM Cod Protection Closure III. From November 1 through 
January 31, the restrictions specified in paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of 
this section apply to GOM Cod Protection Closure III, which is the area 
bounded by the following coordinates connected in the order stated by 
straight lines:

                     GOM Cod Protection Closure III
                         [November 1-January 31]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Point                   N. latitude         W. longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CPCIII 1.......................  42[deg]30' N         (\1\)
CPCIII 2.......................  42[deg]30' N         70[deg]30' W
CPCIII 3.......................  42[deg]15' N         70[deg]30' W
CPCIII 4.......................  42[deg]15' N         70[deg]24' W
CPCIII 5.......................  42[deg]00' N         70[deg]24' W
CPCIII 6.......................  42[deg]00' N         (\2\) (\3\)
CPCIII 1.......................  42[deg]30' N         (\1\) (\3\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The intersection of 42[deg]30' N latitude and the Massachusetts
  coastline.
\2\ The intersection of 42[deg]00' N latitude and the mainland
  Massachusetts coastline at Kingston, MA.
\3\ From Point 6 back to Point 1 following the coastline of
  Massachusetts.

    (iv) GOM Cod Protection Closure IV. From October 1 through October 
31, the restrictions specified in paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this 
section apply to GOM Cod Protection Closure IV, which is the area 
bounded by the following coordinates connected in the order stated by 
straight lines:

                      GOM Cod Protection Closure IV
                         [October 1-October 31]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Point                   N. latitude         W. longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CPCIV 1........................  42[deg]30' N         (\1\)
CPCIV 2........................  42[deg]30' N         70[deg]00' W
CPCIV 3........................  42[deg]00' N         70[deg]00' W
CPCIV 4........................  42[deg]00' N         (\2\) (\3\)
CPCIV 1........................  42[deg]30' N         (\1\) (\3\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The intersection of 42[deg]30' N latitude and the Massachusetts
  coastline.
\2\ The intersection of 42[deg]00' N latitude and the mainland
  Massachusetts coastline at Kingston, MA.
\3\ From Point 4 back to Point 1 following the coastline of
  Massachusetts.

    (v) GOM Cod Protection Closure V. From March 1 through March 31, 
the restrictions specified in paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section 
GOM Cod Protection Closure V, which is the area bounded by the 
following coordinates connected in the order stated by straight lines:

                      GOM Cod Protection Closure V
                           [March 1-March 31]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Point                   N. latitude         W. longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CPCV 1.........................  42[deg]30' N         70[deg]00' W
CPCV 2.........................  42[deg]30' N         68[deg]30' W
CPCV 3.........................  42[deg]00' N         68[deg]30' W
CPCV 4.........................  42[deg]00' N         70[deg]00' W
CPCV 1.........................  42[deg]30' N         70[deg]00' W
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (5) The GOM Cod Protection Closures specified in this section do 
not apply to persons aboard fishing vessels or fishing vessels that 
meet any of the following criteria:
    (i) That have not been issued a multispecies permit and that are 
fishing exclusively in state waters;
    (ii) That are fishing with or using exempted gear as defined under 
this part, except for pelagic gillnet gear capable of catching NE 
multispecies, unless fishing with a single pelagic gillnet not longer 
than 300 ft (91.4 m) and not greater than 6 ft (1.83 m) deep, with a 
maximum mesh size of 3 inches (7.6 cm), provided that:
    (A) The net is attached to the boat and fished in the upper two-
thirds of the water column;
    (B) The net is marked with the owner's name and vessel 
identification number;
    (C) There is no retention of regulated species; and
    (D) There is no other gear on board capable of catching NE 
multispecies;
    (iii) That are fishing in the Midwater Trawl Gear Exempted Fishery 
as specified in Sec.  648.80(d);
    (iv) That are fishing in the Purse Seine Gear Exempted Fishery as 
specified in Sec.  648.80(e);

[[Page 12418]]

    (v) That are fishing under charter/party or recreational 
regulations specified in Sec.  648.89, provided that:
    (A) For vessels fishing under charter/party regulations in a GOM 
Cod Protection Closure described under paragraph (f)(4) of this 
section, it has on board a letter of authorization issued by the 
Regional Administrator, which is valid from the date of enrollment 
through the duration of the closure or 3 months duration, whichever is 
greater; for vessels fishing under charter/party regulations in the 
Cashes Ledge Closure Area or Western GOM Area Closure, as described 
under paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section, respectively, it has on 
board a letter of authorization issued by the Regional Administrator, 
which is valid from the date of enrollment until the end of the fishing 
year;
    (B) Fish species managed by the NEFMC or MAFMC that are harvested 
or possessed by the vessel, are not sold or intended for trade, barter 
or sale, regardless of where the fish are caught;
    (C) The vessel has no gear other than rod and reel or handline on 
board; and
    (D) The vessel does not use any NE multispecies DAS during the 
entire period for which the letter of authorization is valid;
    (vi) That are fishing with or using scallop dredge gear when 
fishing under a scallop DAS or when lawfully fishing in the Scallop 
Dredge Fishery Exemption Area as described in Sec.  648.80(a)(11), 
provided the vessel does not retain any regulated NE multispecies 
during a trip, or on any part of a trip; or
    (vii) That are fishing in the Raised Footrope Trawl Exempted 
Whiting Fishery, as specified in Sec.  648.80(a)(15), or in the Small 
Mesh Area II Exemption Area, as specified in Sec.  648.80(a)(9);
    (viii) That are fishing on a sector trip, as defined in this part, 
and in the GOM Cod Protection Closures IV or V, as specified in 
paragraphs (f)(4)(vi) and (v) of this section; or
    (ix) That are fishing under the provisions of a Northeast 
multispecies Handgear A permit, as specified at Sec.  648.82(b)(6), and 
in the GOM Cod Protection Closures IV or V, as specified in paragraphs 
(f)(4)(vi) and (v) of this section.
    (g) * * *
    (2) Paragraph (g)(1) of this section does not apply to persons on 
fishing vessels or to fishing vessels that meet any of the following 
criteria:
    (i) That meet the criteria in paragraphs (f)(5)(i), (ii), or (iii) 
of this section;
* * * * *
    (i) Transiting. Unless otherwise restricted or specified in this 
paragraph (i), a vessel may transit CA I, the Nantucket Lightship 
Closed Area, the Cashes Ledge Closed Area, the Western GOM Closure 
Area, the GOM Cod Protection Closures, the GB Seasonal Closure Area, 
the EFH Closure Areas, and the GOM Cod Spawning Protection Area, as 
defined in paragraphs (a)(1), (c)(1), (d)(1), (e)(1), (f)(4), (g)(1), 
(h)(1), and (n)(1), of this section, respectively, provided that its 
gear is stowed and not available for immediate use as defined in Sec.  
648.2. A vessel may transit CA II, as defined in paragraph (b)(1) of 
this section, in accordance with paragraph (b)(2)(iv) of this section. 
Private recreational or charter/party vessels fishing under the 
Northeast multispecies provisions specified at Sec.  648.89 may transit 
the GOM Cod Spawning Protection Area, as defined in paragraph (n)(1) of 
this section, provided all bait and hooks are removed from fishing 
rods, and any regulated species on board have been caught outside the 
GOM Cod Spawning Protection Area and has been gutted and stored.
* * * * *


Sec.  648.82  [Amended]

0
7. In Sec.  648.82, lift suspension of paragraphs (b)(5) through (8) 
and remove paragraphs (b)(7) through (10).


Sec.  648.85  [Amended]

0
8. In Sec.  648.85, lift suspension of paragraphs (b)(6)(iv)(D) and (K) 
and remove paragraphs (b)(6)(iv)(K) and (L).


Sec.  648.86  [Amended]

0
9. In Sec.  648.86, lift suspension of paragraphs (b)(1) through (7) 
and remove paragraphs (b)(5) through (10).
0
10. In Sec.  648.87:
0
a. Lift suspension of paragraphs (b)(1)(v)(A), (b)(1)(ix), (b)(1)(x), 
(c)(2)(i), (c)(2)(ii)(A) and (B), (c)(2)(ii)(E), and (c)(2)(iii);
0
b. Remove paragraphs (b)(1)(v)(C), (b)(1)(x) and (xi), (c)(2)(ii)(E) 
through (G), and (c)(2)(iii) and (iv); and
0
c. Revise paragraphs (b)(1)(i)(C), (b)(1)(iii)(C), (c)(2)(i), and 
(c)(2)(ii)(B) to read as follows:


Sec.  648.87  Sector allocation.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (C) Carryover. (1) With the exception of GB yellowtail flounder, a 
sector may carryover an amount of ACE equal to 10 percent of its 
original ACE for each stock that is unused at the end of one fishing 
year into the following fishing year, provided that the total unused 
sector ACE plus the overall ACL for the following fishing year does not 
exceed the ABC for the fishing year in which the carryover may be 
harvested. If this total exceeds the ABC, NMFS shall adjust the maximum 
amount of unused ACE that a sector may carryover (down from 10 percent) 
to an amount equal to the ABC of the following fishing year. Any 
adjustments made would be applied to each sector based on its total 
unused ACE and proportional to the cumulative PSCs of vessels/permits 
participating in the sector for the particular fishing year, as 
described in paragraph (b)(1)(i)(E) of this section.
    (i) Eastern GB Stocks Carryover. Any unused ACE allocated for 
Eastern GB stocks in accordance with paragraph (b)(1)(i)(B) of this 
section shall contribute to the carryover allowance for each stock, as 
specified in this paragraph (b)(1)(i)(C)(1), but shall not increase 
individual sector's allocation of Eastern GB stocks during the 
following year.
    (ii) This carryover ACE remains effective during the subsequent 
fishing year even if vessels that contributed to the sector allocation 
during the previous fishing year are no longer participating in the 
same sector for the subsequent fishing year.
    (2) Carryover accounting. (i) If the overall ACL for a particular 
stock is exceeded, the allowed carryover of a particular stock 
harvested by a sector, minus the NMFS-specified de minimis amount, 
shall be counted against the sector's ACE for purposes of determining 
an overage subject to the AM in paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this section.
    (ii) De Minimis Carryover Amount. The de minimis carryover amount 
is one percent of the overall sector sub-ACL for the fishing year in 
which the carryover would be harvested. NMFS may change this de minimis 
carryover amount for any fishing year through notice consistent with 
the Administrative Procedure Act. The overall de minimis carryover 
amount would be applied to each sector proportional to the cumulative 
PSCs of vessels/permits participating in the sector for the particular 
fishing year, as described in (b)(1)(i)(E) of this section.
* * * * *
    (iii) * * *
    (C) ACE buffer. At the beginning of each fishing year, NMFS shall 
withhold 20 percent of a sector's ACE for each stock for a period of up 
to 61 days (i.e., through June 30), unless otherwise specified by NMFS, 
to allow time to process any ACE transfers submitted at the end of the 
fishing year pursuant to paragraph (b)(1)(viii) of this section and

[[Page 12419]]

to determine whether the ACE allocated to any sector needs to be 
reduced, or any overage penalties need to be applied to individual 
permits/vessels in the current fishing year to accommodate an ACE 
overage by that sector during the previous fishing year, as specified 
in paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this section. NMFS shall not withhold 20 
percent of a sector's ACE at the beginning of a fishing year in which 
default specifications are in effect, as specified in Sec.  
648.90(a)(3).
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) Regulations that may not be exempted for sector participants. 
The Regional Administrator may not exempt participants in a sector from 
the following Federal fishing regulations: Specific times and areas 
within the NE multispecies year-round closure areas; permitting 
restrictions (e.g., vessel upgrades, etc.); gear restrictions designed 
to minimize habitat impacts (e.g., roller gear restrictions, etc.); 
reporting requirements; AMs specified in Sec.  648.90(a)(5)(i)(D). For 
the purposes of this paragraph (c)(2)(i), the DAS reporting 
requirements specified in Sec.  648.82; the SAP-specific reporting 
requirements specified in Sec.  648.85; and the reporting requirements 
associated with a dockside monitoring program are not considered 
reporting requirements, and the Regional Administrator may exempt 
sector participants from these requirements as part of the approval of 
yearly operations plans. For the purpose of this paragraph (c)(2)(i), 
the Regional Administrator may not grant sector participants exemptions 
from the NE multispecies year-round closures areas defined as Essential 
Fish Habitat Closure Areas as defined in Sec.  648.81(h); the 
Fippennies Ledge Area as defined in paragraph (c)(2)(i)(A) of this 
section; Closed Area I and Closed Area II, as defined in Sec.  
648.81(a) and (b), respectively, during the period February 16 through 
April 30; and the Western GOM Closure Area, as defined at Sec.  
648.81(e), where it overlaps with GOM Cod Protection Closures I through 
III, as defined in Sec.  648.81(f)(4). This list may be modified 
through a framework adjustment, as specified in Sec.  648.90.
* * * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (B) The GOM Cod Protection Closures IV and V specified in Sec.  
648.81(f)(4)(iv) and (v) and the GB Seasonal Closed Area specified in 
Sec.  648.81(g)(1);
* * * * *


Sec.  648.88  [Amended]

0
11. In Sec.  648.88, lift suspension of paragraphs (a)(1) and (3) and 
remove paragraphs (a)(3) and (4).
0
12. In Sec.  648.89:
0
a. Lift suspension of paragraphs (b)(3), (c)(1) and (2), (c)(8), and 
(e)(1) through (4);
0
b. Remove paragraphs (c)(2)(v), (c)(8) and (9), and (e)(4) through (7); 
and
0
c. Revise paragraphs (b), (c)(1), (c)(2)(i), (e)(1), and (f) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  648.89  Recreational and charter/party vessel restrictions.

* * * * *
    (b) Recreational minimum fish sizes--(1) Minimum fish sizes. Unless 
further restricted under of this section, persons aboard charter/party 
vessels permitted under this part and not fishing under the NE 
multispecies DAS program or under the restrictions and conditions of an 
approved sector operations plan, and recreational fishing vessels in or 
possessing fish from the EEZ, may not possess fish smaller than the 
minimum fish sizes, measured in total length, as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Species                           Size (inches)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cod:
    Inside the GOM Regulated Mesh Area \1\  24 (63.7 cm).
    Outside the GOM Regulated Mesh Area     22 (55.9 cm).
     \1\.
Haddock...................................  18 (45.7 cm).
Pollock...................................  19 (48.3 cm).
Witch flounder (gray sole)................  14 (35.6 cm).
Yellowtail flounder.......................  13 (33.0 cm).
American plaice (dab).....................  14 (35.6 cm).
Atlantic halibut..........................  41 (104.1 cm).
Winter flounder (blackback)...............  12 (30.5 cm).
Redfish...................................  9 (22.9 cm).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ GOM Regulated Mesh Area specified in Sec.   648.80(a).

    (2) Exception. Vessels may possess fillets less than the minimum 
size specified, if the fillets are taken from legal-sized fish and are 
not offered or intended for sale, trade or barter.
    (3) Fish fillets, or parts of fish, must have at least 2 square 
inches (5.1 square cm) of skin on while possessed on board a vessel and 
at the time of landing in order to meet minimum size requirements. The 
skin must be contiguous and must allow ready identification of the fish 
species.
    (c) Possession Restrictions--(1) Recreational fishing vessels. (i) 
Each person on a private recreational vessel may possess no more than 
10 cod per day in, or harvested from, the EEZ when fishing outside of 
the GOM Regulated Mesh Area specified in Sec.  648.80(a)(1).
    (ii) When fishing in the GOM Regulated Mesh Area specified in Sec.  
648.80(a)(1), persons aboard private recreational fishing vessels may 
not fish for or possess any cod with the exception that private 
recreational vessels in possession of cod caught outside the GOM 
Regulated Mesh Area specified in Sec.  648.80(a)(1) may transit this 
area, provided all bait and hooks are removed from fishing rods and any 
cod on board has been gutted and stored.
    (iii) For purposes of counting fish, fillets will be converted to 
whole fish at the place of landing by dividing the number of fillets by 
two. If fish are filleted into a single (butterfly) fillet, such fillet 
shall be deemed to be from one whole fish.
    (iv) Cod harvested by recreational fishing vessels in or from the 
EEZ with more than one person aboard may be pooled in one or more 
containers. Compliance with the possession limit will be determined by 
dividing the number of fish on board by the number of persons on board. 
If there is a violation of the possession limit on board a vessel 
carrying more than one person, the violation shall be deemed to have 
been committed by the owner or operator of the vessel.
    (v) Cod must be stored so as to be readily available for 
inspection.
    (2) Charter/party vessels. (i) Persons aboard charter/party fishing 
vessels permitted under this part and not fishing under the NE 
multispecies DAS program or on a sector trip that are fishing in the 
GOM Regulated Mesh Area specified in Sec.  648.80(a)(1) may not fish 
for, possess, or land any cod with the exception that charter/party 
vessels in possession of cod caught outside the GOM Regulated Mesh Area 
specified in Sec.  648.80(a)(1) may transit this area, provided all 
bait and hooks are removed from fishing rods and any cod on board has 
been gutted and stored.
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (1) GOM Closed Areas. (i) A vessel fishing under charter/party 
regulations may not fish in the GOM closed areas specified in Sec.  
648.81(d)(1), (e)(1), and (f)(4) during the time periods specified in 
those paragraphs, unless the vessel has on board a valid letter of 
authorization issued by the Regional Administrator pursuant to Sec.  
648.81(f)(5)(v) and paragraph (e)(3) of this section. The conditions 
and restrictions of the letter of authorization must be complied with 
for a minimum of 3 months if the vessel fishes or intends to fish in 
the GOM Cod Protection Closures; or for the rest of the fishing year, 
beginning with the start of the participation period of the letter of

[[Page 12420]]

authorization, if the vessel fishes or intends to fish in the year-
round GOM closure areas.
    (ii) A vessel fishing under charter/party regulations may not fish 
in the GOM Cod Spawning Protection Area specified at Sec.  648.81(n)(1) 
during the time period specified in that paragraph, unless the vessel 
complies with the requirements specified at Sec.  648.81(n)(2)(iii).
* * * * *
    (f) Recreational fishery AM--(1) Catch evaluation. As soon as 
recreational catch data are available for the entire previous fishing 
year, the Regional Administrator will evaluate whether recreational 
catches exceed any of the sub-ACLs specified for the recreational 
fishery pursuant to Sec.  648.90(a)(4). When evaluating recreational 
catch, the components of recreational catch that are used shall be the 
same as those used in the most recent assessment for that particular 
stock. To determine if any sub-ACL specified for the recreational 
fishery was exceeded, the Regional Administrator shall compare the 3-
year average of recreational catch to the 3-year average of the 
recreational sub-ACL for each stock.
    (2) Reactive AM adjustment. (i) If it is determined that any 
recreational sub-ACL was exceeded, as specified in paragraph (f)(1) of 
this section, the Regional Administrator, after consultation with the 
New England Fishery Management Council, shall develop measures 
necessary to prevent the recreational fishery from exceeding the 
appropriate sub-ACL in future years. Appropriate AMs for the 
recreational fishery, including adjustments to fishing season, minimum 
fish size, or possession limits, may be implemented in a manner 
consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act, with final measures 
published in the Federal Register no later than January when possible. 
Separate AMs shall be developed for the private and charter/party 
components of the recreational fishery.
    (ii) The Regional Administrator shall not adjust the possession 
limit for GOM cod, under the reactive AM authority specified in 
paragraph (f)(2)(i) of this section, as long as possession of this 
stock is prohibited for the recreational fishery, as specified in 
paragraph (c) of this section.
    (3) Proactive AM adjustment. (i) When necessary, the Regional 
Administrator, after consultation with the New England Fishery 
Management Council, may adjust recreational measures to ensure the 
recreational fishery achieves, but does not exceed any recreational 
fishery sub-ACL in a future fishing year. Appropriate AMs for the 
recreational fishery, including adjustments to fishing season, minimum 
fish size, or possession limits, may be implemented in a manner 
consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act, with final measures 
published in the Federal Register prior to the start of the fishing 
year where possible. In specifying these AMs, the Regional 
Administrator shall take into account the non-binding prioritization of 
possible measures recommended by the Council: For cod, first increases 
to minimum fish sizes, then adjustments to seasons, followed by changes 
to bag limits; and for haddock, first increases to minimum size limits, 
then changes to bag limits, and then adjustments to seasons.
    (ii) The Regional Administrator shall not adjust the possession 
limit for GOM cod, under the proactive AM authority specified in 
paragraph (f)(3)(i) of this section, as long as possession of this 
stock is prohibited for the recreational fishery, as specified in 
paragraph (c) of this section.
0
13. In Sec.  648.90, revise paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and (viii), (a)(3), 
and (a)(5)(i) introductory text to read as follows:


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

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) The NE multispecies PDT shall meet on or before September 30 
every other year to perform a review of the fishery, using the most 
current scientific information available provided primarily from the 
NEFSC. Data provided by states, ASMFC, the USCG, and other sources may 
also be considered by the PDT. Based on this review, the PDT will 
develop ACLs for the upcoming fishing year(s) as described in paragraph 
(a)(4) of this section and develop options for consideration by the 
Council if necessary, on any changes, adjustments, or additions to DAS 
allocations, closed areas, or other measures necessary to rebuild 
overfished stocks and achieve the FMP goals and objectives.
* * * * *
    (viii) If the Regional Administrator concurs in the Council's 
recommendation, a final rule shall be published in the Federal Register 
on or about April 1 of each year, with the exception noted in paragraph 
(a)(2)(vii) of this section. If the Council fails to submit a 
recommendation to the Regional Administrator by February 1 that meets 
the FMP goals and objectives, the Regional Administrator may publish as 
a proposed rule one of the options reviewed and not rejected by the 
Council, provided that the option meets the FMP objectives and is 
consistent with other applicable law. If, after considering public 
comment, the Regional Administrator decides to approve the option 
published as a proposed rule, the action will be published as a final 
rule in the Federal Register.
* * * * *
    (3) Default OFLs, ABCs, and ACLs. (i) Unless otherwise specified in 
this paragraph (a)(3), if final specifications are not published in the 
Federal Register for the start of a fishing year, as outlined in 
paragraph (a)(4) of this section, specifications for that fishing year 
shall be set at 35 percent of the previous year's specifications for 
each NE multispecies stock, including the U.S./Canada shared resources, 
for the period of time beginning on May 1 and ending on July 31, unless 
superseded by the final rule implementing the current year's 
specifications.
    (ii) If the default specifications exceed the Council's 
recommendations for any stock for the current year, the specifications 
for that stock shall be reduced to the Council's recommendation through 
notice consistent with the Administrative Procedures Act.
    (iii) These specifications shall be subdivided among the various 
sub-components of the fishery consistent with the ABC/ACL distribution 
adopted for the previous year's specifications.
* * * * *
    (5) * * *
    (i) AMs for the NE multispecies commercial and recreational 
fisheries. If the catch of regulated species or ocean pout by a sub-
component of the NE multispecies fishery (i.e., common pool vessels, 
sector vessels, or private recreational and charter/party vessels) 
exceeds the amount allocated to each sub-component, as specified in 
paragraph (a)(4)(iii)(H) of this section, then the applicable AM for 
that sub-component of the fishery shall take effect, pursuant to 
paragraphs (a)(5)(i)(A) through (C) of this section. In determining the 
applicability of AMs specified for a sub-component of the NE 
multispecies fishery in paragraphs (a)(5)(i)(A) through (C) of this 
section, the Regional Administrator shall consider available 
information regarding the catch of regulated species and ocean pout by 
each sub-component of the NE multispecies fishery, plus each sub-
component's share of any overage of the overall ACL for a particular 
stock

[[Page 12421]]

caused by excessive catch by vessels outside of the FMP, exempted 
fisheries, or the Atlantic sea scallop fishery, as specified in this 
paragraph (a)(5), as appropriate.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2015-05383 Filed 3-6-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>