12380 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 45 / Monday, March 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 648 

[Docket No. 140821699–5191–01] 

RIN 0648–XD461 

Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; 

Fisheries of the Northeastern United 

States; Northeast Multispecies 

Fishery; 2015 and 2016 Sector 

Operations Plans and 2015 Contracts 

and Allocation of Northeast 

Multispecies Annual Catch 

Entitlements 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: We propose to approve 17 

sector operations plans and contracts for 

fishing years 2015 and 2016, grant 

regulatory exemptions for fishing years 

2015 and 2016, and provide Northeast 

multispecies annual catch entitlements 

to these sectors for fishing year 2015. 

We request comment on the proposed 

sector operations plans and contracts; 

the environmental assessment analyzing 

the impacts of the operations plans; and 

our proposal to grant (in whole or 

partially) 19 of the 22 regulatory 

exemptions requested by the sectors. 

Approval of sector operations plans is 

necessary to allocate annual catch 

entitlements to the sectors and for the 

sectors to operate. The Northeast 

Multispecies Fishery Management Plan 

allows limited access permit holders to 

form sectors, and requires sectors to 

submit their operations plans and 

contracts to us, NMFS, for approval or 

disapproval. Approved sectors are 

exempt from certain effort control 

regulations and receive allocation of 

Northeast multispecies based on its 

members’ fishing history. 

This document also announces the 

target at-sea monitoring coverage rate for 

sector trips for fishing year 2015. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before March 24, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

on this document, identified by NOAA– 

NMFS–2014–0111, by either of the 

following methods: 

• Electronic Submission: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to 

www.regulations.gov/

#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2014- 

0111, click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon, 

complete the required fields, and enter 

or attach your comments. 

• Mail: Submit written comments to 

Liz Sullivan, 55 Great Republic Drive, 

Gloucester, MA 01930. 

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 NMFS. 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. NMFS will 

accept anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/ 

A’’ in the required fields if you wish to 

remain anonymous). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Liz 

Sullivan, Fishery Management 

Specialist, phone (978) 282–8493, fax 

(978) 281–9135. To review Federal 

Register documents referenced in this 

rule, you can visit: http://

www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/

sustainable/species/multispecies. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Amendment 13 to the Northeast (NE) 

Multispecies Fishery Management Plan 

(FMP) (69 FR 22906, April 27, 2004) 

established a process for forming sectors 

within the NE multispecies (groundfish) 

fishery, and Amendment 16 to the FMP 

(74 FR 18262, April 9, 2010), followed 

by Framework Adjustment 45 to the 

FMP (76 FR 23042, April 25, 2011) and 

Framework 48 to the FMP (78 FR 26118; 

May 3, 2013), expanded and revised 

sector management. 

The FMP defines a sector as ‘‘[a] 

group of persons (three or more persons, 

none of whom have an ownership 

interest in the other two persons in the 

sector) holding limited access vessel 

permits who have voluntarily entered 

into a contract and agree to certain 

fishing restrictions for a specified period 

of time, and which has been granted a 

TAC(s) [sic] in order to achieve 

objectives consistent with applicable 

FMP goals and objectives.’’ Sectors are 

self-selecting, meaning each sector can 

choose its members. 

The NE multispecies sector 

management system allocates a portion 

of the NE multispecies stocks to each 

sector. These annual sector allocations 

are known as annual catch entitlements 

(ACE). These allocations are a portion of 

a stock’s annual catch limit (ACL) 

available to commercial NE 

multispecies vessels, based on the 

collective fishing history of a sector’s 

members. Currently, sectors may receive 

allocations of most large-mesh NE 

multispecies stocks with the exception 

of Atlantic halibut, windowpane 

flounder, Atlantic wolffish, and ocean 

pout. A sector determines how to 

harvest its ACEs and may decide to 

consolidate operations to fewer vessels. 

Because sectors elect to receive an 

allocation under a quota-based system, 

the FMP grants sector vessels several 

‘‘universal’’ exemptions from the FMP’s 

effort controls. These universal 

exemptions apply to: Trip limits on 

allocated stocks; the Georges Bank (GB) 

Seasonal Closure Area; NE multispecies 

days-at-sea (DAS) restrictions; the 

requirement to use a 6.5-inch (16.5-cm) 

mesh codend when fishing with 

selective gear on GB; portions of the 

Gulf of Maine (GOM) Rolling Closure 

Areas (or as modified by Framework 

53); and the at-sea monitoring (ASM) 

coverage rate for sector vessels fishing 

on a monkfish DAS in the Southern 

New England (SNE) Broad Stock Area 

(BSA) with extra-large mesh gillnets. 

The FMP prohibits sectors from 

requesting exemptions from permitting 

restrictions, gear restrictions designed to 

minimize habitat impacts, and reporting 

requirements. 

We received operations plans and 

preliminary contracts for fishing years 

2015 and 2016 from 17 sectors. The 

operations plans are similar to 

previously approved versions, but 

propose operations spanning 2 fishing 

years, and include additional exemption 

requests and proposals for industryfunded ASM plans. This is the first year 

that 2-year operations plans have been 

submitted by the sectors, as allowed in 

the Amendment 16 final rule. Two-year 

sector operations plans will help 

streamline the process for sector 

managers and reduce administrative 

burdens for both sectors and NMFS. Six 

sectors that have operated in past years 

did not submit operations plans or 

contracts. Four of these sectors now 

operate as state-operated permit banks 

as described below. 

We have made a preliminary 

determination that the proposed 17 

sector operations plans and contracts, 

and 19 of the 22 regulatory exemptions, 

in whole or partially, are consistent 

with the FMP’s goals and objectives, 

and meet sector requirements outlined 

in the regulations at § 648.87. We 

summarize many of the sector 

requirements in this proposed rule and 

request comments on the proposed 

operations plans, the accompanying 

environmental assessment (EA), and our 

proposal to wholly or partially grant 19 

of the 22 regulatory exemptions 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 45 / Monday, March 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 12381 

requested by the sectors, but deny the 

rest. Copies of the operations plans and 

contracts, and the EA, are available at 

http://www.regulations.gov and from 

NMFS (see ADDRESSES). One of the 17 

sectors, Northeast Fishery Sector (NEFS) 

4, proposes to operate as a private leaseonly sector. 

The six sectors that chose not to 

submit operations plans and contracts 

for fishing years 2015 and 2016 are the 

Tri-State Sector, the GB Hook Sector, 

and four state-operated permit bank 

sectors as follows: The State of Maine 

Permit Bank Sector, the State of New 

Hampshire Permit Bank Sector, the 

Commonwealth of Massachusetts Permit 

Bank Sector, and the State of Rhode 

Island Permit Bank Sector. The final 

rule implementing Amendment 17 to 

the FMP allows a state-operated permit 

bank to receive an allocation without 

needing to comply with the 

administrative and procedural 

requirements for sectors (77 FR 16942, 

March 23, 2012). These permit banks are 

required to submit a list of participating 

permits to us by a date specified in the 

permit bank’s Memorandum of 

Agreement, typically April 1. 

Sector Allocations 

Sectors typically submit membership 

information to us on December 1 prior 

to the start of the fishing year, which 

begins each year on May 1. Due to a 

delay in distributing a letter describing 

each vessel’s potential contribution to a 

sector’s quota for fishing year 2015, we 

extended the deadline to join a sector 

until February 18, 2014. Based on sector 

enrollment trends from the past 5 

fishing years, we expect sector 

participation in fishing year 2015 will 

be similar. Thus, we are using fishing 

year 2014 rosters as a proxy for fishing 

year 2015 sector membership and 

calculating the fishing year 2015 

projected allocations in this proposed 

rule. In addition to the membership 

delay, all permits that change 

ownership after December 1, 2014, 

retain the ability to join a sector through 

April 30, 2015. All permits enrolled in 

a sector, and the vessels associated with 

those permits, have until April 30, 2015, 

to withdraw from a sector and fish in 

the common pool for fishing year 2015. 

For fishing year 2016, we will set 

similar roster deadlines, notify permit 

holders of the fishing year 2016 

deadlines, and allow permit holders to 

change sectors separate from the annual 

approval process. We will publish final 

sector ACEs and common pool sub-ACL 

totals, based upon final rosters, as soon 

as possible after the start of fishing year 

2015, and again after the start of fishing 

year 2016. 

The allocations proposed in this rule 

are based on the fishing year 2015 

specifications recommended by the New 

England Fishery Management Council 

in Framework 53. These allocations are 

not final, and are subject to the approval 

of Framework 53. We expect a rule 

proposing the Framework 53 

management measures to publish in 

March 2015. 

We calculate the sector’s allocation 

for each stock by summing its members’ 

potential sector contributions (PSC) for 

a stock, as shown in Table 1. The 

information presented in Table 1 is the 

total percentage of each commercial 

sub-ACL each sector would receive for 

fishing year 2015, based on their fishing 

year 2014 rosters. Tables 2 and 3 show 

the allocations each sector would be 

allocated for fishing year 2015, based on 

their fishing year 2014 rosters. At the 

start of the fishing year, after sector 

enrollment is finalized, we provide the 

final allocations, to the nearest pound, 

to the individual sectors, and we use 

those final allocations to monitor sector 

catch. While the common pool does not 

receive a specific allocation, the 

common pool sub-ACLs have been 

included in each of these tables for 

comparison. 

We do not assign an individual permit 

separate PSCs for the Eastern GB cod or 

Eastern GB haddock; instead, we assign 

a permit a PSC for the GB cod stock and 

GB haddock stock. Each sector’s GB cod 

and GB haddock allocations are then 

divided into an Eastern ACE and a 

Western ACE, based on each sector’s 

percentage of the GB cod and GB 

haddock ACLs. For example, if a sector 

is allocated 4 percent of the GB cod ACL 

and 6 percent of the GB haddock ACL, 

the sector is allocated 4 percent of the 

commercial Eastern U.S./Canada Area 

GB cod total allowable catch (TAC) and 

6 percent of the commercial Eastern 

U.S./Canada Area GB haddock TAC as 

its Eastern GB cod and haddock ACEs. 

These amounts are then subtracted from 

the sector’s overall GB cod and haddock 

allocations to determine its Western GB 

cod and haddock ACEs. A sector may 

only harvest its Eastern GB cod ACEs in 

the Eastern U.S./Canada Area. However, 

Framework 51 implemented a 

mechanism that allows sectors to 

‘‘convert’’ their Eastern GB haddock 

allocation into Western GB haddock 

allocation (79 FR 22421; April 22, 2014) 

and fish that converted ACE in Western 

GB. 

At the start of fishing year 2015, we 

will withhold 20 percent of each 

sector’s fishing year 2015 allocation 

until we finalize fishing year 2014 catch 

information. Further, we will allow 

sectors to transfer fishing year 2014 ACE 

for 2 weeks of the fishing year following 

the completion of year-end catch 

accounting to reduce or eliminate any 

fishing year 2014 overages. If necessary, 

we will reduce any sector’s fishing year 

2015 allocation to account for a 

remaining overage in fishing year 2014. 

We will follow the same process for 

fishing year 2016. We will notify the 

Council and sector managers of this 

deadline in writing and will announce 

this decision on our Web site at: 

http:// 

www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/. 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

EP09MR15.000</GPH>tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

IaOIC 1. Lumutanvc {percentage) cacn sector would receive oy stocR tor nsnmg car 

S< I j 

'8 8 g s $ 

il "' ;;: 

"' = " 

2 u "' "' "' i < 

"' 

0 UJg "' "' 

Jl "' " "' "' 0 z- B 

"' "' "' "' "' < "' 

"' 

GB Ccd Fixed Gear Sector (Fixed Gear Sec·or) I 27 6?93ssoa 2.508069188 5 76053223 1.842510985 0 012338526 0 335349757 2 900535294 0.978206727 2.132068565 0.027279132 12 88328537 1.803764

Maine Coast Communit Sector trvtCCS) I 0.209472107 4.593908731 0.0387639<9 2.557156843 0.003529542 0659221791 1 050244077 7.550211604 5.059268898 O.OC6781752 1.964107993 o.192279

i 

Maine Perm.t Bank I 0.133517853 1.150017115 0.044321553 1.1218695"3 0.013781801 0031749784 0.317541132 1.163875492 0728726396 0.000217063 0.425383217 o.m903Northeast Coastal Commumties Sec:or{NCCS) I 0.850781856 0 12156115 0.360314495 0 839234291 0 722094381 0 624502697 0.158814882 0.220566881 0.06824:!855 0.9286S6039 0.297060

I 

NEFS 1 0 0.030624848 0 0.002485194 0 0 0.0375564 0.00855701 0.012746569 9.55103E-07 ,1.052060313 3.23398ENEFS 2 5.785593397 18 24336498 10 69102283 16.36546783 c .910229097 1444212376 1928095759 7.851111508 12.79803813 3.210723119 18.43848897 3.238568NEFS 3 1.250350482 14.4542362 0.146586484 9.306432621 0.007146692 0 355112441 8865102541 4.054725495 2.838457122 0.019617753 9.535130101 0.766907

NEFS4 4141388572 9 Ji.3342' 1 202_ 

------

8.266201641 __2 2 346367103 9.285854477 _8 493233037 0691705149 c-l.cB1664

------·-- ------

NEFS 5 0.778804124 0.012758113 1.0538226<5 0.290496157 -.611585586 22.56725432 0.482708693 0.500854279 0.665881485 0.513664818 DJ65815742 12.54858NEFS 6 I z.e66433258 2.954570521 2.922333454 3.853800992 2.703502218 5.260657286 3 734992188 3.890740903 5.203709303 1.504147303 4.554949429 1.93996

I 

NEFS 7 I 4 661795742 0.389582664 4.614051211 QL69838734 -o 078BOr2 4 052928675 134400C053 3.5257f!7712 3 238628692 12 94879457 0 74671 628 

NEFS 8 I 6.1<4290183 0.467653487 5.998225373 0.209189789 11.26214114 5 962375546 6.429443155 1.720618673 2.570311936 15.50532661 3.163884539 1o.o2149

I 

NEFS 9 I 14.22968847 1.7 45530387 11 59904763 4.8030668'2 26.77690025 7 896063683 10.42613668 8.267330649 8.274748241 39.53996927 2.4500€7748 18.36278NEFS 10 I 0.729079458 5.2' 1425491 0 25110816 2.537642334 0.001554983 0 547576942 12.6910265 1.70226778 2.39330£1197 O.u10736743 17.86097648 0.727751

NEF311 0.400460279 13 61584944 o.0381c2J35 3.214095399 0.001526991 0019512587 2 580229504 2.035916251 2.072650077 0.003308219 2.248924914 o.c21803

NEFS 13 7.96206419' 0.897737741 15 96691598 0.952525702 24.74483888 18.82293704 4 990558725 5.158650568 6.203321063 7.237218376 2.333512423 10.97508

I c .0015200€7 

Nsw Hampshire Permit 3ank 1.139033486 0.000259498 0.0311743'2 2.03069E-05 1.8297E-05 0021775341 0.028468044 0.006158356 3.23661E-06 0:060320275 7.8048CE

i 

S'Jstainable Harv"esl Sector 1 I 20.64126839 19 67078936 34 32389115 .:12.7G093197 14 08003285 8 306255132 13 24545693 39.48139985 .14.43846704 17 40442314 10 27273026 19.28481

Harvesl Seclor 3 I o.27688940" 0.148129006 0.381148141 0.065262008 2.m947963 2 389718695 1.109488783 0.617194407 0.616807632 0.567337392 1.31685818 uso121

Sectors Total I 98.07105319 97.66970431 99.28521636 99.00946333 98.37637828 81.71936888 96.59511696 98.04988631 97.96509661 99.22949745 95.54514102 87.94836

Common Pool I 1.9279468' 2.330295592 0.714783536 0.990536672 '.623621723 18.28063112 3404883037 1.950113682 2.034903388 0.770502551 4.4548;58982 12.05163

* The data in this table are based on fishing year 2014 sector rosters. 

t For fishing year 2015,6,94 percent of the GB cod ACL would be allocated for the Eastern U.S./Canada Area, while 8L62 percent of the GB haddock ACL woul

Eastern li.S,;Canada Area. 

t SNE/MA Yellowtail Flounder refers to the SNE/Mid-Atlantic stock. CC/COM Yellowtail Flounder refers to the Cape Cod/GOM stock. 

EP09MR15.001</GPH>tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

# 

--·- -- -------- - ,----7--- ----,7 ·-' ------7--- ----- --- -------- ---- ----

1i) :;; a; :;; :;; 

1i) "0 "0 "' "0 "C "' 1i) 1i) "' "' -"' "' c: c: "' :;; c: c: LJJ 

s "' "0 ::I ::I 'i'ij .., ::I E 

"' "' "C 0 c: 0 .52 ::I 0 

"' LJJ s 0 -"" -"" .., ::I u:: c:: c: 0 u:: 

2 u 

"' c.> .., 0 L.L. ::I .., .., u:: 

0 0 "' u:: 0 1- 1- c: .52 

0 :i§: "C "0 ::t: >- >- "' L.L. s u .s u 0 .., "0 1- "' .c: 

'-' "' "' :a: c::: :::;; <:: 

"' aJ aJ (.!) ::t: ::r: 0 >- (/) (.!) 0 3: 

(.!) aJ E 

aJ aJ (.!) (.!) § c::: aJ :i§: 

(.!) (.!) 2 (.!) 0 

(/) u (.!) 

Fixed Gear Sector 76 1015 11 2255 508 39 0 4 29 30 29 1 111 

MCCS 1 8 21 15 3 54 0 8 11 234 68 0 17 Maine Permit Bank 0 5 5 17 4 24 0 0 3 36 10 0 4 NCCS 0 6 4 48 11 8 4 9 6 I 5 3 3 8 NEFS 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

NEFS2 16 212 83 4186 943 346 8 18 19s I 244 172 134 159 

NEFS 3 3 46 66 57 13 197 0 4 9o I 126 38 1 82 

NEFS4 11 152 44 2089 470 175 9 29 55 I 288 114 29 54 

i 

NEFS 5 2 29 0 413 93 6 7 277 5 i 16 9 21 1 

NEFS6 8 105 13 1144 258 81 12 65 38 121 70 63 39 

i 

NEFS 7 13 171 2 1807 407 10 43 50 24 I 109 44 539 6 

I 

NEFS 8 17 225 2 2349 529 4 48 73 65 I 53 35 646 27 

NEFS9 39 522 8 4542 1023 101 115 97 105 ' 257 111 1648 21 

NEFS 10 2 27 24 98 22 54 0 7 128 I 53 32 0 154 NEFS 11 1 15 62 15 3 68 0 0 26 I 65 28 0 19 

5o I 

NEFS 13 22 292 4 6252 1408 20 106 231 160 83 302 20 

New Hampshire Permit Bank 0 0 5 0 0 1 0 0 o I 1 0 0 1 

Sustainable Harvest Sector 1 56 757 90 13439 3026 903 61 102 134 1226 463 726 89 

Sustainable Harvest Sector 3 1 10 1 149 34 1 9 29 11 I 19 8 24 11 

Sectors Total 268 3596 446 38874 8753 2091 423 1003 9751 3044 1317 4137 826 Common Pool 5 71 11 280 63 21 7 224 34 I 61 27 32 38 

*The data in this table are based on fishing year 2014 sector rosters. 

"Numbers are rounded to the nearest thousand lbs. In some cases, this table shows an allocation ofO, but that sector may be allocated a small amount of that stock in t

"The data in the table represent the total allocations to each sector. NMFS will withhold 20 percent of a sector's total ACE at the start of the fishing year. 

t We have used preliminary ACLs to estimate each sector's ACE. 
Sector Operations Plans and Contracts 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–C 

As stated previously, we received 17 

sector operations plans and contracts by fishing years 2015 and 2016, that sector 

approve a sector’s operations plan for 

fishing years 2015 and 2016. In order to 

the September 2, 2014, deadline for 

reporting requirements found at 

previous years, including the year-end 

reporting requirements from all 

must have been compliant with 


EP09MR15.002</GPH>tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Table 3. P dACEC tric tons). bv stock. f1 h sector for fish· 2015.*#At ' " llll "J year 

(]) ..... ..... !;:: ....1 c: ... E <J') <J') u u ... !;:: ... SQl as 

"' (]) "0 ... c::c 

"' UJ s: 0 0 0 ..c: (]) 

z 

(.) "0 ..... "0 ..... _;;"g C:"O ·- "0 

"0 "0 "0 <J') "0 <J') 0 C:l ·;:: ·- ·- c: 3: c: ..... 0 0 LiJ .

"' "' "' (]) (.!) :::l; (]).!!:! ·- :::l 3: :::l 5 

.8 (.) (.) 0 ::r:UJ ::r:$ "' (.!) 0 UJ 0 -.. .21 E c.. S:_g aJ.2 u 

IXl (.!) IXl IXl ::r: u:: z u:: (.) Ll.. <C Ll.. (.!)LI.. ou:: (]) !Xl 

(/) (.!) (.!) (.!) (.!) (/) (.) I (.!) 

Fixed Gear Sector 34 460 5 1023 230 18 0 2 13 14 13 1 51 

MCCS 0 3 10 7 2 24 0 4 51 106 31 0 8 Maine Permit Bank 0 2 2 8 2 11 0 0 1 i 16 4 0 2 

NCCS 0 3 2 22 5 3 2 4 31 2 1 1 4 NEFS 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 0 0 0 0 NEFS2 7 96 38 1899 428 157 4 8 88 I 111 78 61 72 NEFS3 2 21 30 26 6 89 0 2 41 I 57 17 0 37 NEFS4 I·· 69 20 947 213 , __ 79 4 13 25 i 131 52 13 24 

"----·---- "" ---- ----· -- - . " -·· 

NEFS5 1 13 0 187 42 3 3 1i6 4 10 0 NEFS6 4 48 6 519 117 37 5 29 17 55 32 28 18 NEFS 7 6 78 1 819 185 5 20 23 11 50 20 244 3 NEFS8 8 102 1 1065 240 2 22 33 29 I 24 16 293 12 NEFS9 18 237 4 2060 464 46 52 44 48 I 116 50 748 10 NEFS10 1 12 11 45 10 24 0 3 58 I 24 15 0 70 NEFS 11 1 7 28 7 2 31 0 0 12 I 30 13 0 9 NEFS 13 10 132 2 2836 639 9 48 105 23 73 38 137 9 New Hampshire Permit Bank 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Sustainable Harvest Sector 1 26 343 41 6096 1373 410 27 46 61 556 210 329 40 Sustainable Harvest Sector 3 0 5 0 68 15 1 4 13 51 9 4 11 5 

Sectors Total 122 1631 202 17633 3970 949 192 455 442 1381 598 1876 375 1

Common Pool 2 32 5 127 29 9 3 102 16 I 27 12 15 17 

*The data in this table are based on fishing year 2014 sector rosters. 

#Numbers are rounded to the nearest metric ton. but allocations are made in pounds. In some cases, this table shows a sector allocation of 0 metric tons, but th

small amount of that stock in pounds. 

data in the table represent the total allocations to each sector. NMFS will withhold 20 percent of a sector's total ACH at the start of the fishing year. 

I We have used preliminary ACLs to estimate each sector's ACE. 
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 45 / Monday, March 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 12385 

§ 648.87(b)(1)(vi)(C). Approved 

operations plans, provided on our Web 

site as a single document for each 

sector, not only contain the rules under 

which each sector would fish, but also 

provide the legal contract that binds 

each member to the sector for the length 

of the sector’s operations plan. Each 

sector’s operations plan, and sector 

members, must comply with the 

regulations governing sectors, found at 

§ 648.87. In addition, each sector must 

conduct fishing activities as detailed in 

its approved operations plan. 

Any permit holder with a limited 

access NE multispecies permit that was 

valid as of May 1, 2008, is eligible to 

participate in a sector, including an 

inactive permit currently held in 

confirmation of permit history. If a 

permit holder officially enrolls a permit 

in a sector and the fishing year begins, 

then that permit must remain in the 

sector for the entire fishing year, and 

cannot fish in the NE multispecies 

fishery outside of the sector (i.e., in the 

common pool) during the fishing year. 

Participating vessels are required to 

comply with all pertinent Federal 

fishing regulations, except as 

specifically exempted in the letter of 

authorization (LOA) issued by the 

Regional Administrator, which details 

any approved exemptions from 

regulations. If, during a fishing year, or 

between fishing years 2015 and 2016, a 

sector requests an exemption that we 

have already approved, or proposes a 

change to administrative provisions, we 

may amend the sector operations plans. 

Should any amendments require 

modifications to LOAs, we would 

include these changes in updated LOAs 

and provide these to the appropriate 

sector members. 

As in previous years, we retain the 

right to revoke exemptions in-season for 

the following reasons: If we determine 

that the exemption jeopardizes 

management measures, objectives, or 

rebuilding efforts; if the exemption 

results in unforeseen negative impacts 

on other managed fish stocks, habitat, or 

protected resources; if the exemption 

causes enforcement concerns; if catch 

from trips utilizing the exemption 

cannot properly be monitored; or if a 

sector is not meeting certain 

requirements. If it becomes necessary to 

revoke the exemption, we will do so 

through a process consistent with the 

Administrative Procedure Act. 

Each sector is required to ensure that 

it does not exceed its ACE during the 

fishing year. Sector vessels are required 

to retain all legal-sized allocated NE 

multispecies stocks, unless a sector is 

granted an exemption allowing its 

member vessels to discard legal-sized 

unmarketable fish at sea. Catch (defined 

as landings and discards) of all allocated 

NE multispecies stocks by a sector’s 

vessels count against the sector’s 

allocation. Catch from a sector trip (e.g., 

not fishing under provisions of a NE 

multispecies exempted fishery or with 

exempted gear) targeting dogfish, 

monkfish, skate, and lobster (with nontrap gear) would be deducted from the 

sector’s ACE because these trips use 

gear capable of catching groundfish. 

Catch from a trip in an exempted fishery 

does not count against a sector’s 

allocation because the catch is assigned 

to a separate ACL sub-component. 

For fishing years 2010 and 2011, there 

was no requirement for an industryfunded ASM program, and we were able 

to fund an ASM program with a target 

ASM coverage rate of 30 percent of all 

trips. In addition, we provided 8- 

percent observer coverage through the 

Northeast Fishery Observer Program 

(NEFOP), which helps to support the 

Standardized Bycatch Reporting 

Methodology (SBRM) and stock 

assessments. This resulted in an overall 

target coverage rate of 38 percent, 

between ASM and NEFOP, for fishing 

years 2010 and 2011. Beginning in 

fishing year 2012, we have conducted 

an annual analysis to determine the 

total coverage that would be necessary 

to achieve the same level of precision as 

attained by the 38-percent total coverage 

target used for fishing years 2010 and 

2011. Since fishing year 2012, industry 

has been required to pay for their costs 

of ASM coverage, while we continued to 

fund NEFOP. However, we were able to 

fund the industry’s portion of ASM 

costs and NEFOP coverage in fishing 

years 2012 through 2014. Table 4 shows 

the annual target coverage rates. 

TABLE 4—HISTORIC TARGET COVERAGE RATE FOR MONITORING

Fishing year 

Total coverage 

rate 

(percent) 

ASM coverage 

rate 

(percent) 

NEFOP coverage 

rate 

(percent) 

Funding source 

2010 ......................................................................................... 38 30 8 NMFS 

2011 ......................................................................................... 38 30 8 NMFS 

2012 ......................................................................................... 25 17 8 NMFS 

2013 ......................................................................................... 22 14 8 NMFS 

2014 ......................................................................................... 26 18 8 NMFS 

Due to funding changes that would be 

required by the proposed SBRM 

amendment, we expect that sector 

vessels will be responsible for paying atsea costs associated with the ASM 

program before the end of the 2015 

fishing year. Thus, sectors will be 

responsible for designing, 

implementing, and funding an ASM 

program in fishing years 2015 and 2016 

that will provide a level of ASM 

coverage specified by NMFS. 

Amendment 16 regulations require 

NMFS to specify a level of ASM 

coverage that is sufficient to meet the 

same coefficient of variation (CV) 

specified in the SBRM, and to 

accurately monitor sector operations. 

Framework 48 clarified the level of 

ASM coverage necessary to meet these 

goals. Regarding meeting the SBRM CV 

level, Framework 48 determined that it 

should be made at the overall stock 

level, which is consistent with the level 

NMFS determined was necessary in 

fishing year 2013. Framework 48 also 

amended the goals of the sector 

monitoring program to include 

achieving an accuracy level sufficient to 

minimize effects of potential monitoring 

bias. 

Taking the provisions of Framework 

48 into account, and interpreting the 

ASM monitoring provision in the 

context of Magnuson-Stevens Act 

requirements and National Standards, 

we have determined that the 

appropriate level of ASM coverage 

should be set at the level that meets the 

CV requirement specified in the SBRM 

and minimizes the cost burden to 

sectors and NMFS to the extent 

practicable, while still providing a 

reliable estimate of overall catch by 

sectors needed for monitoring ACEs and 

ACLs. Based on this standard, NMFS 

has determined that the appropriate 

target coverage rate for fishing year 2015 

is 24 percent. We expect ASM coverage 

to be 20 percent and NEFOP coverage to 

be 4 percent, covering a total of 24 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
12386 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 45 / Monday, March 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

percent of all sector trips, with the 

exception of trips using a few specific 

exemptions, as described later in this 

rule. We will use discards derived from 

these observed and monitored trips to 

calculate discards for unobserved sector 

trips. We have published a more 

detailed summary of the supporting 

information, explanation and 

justification for this decision at: http:// 

www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/

ro/fso/reports/Sectors/ASM/FY2015_

Multispecies_Sector_ASM_

Requirements_Summary.pdf. 

The draft operations plans submitted 

in September 2014 included industryfunded ASM plans for fishing year 2015. 

Therefore, we are proposing to approve 

the sector’s ASM programs as described 

in their operations plans. We gave 

sectors the option to design their own 

programs in compliance with 

regulations, or opt for the program that 

we have previously utilized in previous 

fishing years. ASM programs proposed 

by the sectors are described in detail 

later in this proposed rule. The 

proposed operations plans each contain 

an ASM program sufficient to ensure 

ASM coverage for fishing years 2015 

and 2016, including once sectors 

assume responsibility for funding their 

ASM program, at the required levels 

stated in this rule. Given the potential 

for changes in the ASM program 

funding for sectors, NMFS will verify 

that all approved sectors continue to 

comply with all ASM requirements, 

including contracting with approved 

providers in a timely fashion. 

We are currently looking at how 

industry funding of the ASM program 

will affect our data collection systems, 

especially the PTNS system, and have 

begun working on an implementation 

plan to help ensure a seamless 

transition when the industry assumes 

responsibility for at-sea costs in 2015. 

To ensure that the ASM programs 

continue to provide sufficient coverage, 

the Regional Administrator is 

authorized to adjust operational 

standards such as vessel selection 

protocols as needed, consistent with the 

Administrative Procedure Act. We will 

continue to keep the sector managers 

informed about any changes or updates 

to the situation. 

Our ability to fund our portion of 

costs for ASM coverage above SBRM 

coverage levels for the entire 2015 and 

2016 fishing years is not precisely 

known at this time due to budget 

uncertainties. Currently, funding for our 

portion of ASM costs will expire before 

the end of the 2015 fishing year. If we 

have insufficient funding available for 

our portion of coverage costs beyond 

that time, we may need to consider 

other measures, including emergency 

action, to allow sectors to continue 

fishing while still ensuring that we can 

adequately monitor sector catch for 

management purposes. We expect this 

funding issue to be resolved before this 

rule is effective, but are seeking 

comments on possible measures to help 

adequately monitor catch limits. 

Sectors are required to monitor their 

allocations and catch, and submit 

weekly catch reports to us. If a sector 

reaches an ACE threshold (specified in 

the operations plan), the sector must 

provide sector allocation usage reports 

on a daily basis. Once a sector’s 

allocation for a particular stock is 

caught, that sector is required to cease 

all fishing operations in that stock area 

until it acquires more ACE. ACE may be 

transferred between sectors, but 

transfers to or from common pool 

vessels is prohibited. Within 60 days of 

when we complete year-end catch 

accounting, each sector is required to 

submit an annual report detailing the 

sector’s catch (landings and discards), 

enforcement actions, and pertinent 

information necessary to evaluate the 

biological, economic, and social impacts 

of each sector. 

Each sector contract provides 

procedures to enforce the sector 

operations plan, explains sector 

monitoring and reporting requirements, 

presents a schedule of penalties for 

sector plan violations, and provides 

sector managers with the authority to 

issue stop fishing orders to sector 

members who violate provisions of the 

operations plan and contract. A sector 

and sector members can be held jointly 

and severally liable for ACE overages, 

discarding legal-sized fish, and/or 

misreporting catch (landings or 

discards). Each sector operations plan 

submitted for fishing years 2015 and 

2016 states that the sector would 

withhold an initial reserve from the 

sector’s ACE sub-allocation to each 

individual member to prevent the sector 

from exceeding its ACE. Each sector 

contract details the method for initial 

ACE sub-allocation to sector members. 

For fishing years 2015 and 2016, each 

sector has proposed that each sector 

member could harvest an amount of fish 

equal to the amount each individual 

member’s permit contributed to the 

sector. 

Requested Fishing Years 2015 and 2016 

Exemptions 

Sectors requested 22 exemptions from 

the NE multispecies regulations through 

their fishing years 2015 and 2016 

operations plans. We evaluate each 

exemption to determine whether it 

allows for effective administration of 

and compliance with the operations 

plan and sector allocation, and that it is 

consistent with the goals and objectives 

of the FMP. We propose to grant the 

following for fishing years 2015 and 

2016: 16 exemptions that were 

previously granted; 1 exemption that 

was previously granted, but has been 

modified; 1 exemption that we propose 

to partially grant; and 1 new exemption. 

We propose to deny three exemption 

requests for fishing years 2015 and 

2016. 

For fishing year 2014, sectors had 

requested an exemption that would 

allow access to year-round closed areas. 

This request may be considered in a 

separate action pending results from an 

ongoing Exempted Fishing Permit (EFP) 

(see Exemptions That May Be 

Considered in a Separate Action). 

A discussion of all 22 exemption 

requests appears below; we request 

public comment on the proposed sector 

operations plans and our proposal to 

grant 19 requested exemptions, in whole 

or partially, and deny 3 requested 

exemptions, as well as the EA prepared 

for this action. 

Exemptions We Propose To Grant (16) 

In fishing year 2014, we exempted 

sectors from the following requirements, 

all of which have been requested for 

fishing years 2015 and 2016, and which 

we propose to grant again: (1) 120-day 

block out of the fishery required for Day 

gillnet vessels; (2) 20-day spawning 

block out of the fishery required for all 

vessels; (3) prohibition on a vessel 

hauling another vessel’s gillnet gear; (4) 

limits on the number of gillnets that 

may be hauled on GB when fishing 

under a NE multispecies/monkfish DAS; 

(5) limits on the number of hooks that 

may be fished; (6) DAS Leasing Program 

length and horsepower restrictions; (7) 

prohibition on discarding; (8) daily 

catch reporting by sector managers for 

sector vessels participating in the 

Closed Area (CA) I Hook Gear Haddock 

Special Access Program (SAP); (9) 

prohibition on fishing inside and 

outside of the CA I Hook Gear Haddock 

SAP while on the same trip; (10) 

prohibition on a vessel hauling another 

vessel’s hook gear; (11) the requirement 

to declare intent to fish in the Eastern 

U.S./Canada SAP and the CA II 

Yellowtail Flounder/Haddock SAP prior 

to leaving the dock; (12) gear 

requirements in the Eastern U.S./Canada 

Management Area; (13) seasonal 

restrictions for the Eastern U.S./Canada 

Haddock SAP; (14) seasonal restrictions 

for the CA II Yellowtail Flounder/

Haddock SAP; (15) sampling exemption; 

and (16) prohibition on groundfish trips 

in the Nantucket Lightship Closed Area. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 45 / Monday, March 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 12387 

A detailed description of the previously 

approved exemptions and rationale for 

their approval can be found in the 

applicable final rules identified in Table 

5 below. 

TABLE 5—EXEMPTIONS FROM PREVIOUS FISHING YEARS PROPOSED FOR APPROVAL IN FISHING YEARS 2015 AND 2016 

Exemptions Rulemaking Date Citation 

1–8, 12 ....................... Fishing Year 2011 Sector Operations Final Rule ............................................ April 25, 2011 ................. 76 FR 23076 

9–11 ........................... Fishing Year 2012 Sector Operations Final Rule ............................................ May 2, 2012 ................... 77 FR 26129 

13–15 ......................... Fishing Year 2013 Sector Operations Interim Final Rule ................................ May 2, 2013 ................... 78 FR 25591 

16 ............................... Fishing Year 2014 Sector Operations Final Rule ............................................ April 28, 2014 ................. 79 FR 23278 

NE Multispecies Federal Register documents can be found at http://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/sustainable/species/multispecies/. 

Exemption We Propose To Approve, but 

Have Modified From 2014(1) 

(17) Prohibition on Combining Small 

Mesh Exempted Fishery and Sector 

Trips 

For fishing year 2014, sectors 

requested and we granted an exemption 

that would allow vessels to possess and 

use small-mesh and large-mesh trawl 

gear on a single trip, within portions of 

the SNE regulated mesh areas (RMA). 

Sectors proposed that vessels using this 

exemption to fish with smaller mesh 

would fish in two discrete areas that 

have been shown to have minimal 

amounts of regulated species and ocean 

pout. See the 2014 Sector Final Rule (79 

FR 23278; April 28, 2014) for a complete 

description of the previously granted 

exemption. 

For fishing years 2015 and 2016, 

sectors requested a similar exemption, 

but with a revised northern border of 

the eastern Small-Mesh Exemption Area 

2, shifted 15 minutes north. This 

expansion will allow for greater 

opportunities for sector vessels to target 

small-mesh species. The coordinates 

and maps for these two areas are shown 

in Figure 1. 

Sector Small-Mesh Fishery Exemption 

Area 1 is bounded by the following 

coordinates connected in the order 

listed by straight lines, except where 

otherwise noted: 

Point N. Latitude W. Longitude Note 

A ...... 40°39.2′ 73°07.0′ 

B ...... 40°34.0′ 73°07.0′ 

C ...... 41°03.5′ 71°34.0′ 

D ...... 41°23.0′ 71°11.5′ 

E ...... 41°27.6′ 71°11.5′ (1) 

F ...... 41°18.3′ 71°51.5′ 

Point N. Latitude W. Longitude Note 

G ...... 41°04.3′ 71°51.5′ (2) 

A ...... 40°39.2′ 73°07.0′ 

1From POINT E to POINT F along the 

southernmost coastline of Rhode Island and 

crossing all bays and inlets following the 

COLREGS Demarcation Lines defined in 33 

CFR part 80. 2From POINT G back to POINT A along the 

southernmost coastline of Long Island, NY, 

and crossing all bays and inlets following the 

COLREGS Demarcation Lines defined in 33 

CFR part 80. 

For fishing years 2015 and 2016, 

Sector Small-Mesh Fishery Exemption 

Area 2 is bound by the following 

coordinates connected in the order 

listed by straight lines. Sector vessels 

cannot fish the small-mesh portion of 

their trip using this exemption in the 

Nantucket Lighship Closed Area where 

the two areas overlap. 

Point N. Latitude W. Longitude 

H .................... 41°15.0′ N 71°20.0′ W 

I ...................... 41°15.0′ N 70°00.0′ W 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSEP09MR15.003</GPH>
12388 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 45 / Monday, March 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

Point N. Latitude W. Longitude 

J ..................... 40°27.0′ N 70°00.0′ W 

K .................... 40°27.0′ N 71°20.0′ W 

H .................... 41°15.0′ N 71°20.0′ W 

As was approved in fishing year 2014, 

one of three trawl gear modifications 

would be required when using small 

mesh: Drop-chain sweep with a 

minimum of 12 inches (30.48 cm) in 

length; a large-mesh belly panel with a 

minimum of 32-inch (81.28-cm) mesh 

size; or an excluder grate secured 

forward of the codend with an outlet 

hole forward of the grate with bar 

spacing of no more than 1.97 inches 

(5.00 cm) wide. These gear 

modifications, when fished properly, 

have been shown to reduce the catch of 

legal and sub-legal groundfish stocks. 

Requiring these modifications is 

intended to also reduce the incentive for 

a sector vessel to target groundfish with 

small mesh. 

A vessel using this exemption is 

required to meet the same NEFOP and 

ASM coverage as standard groundfish 

trips (i.e., a total of 24 percent in fishing 

year 2015). The vessel would be 

required to declare their intent to use 

small mesh to target non-regulated 

species by submitting a trip start hail 

through its vessel monitoring system 

(VMS) unit prior to departure, which 

would be used for monitoring and 

enforcement purposes. Trips declaring 

this exemption must stow their smallmesh gear and use their large-mesh gear 

first, and once finished with the large 

mesh, would have to submit a 

Multispecies Catch Report via VMS 

with all catch on board at that time. 

Once the Catch Report was sent, the 

vessel could then deploy small mesh 

with the required modifications in the 

specific areas (see map above), outside 

of the Nantucket Lightship Closed Area, 

at which point, the large mesh could not 

be redeployed. Any legal-sized allocated 

groundfish stocks caught during these 

small-mesh hauls must be landed and 

the associated landed weight (dealer or 

vessel trip report (VTR)) would be 

deducted from the sector’s ACE. 

As in fishing year 2014, we are 

concerned about vessels potentially 

catching groundfish, including bycatch 

of juvenile fish, in the requested 

exemption area with small-mesh nets. 

The expansion of the Small-Mesh 

Exemption Area 2 by 15 minutes north 

could increase this potential, because 

more groundfish are found in the 

expansion area. The three gear 

modifications proposed for this 

exemption could mitigate catch of 

regulated species when properly 

installed, but none have been shown to 

completely eliminate the catch of 

regulated species. 

If approved, we will closely monitor 

the catch from these exempted trips. If 

it is determined that this exemption is 

having a negative impact on groundfish 

stocks, we would consider revoking this 

exemption during the fishing year. 

Exemption We Propose To Partially 

Grant, and Partially Deny (1) 

(18) Limits on the Number of Gillnets on 

Day Gillnet Vessels 

The FMP limits the number of gillnets 

a Day gillnet vessel may fish in the 

groundfish RMAs to prevent an 

uncontrolled increase in the number of 

nets being fished, thus undermining 

applicable DAS effort controls. The 

limits are specific to the type of gillnet 

within each RMA: 100 gillnets (of which 

no more than 50 can be roundfish 

gillnets) in the GOM RMA 

(§ 648.80(a)(3)(iv)); 50 gillnets in the GB 

RMA (§ 648.80(a)(4)(iv)); and 75 gillnets 

in the Mid-Atlantic (MA) RMA 

(§ 648.80(b)(2)(iv)). We previously 

approved this exemption in fishing 

years 2010, 2011, and 2012 to allow 

sector vessels to fish up to 150 nets (any 

combination of flatfish or roundfish 

nets) in any RMA to provide greater 

operational flexibility to sector vessels 

in deploying gillnet gear. Sectors argued 

that the gillnet limits were designed to 

control fishing effort and are no longer 

necessary because a sector’s ACE limits 

overall fishing mortality. 

Previous effort analysis of all sector 

vessels using gillnet gear indicated an 

increase in gear used in the RMA which 

could lead to an increase in interactions 

with protected species. While a sector’s 

ACE is designed to limit a stock’s 

fishing mortality, fishing effort may 

affect other species. This increased 

effort could ultimately lead to a rise in 

interactions with protected species; 

however, we do not expect this to be the 

case, because a take reduction plan has 

been implemented to reduce bycatch in 

the fisheries affecting these species. 

For fishing year 2013, based on the 

comments received and the concern for 

spawning GOM cod, we restricted the 

use of this exemption to better protect 

spawning cod. Therefore, a vessel 

fishing in the GOM RMA was able to 

use this exemption seasonally, but was 

restricted to the 100-net gillnet limit in 

blocks 124 and 125 in May, and in 

blocks 132 and 133 in June. A vessel 

fishing in the GB RMA, SNE RMA, MA 

RMA, and the GOM outside of these 

times and areas did not have this 

additional restriction. We granted this 

exemption with the same GOM seasonal 

restrictions for fishing year 2014. 

The November 2014 interim action 

implemented to protect GOM cod (79 

FR 67362; November 13, 2014) revoked 

this exemption for all of the GOM for 

the remainder of fishing year 2014, 

given concerns relating to mortality of 

GOM cod caused by continuous fishing 

by gillnets left in the water and the 

potential to disrupt spawning when cod 

are caught. For these same concerns, we 

are proposing to partially grant the 

exemption for fishing years 2015 and 

2016 when fishing in all RMAs except 

the GOM, and to deny the exemption for 

the GOM. Therefore, vessels fishing in 

the GOM under the Day boat gillnet 

category would be restricted to no more 

than 100 nets, only 50 of which may be 

roundfish nets. 

New Exemption Proposed (1) 

(19) Regulated Mesh Size 6.5-Inch 

(16.5-cm) or Greater, for Directed 

Redfish Trips 

Minimum mesh size restrictions 

(§ 648.80(a)(3)(i), (a)(4)(i), (b)(2)(i), and 

(c)(2)(i)) were implemented under 

previous groundfish actions to reduce 

overall mortality on groundfish stocks, 

change the selection pattern of the 

fishery to target larger fish, improve 

survival of sublegal fish, and allow 

sublegal fish more opportunity to spawn 

before entering the fishery. Beginning in 

fishing year 2012, we have approved 

exemptions that allow sector vessels to 

target redfish, the smallest species of 

regulated groundfish, with a sub-legal 

size mesh codend, ranging from 4.5 

inches (11.4 cm) to 6 inches (15.2 cm) 

(see Table 6). In order to use these 

previous exemptions, sectors have been 

required to meet an 80-percent 

threshold of redfish catch, relative to 

groundfish catch, and a 5-percent 

discard threshold of total groundfish, 

including redfish. These thresholds 

were intended to ensure that a vessel 

using the exemption effectively targets 

redfish and does not target other species 

with a smaller mesh, and attempts to 

avoid catching sub-legal groundfish. 

The thresholds were based on 

Component 2 of the REDNET report 

(Kanwit et al. 2013), which used a 4.5- 

inch mesh codend, and observer data for 

trips conducted in fishing year 2012. 

REDNET is a group that includes the 

Maine Department of Marine Resources, 

the Massachusetts Division of Marine 

Fisheries, and the University of 

Massachusetts School for Marine 

Science and Technology joined with 

other members of the scientific 

community and the industry to develop 

a research plan to develop a sustainable, 

directed, redfish trawl fishery in the 

GOM. Each year, we have changed the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 45 / Monday, March 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 12389 

exemption at the sectors’ request in an 

attempt to balance the goal of increasing 

use of the exemption while preventing 

misuse and ensuring it is consistent 

with the FMP’s goals and objectives. 

TABLE 6—REDFISH EXEMPTIONS BY FISHING YEAR

Exemptions Rulemaking Date Citation 

6.0 inch (15.2 cm) with 100% NMFS-funded coverage.FY 2012 Sector Operations Final Rule .................... May 2, 2012 ..... 77 FR 26129 

4.5 inch (11.4 cm) with 100% NMFS-funded coverage.FY 2012 Redfish Exemption Final Rule ................... March 5, 2013 .. 78 FR 14226 

4.5 inch (11.4 cm) with 100% Industry-funded coverage.FY 2013 Sector Operations Interim Final Rule ........ May 2, 2013 ..... 78 FR 25591 

6.0 inch (15.2 cm) with standard observer coverage FY 2014 Sector Operations Final Rule .................... April 28, 2014 ... 79 FR 23278 

NE Multispecies Federal Register documents can be found at http://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/sustainable/species/multispecies. 

For fishing years 2012 and 2013, the 

exemption required 100-percent 

monitoring with either an ASM or 

observer on every trip, primarily 

because of concerns over a greater 

retention of sub-legal groundfish, as 

well as non-allocated species and 

bycatch. In fishing year 2012, we found 

that allowing trips that are randomly 

selected for federally funded NEFOP or 

ASM coverage provided an incentive to 

take an exemption trip when selected 

for coverage, thereby reducing the 

number of observers/monitors available 

to cover standard sector trips (i.e., trips 

not utilizing this exemption). If fewer 

observers/monitors deploy on standard 

sector trips, then the exemption 

undermines both the ability to meet 

required coverage levels and the 

reliability of discard rates calculated for 

unobserved standard sector trips. 

Therefore, in fishing year 2013, we 

required sectors to pay for 100 percent 

of the at-sea cost for a monitor on all 

redfish exemption trips, which resulted 

in sectors not taking a redfish trip that 

fishing year. 

For fishing year 2014, we granted an 

exemption that allowed vessels to use a 

6-inch (15.2-cm) or larger mesh codend 

to target redfish when fishing in the 

Redfish Exemption Area. The vessels 

participating in the redfish fishery in 

fishing year 2014 were subject to the 

same NEFOP and ASM target coverage 

as standard groundfish trips (26 

percent). Vessels could fish with the 

regulated mesh nets (6.5-inch [16.5-cm] 

codends or larger) and with the 6.0-inch 

(15.2-cm) mesh codends on the same 

trip; however, for all trips (by sector, by 

month) declaring this exemption, we 

monitored landings for the entire trip to 

determine if the vessel had met the 80- 

percent redfish catch threshold and the 

5-percent discard threshold. 

Following approval of the exemption 

in fishing year 2014, sectors indicated 

that an 80-percent redfish catch 

threshold, based on REDNET data 

collected using a 4.5-inch (11.4-cm) 

mesh codend, is not appropriate for all 

mesh sizes (i.e., as mesh size increases, 

the efficiency of catching redfish 

decreases). Additionally, given the 

average landed value of redfish, they 

indicated that they do not consider it 

economically viable to have an offload 

comprised of 80 percent redfish. 

Therefore, as of January 2015, few have 

been taken under this exemption, 

because, according to sectors, they 

cannot effectively or profitably target 

redfish to meet the 80-percent 

threshold. 

For fishing years 2015 and 2016, we 

propose granting the sectors’ request to 

use a 5.5-inch (14.0-cm) mesh codend 

when fishing in the redfish exemption. 

A vessel would have the option to fish 

the first portion of a trip with current 

legal codend mesh size (6.5 inches; 16.5 

cm), and then switch to a codend no 

smaller than 5.5 inches (14.0 cm) for the 

redfish portion of their trip. Allowing 

sectors to legally target groundfish on 

the first portion of the trip would 

provide flexibility and would address 

the sector’s concern regarding 

profitability. In addition, the sectors 

have requested a 50-percent catch 

threshold, which would only apply to 

the second half of the trip. The sectors 

argue that this threshold is more 

appropriate for a 5.5-inch (14.0-cm) 

codend, as data from Component 3 of 

the REDNET report (Pol and He 2013) 

indicates that as the codend mesh size 

increases from 4.5 inches (11.4 cm) to 

5.5 inches (14.0 cm), selectivity 

decreases, making it more difficult for 

vessels to catch only redfish. However, 

the lower 50-percent threshold would 

allow greater catch of other regulated 

groundfish species with small mesh, 

which could result in higher discards or 

targeting of groundfish with small mesh. 

We are proposing to address this by 

implementing reporting requirements to 

facilitate monitoring and enforcement. If 

we detect vessels targeting non-redfish 

socks, particularly stocks of concern, the 

RA retains the right to rescind approval 

of the exemption. We request comment 

on this issue. The 5-percent discard 

threshold for all groundfish, including 

redfish, would still apply on the redfish 

portion of observed trips. 

Due to concern for GOM cod, we have 

modified the redfish exemption area 

(Figure 2) from 2014 (see Figure 2). 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
12390 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 45 / Monday, March 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

The Redfish Exemption Area would 

be bounded on the east by the U.S.- 

Canada Maritime Boundary, and 

bounded on the north, west, and south 

by the following coordinates, connected 

in the order listed by straight lines: 

Point N. Lat. W. Long. Note 

A ...... 44°27.25′ 67°02.75′ 

B ...... 44°16.25′ 67°30.00′ 

C ...... 44°04.50′ 68°00.00′ 

D ...... 43°52.25′ 68°30.00′ 

E ...... 43°40.25′ 69°00.00′ 

F ...... 43°28.25′ 69°30.00′ 

G ...... 43°00.00′ 69°30.00′ 

H ...... 43°00.00′ 70°00.00′ 

I ........ 42°00.00′ 70°00.00′ 

J ....... 42°00.00′ (67°00.63′) (1) 

1The intersection of 42°00′ N. latitude and 

the U.S.-Canada Maritime Boundary, approximate longitude in parentheses. 

We have modified the redfish 

exemption area to exclude block 138 for 

the entire fishing year, and allow only 

seasonal access to block 131. Sector 

vessels would not be allowed to use the 

redfish exemption in block 131 in 

February and March. We based this 

decision on the closures implemented 

by the November 2014 interim action 

taken for the protection of cod; areas 

138 and 131 were the only areas closed 

by the interim action that overlapped 

with the fishing year 2014 redfish 

exemption area. These areas are known 

to have higher levels of GOM cod catch 

and/or spawning activity, and we 

propose to close them to avoid 

interaction with and bycatch of GOM 

cod. Additionally, area 138 has 

historically had very little redfish catch; 

therefore, the exclusion of this area 

should not limit sectors from targeting 

redfish. The area is bounded on the east, 

north, west, and south by the following 

coordinates, connected by straight lines 

in the order listed: 

Point N. Lat. W. Long. 

G .................... 43°00.00′ 69°30.00′ 

H .................... 43°00.00′ 70°00.00′ 

K .................... 42°30.00′ 70°00.00′ 

L ..................... 42°30.00′ 69°30.00′ 

G .................... 43°00.00′ 69°30.00′ 

Vessels must declare their trip in the 

pre-trip notification system (PTNS) 

under standard requirements, but there 

are no additional monitoring 

requirements above the target coverage 

for the groundfish fishery. Prior to 

leaving the dock, any vessel that intends 

to use the redfish exemption on a trip 

must declare so through the VMS trip 

start hail by checking the box next to 

‘‘Redfish Trip’’ under sector 

exemptions. This notification must be 

made if the vessel intends to use a 5.5- 

inch (14.0-cm) codend or larger to target 

redfish on any portion of the trip. 

Any vessel declaring this exemption 

must submit catch reports via VMS each 

day for the entire trip. For the first 

portion of the trip, a vessel may fish 

using a 6.0-inch (15.2-cm) mesh codend 

with selective gear in the GB BSA 

(current mesh flexibility allowed from 

Council exemption est. in 2010) or 6.5- 

inch (16.5-cm) mesh codend in any 

BSA, including the GOM. Any sub-legal 

codend must be stowed below deck for 

this entire portion of the trip. Catch 

thresholds do not apply to this portion 

of the trip. 

When a vessel switches its codend to 

target redfish, it must first transit to the 

Redfish Exemption Area. Once the 

vessel is in the Redfish Exemption Area, 

it must declare via VMS that it is 

switching to the 5.5-inch (14.0-cm) 

mesh codend (or larger) and will be 

conducting the remainder of its fishing 

activity exclusively in the Redfish 

Exemption Area. The vessel can then 

retrieve the 5.5-inch (14.0-cm) mesh 

codend from below deck and begin 

using it. All fishing activity for the 

remainder of the trip must occur in the 

Redfish Exemption area. For this 

portion of the trip, at least 50 percent of 

the total allocated groundfish kept must 

be redfish, and on observed trips, no 

more than 5 percent of all groundfish, 

including redfish, may be discarded. 

These thresholds will be used by NMFS 

to determine if this sector exemption 

should be revoked. The vessel must also 

submit a final catch report and a Trip 

End Hail via VMS at the end of the trip 

to facilitate dockside enforcement. 

There are enforcment concerns 

associated with the additional flexibility 

this exemption provides. Specifically, 

enforcing different mesh size 

restrictions on different portions of a 

single fishing trip could be challenging 

at sea, and there is the potential for 

vessels to misreport the mesh size used 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSEP09MR15.004</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 45 / Monday, March 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 12391 

to catch groundfish to avoid having the 

exemption revoked for exceeding the 

threshold. 

Additionally, we are concerned about 

vessels catching groundfish, including 

their bycatch of juvenile fish, which 

could potentially cause them to exceed 

the discard threshold of 5 percent, in 

the Redfish Exemption Area when 

fishing with codend mesh sized nets 

smaller than the GOM regulated mesh 

size of 6.5 inches (16.5 cm). The 50- 

percent catch threshold is meant to 

reflect the likely proportion of redfish 

catch while using a 5.5-inch (14.0-cm) 

mesh codend, based on the results of 

Component 3 of REDNET. We are 

concerned, however, that it could allow 

sectors to target groundfish when 

fishing with a smaller codend and could 

increase discards that would likely go 

unreported, which could undermine the 

protections of the 5-percent bycatch 

threshold. Therefore, we are specifically 

seeking comment on this exemption, 

regarding the enforcement concerns, the 

reporting concerns, and the 

appropriateness of the threshold. 

If the redfish exemption is approved, 

we intend to monitor use of the 

exemption carefully. For example, 

should it be determined that vessels are 

not using the exemption when assigned 

an observer or ASM, and only using it 

when unobserved, we would have 

concerns about monitoring the 

exemption. Additionally, if a vessel 

does not submit daily catch reports or 

the required declaration when switching 

to the redfish portion of the trip, we 

may not be able to adequately monitor 

the exemption. The RA retains authority 

to rescind approval of this exemption, if 

it is needed. All vessels in a sector may 

be held jointly and severally liable for 

misreporting by a single vessel in a 

sector. 

Exemptions We Propose To Deny (3) 

(20) GOM Sink Gillnet Mesh Exemption 

in May, and January Through April 

We propose to deny the GOM sink 

gillnet mesh exemption request due to 

concern for GOM cod. We did not 

analyze this exemption in the EA 

because no new information was 

available to change the analyses 

previously published in past EAs. 

The GOM Sink Gillnet Mesh 

Exemption was approved for fishing 

years 2010 through 2012. This 

exemption allowed sector vessels to use 

6-inch (15.2-cm) mesh gillnets in the 

GOM to target GOM haddock 

seasonally. However, due to concerns 

regarding the stock status of GOM 

haddock and the potential increase in 

interactions with protected species, the 

exemption was denied for fishing year 

2013 (78 FR 25591, May 2, 2013) and 

fishing year 2014. 

On November 12, 2014, at the request 

of the New England Fishery 

Management Council and in response a 

stock assessment conducted by the 

Northeast Fisheries Science Center, we 

published an emergency action that 

increased the GOM haddock ACL for 

fishing year 2014 (79 FR 67090). This 

action nearly doubled each sector’s ACE 

for GOM haddock. Because sectors 

anticipated that GOM haddock would 

not be a concern for fishing year 2014, 

they again requested this exemption for 

fishing years 2015 and 2016. 

While the stock status of GOM 

haddock has improved, biomass has not 

increased to the level it was in fishing 

year 2010, when this exemption was 

first approved. In addition, we are 

concerned about the effects of this 

exemption on GOM cod. The November 

2014 interim action implemented to 

protect GOM cod revoked an exemption 

that resulted in decreasing the amount 

of gillnet gear in the GOM, given 

concerns relating to mortality of GOM 

cod caused by continuous fishing by 

gillnets left in the water and the 

potential to disrupt spawning when cod 

are caught. We are similarly concerned 

that using nets smaller than the 

minimum size may impact GOM cod 

mortality. For these same concerns, we 

are proposing to deny the GOM 

Haddock Sink Gillnet Mesh exemption 

for fishing years 2015 and 2016. 

(21) Powering Vessel Monitoring 

Systems (VMS) While at the Dock 

Beginning in fishing year 2011, we 

approved an exemption from the 

requirement to keep the VMS units 

powered while tied to the dock or on a 

mooring. In fishing year 2012, the 

NOAA Office of Law Enforcement (OLE) 

recognized a lack of compliance. The 

exemption was only applicable for 

vessels that did not otherwise possess 

Federal fishing permits for other FMPs 

that required a VMS unit, and vessels 

were required to follow certain 

protocols, such as sending a powerdown 

code before turning off the VMS unit. 

Misuse of the exemption decreases our 

confidence in our ability to adequately 

monitor the fishery. During fishing year 

2013, we worked with sector managers 

to identify the sector members who 

were out of compliance with the 

exemption. However, in this time, 

compliance did not improve. Therefore, 

for fishing years 2015 and 2016, we 

propose to not approve this exemption 

due to lack of compliance. 

(22) Requirement To Use 6.5-Inch 

(16.5-cm) Mesh Size or Greater for 

Directed Redfish Trips, as Previously 

Approved in Fishing Year 2014 

The exemption request to use a 6.0- 

inch (15.2-cm) mesh codend nets, with 

a threshold of no lower than 80 percent 

redfish of the total groundfish catch on 

hauls using the redfish exemption, for 

fishing years 2015 and 2016, is identical 

to the exemption for fishing year 2014. 

A second redfish exemption request, 

described above (exemption #19), is 

proposed for approval. Therefore, we 

are proposing to deny this exemption 

request. 

Exemption That May Be Considered in 

a Separate Action (1) 

Prohibition on Groundfish Trips in 

Closed Areas I and II 

In fishing year 2013, we disapproved 

an exemption that would have allowed 

sector vessels restricted access to 

portions of CAs I and II, provided each 

trip carried an industry-funded ASM. 

When we proposed allowing sector 

access to these areas, we announced that 

we did not have funding to pay for 

monitoring the additional trips for 

exemptions requiring a 100-percent 

coverage level. Industry members 

indicated that it was too expensive to 

participate in the exemption, given the 

requirement to pay for a monitor on 

every trip. This, in combination with 

extensive comment opposing access to 

these areas to protect depleted stocks 

and our concern about the impacts on 

depleted stocks such as GB cod and GB 

yellowtail flounder, resulted in 

disapproval. For a detailed description 

of the exemption request and 

justifications for disapproval, see the 

final rule (78 FR 41772, December 16, 

2013). 

For fishing year 2014, we remained 

unable to fund monitoring costs for 

exemptions requiring a 100-percent 

coverage level. In addition, we had 

some concerns about funding and 

administering the shore-side portion of 

any monitoring program for an 

exemption that requires additional 

ASM, such as the exemption to access 

CAs I and II. However, we authorized 

two EFPs to gather catch data from CAs 

I and II, one in coordination with the 

Northeast Fisheries Science Center, the 

other with members of the industry. 

Results from these EFPs could better 

inform us, the industry, and the public, 

regarding the economic efficacy of 

accessing these CAs, while providing 

information specific to bycatch of 

depleted stocks. Trips taken under these 

EFPs are attempting to address the 

following questions: (1) Could enough 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
12392 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 45 / Monday, March 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

fish be caught to adequately offset the 

industry’s additional expense of having 

an ASM on board, and (2) could catch 

of groundfish stocks of concern be 

addressed? 

The two authorized EFPs have 

allowed access to participating vessels 

into the same portions of CAs I and II 

that were originally proposed for access 

to sectors. Vessels using the EFPs are 

required to use specialized trawl gear to 

reduce impacts on flounder species, are 

restricted seasonally to avoid spawning 

fish, and must adhere to an agreement 

between the lobster and groundfish 

fishery in CA II to avoid gear conflicts. 

One of the two approved EFPs is still 

ongoing. Upon review of the EFP 

results, we will consider potential 

access to these areas through a separate 

action. 

2014 Interim Cod Action 

On November 13, 2014, at the request 

of the New England Fishery 

Management Council and in response a 

stock assessment conducted by the 

Northeast Fisheries Science Center, we 

published an interim action 

implemented to protect GOM cod. In 

this action, one fishing year 2014 

exemption (limits on the number of 

gillnets on Day gillnet vessels, 

exemption #18) was revoked when 

fishing in the GOM because of its 

potential to affect GOM cod; the 

exemption as it applied in GB, SNE, and 

MA remains in place. As described 

above, we are proposing to not grant the 

exemption for the limits on gillnets for 

Day gillnet vessels in the GOM, but 

grant it in the other RMAs. 

Additionally, we have proposed to 

modify the previously approved redfish 

exemption area (as described in 

exemption #19) due to concern for GOM 

cod. There are several other exemptions 

proposed in the GOM that also could 

potentially affect GOM cod. These 

exemptions include: 

(1) 120-day block out of the fishery 

required for Day gillnet vessels; 

(2) 20-day spawning block out of the 

fishery required for all vessels; 

(3) Prohibition on a vessel hauling 

another vessel’s gillnet gear; 

(5) Limits on the number of hooks that 

may be fished; and 

(10) Prohibition on a vessel hauling 

another vessel’s hook gear. 

While we request comment on all 

exemptions in fishing years 2015 and 

2016, we specifically request the public 

to comment on exemptions in the GOM 

that could affect the GOM cod stock and 

its ability to rebuild. 

Additional Sector Provisions 

Inshore GOM Restrictions 

Several sectors have proposed a 

provision to limit and more accurately 

document a vessel’s behavior when 

fishing in what they consider the 

inshore portion of the GOM BSA, or the 

area to the west of 70° 15′ W. long. A 

vessel that is carrying an observer or 

ASM would remain free to fish without 

restriction. As proposed under the 

Inshore GOM Restriction provision, if a 

vessel is not carrying an observer or 

ASM and fishes any part of its trip in 

the GOM west of 70° 15′ W. long., the 

vessel would be prohibited from fishing 

outside of the GOM BSA. Also, if a 

vessel is not carrying an observer or 

ASM and fishes any part of its trip 

outside the GOM BSA, this provision 

would prohibit a vessel from fishing 

west of 70° 15′ W. long. in the GOM 

BSA. The sectors’ proposal includes a 

requirement for a vessel to declare 

whether or not it intends to fish in the 

inshore GOM area through the trip start 

hail. We are providing sector managers 

with the ability to monitor this 

provision through the Sector 

Information Management Module 

(SIMM), a Web site where we currently 

provide roster, trip, discard, and 

observer information to sector managers. 

If approved, final declaration 

requirements would be included in each 

vessel’s LOA. We propose to allow a 

sector to use a federally funded NEFOP 

observer or ASM on these trips because 

we do not believe it will create bias in 

coverage or discard estimates, as fishing 

behavior is not expected to change as a 

result of this provision. 

Prohibition on a Vessel Hauling Another 

Vessel’s Trap Gear To Target 

Groundfish 

Several sectors have proposed a 

provision to allow a vessel to haul 

another vessel’s fish trap gear, similar to 

the current exemptions that allow a 

vessel to haul another vessel’s gillnet 

gear, or hook gear. These exemptions 

have generally been referred to as 

‘‘community’’ gear exemptions. 

Regulations at § 648.84(a) require a 

vessel to mark all bottom-tending fixed 

gear, which would include fish trap gear 

used to target groundfish. To facilitate 

enforcement of that regulation, we 

propose requiring that any community 

fish trap gear be tagged by each vessel 

that plans on hauling the gear, similar 

to how this provision was implemented 

in fishing year 2014. This would allow 

one vessel to deploy the trap gear and 

another vessel to haul the trap gear, 

provided both vessels tag the gear prior 

to deployment. This requirement would 

be captured in the sector’s operations 

plan to provide the opportunity for the 

sector to monitor the use of this 

provision and ensure that the OLE and 

the U.S. Coast Guard can enforce the 

provision. 

At-Sea Monitoring Proposals 

For fishing years 2015 and 2016, each 

sector is required to develop and fund 

an ASM program that must be reviewed 

and approved by NMFS. In the event 

that a proposed ASM program could not 

be approved, all sectors were asked to 

include an option to use the current 

NMFS-designed ASM program as a 

back-up. Sustainable Harvest Sectors 1 

and 3, GB Cod Fixed Gear Sector, 

Northeast Coastal Communities Sector, 

and Maine Coast Community Sector 

have proposed to use the ASM program 

that we developed and used for fishing 

years 2010–2014. We propose this 

program for these sectors because we 

believe the existing program to be 

consistent with goals and objectives of 

monitoring, and with regulatory 

requirements. As requested, the 

remaining 12 sectors stated that they 

would use the NMFS-designed ASM 

program in the event that we did not 

approve their individual ASM program 

for fishing years 2015 and 2016. NEFS 

4 has not included provisions for an 

ASM program because the sector 

operates as a private permit bank and 

explicitly prohibits fishing. 

We propose to approve the ASM 

programs proposed by the NEFS 1–13 

(excluding NEFS 4). These programs 

state that they will: Contract with a 

NMFS-approved ASM provider; meet 

the specified coverage level; and utilize 

the PTNS for random selection of 

monitored trips and notification to 

providers. In addition, these proposed 

ASM programs detail protocols for 

waivers, incident reporting, and safety 

requirements. We believe that the 

proposed programs are consistent with 

goals and objectives of monitoring, and 

with regulatory requirements. 

Although the current regulations 

require a sector to fund its costs for its 

ASM program beginning in fishing year 

2013, we funded industry’s ASM costs 

in fishing years 2013 and 2014. It is 

unclear if the Agency will have money 

to fund industry’s ASM costs, in whole 

or in part, for fishing year 2015. 

Additional information on funding and 

implementation of ASM for fishing year 

2015 will be provided at a future date. 

Sector EA 

To comply with NEPA, a 

Programmatic EA was prepared 

encompassing all 17 operations plans, 

analyzing the impacts expected from the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 45 / Monday, March 9, 2015 / Proposed Rules 12393 

continued operation of the sectors over 

the next six years. The sector EA is 

tiered from the Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS) prepared for 

Amendment 16. The EA examines the 

biological, economic, and social impacts 

unique to each sector’s proposed 

operations, including requested 

exemptions, and provides a cumulative 

effect analysis that addresses the 

combined impact of the direct and 

indirect effects of approving all 

proposed sector operations plans. The 

summary findings of the EA conclude 

that each sector would produce similar 

effects that have non-significant 

impacts. Visit http://

www.regulations.gov to view the EA 

prepared for the 17 sectors that this rule 

proposes to approve. 

We decided to do a programmatic 

assessment beginning in fishing year 

2015 because the past four years of 

sector operations have been relatively 

homogeneous, and the EA covering the 

management regime has changed little 

since inception of the program. We 

believe future sector operations would 

likely operate similarly, and the impacts 

associated with their activities would 

also likely be similar in nature to past 

years. However, we understand that it is 

impossible to fully anticipate the future, 

and that new requests for sector 

exemptions may arise that could have 

impacts outside the scope of this 

programmatic document. In this case, a 

supplementary EA may be necessary to 

analyze future sector operations. 

Classification 

The Administrative Procedure Act (5 

U.S.C. 553) requires advance notice of 

rulemaking and opportunity for public 

comment. The Council required 

additional time to develop measures to 

address GOM cod as part of Framework 

53, which delayed our ability to present 

this to the public. We are therefore 

providing a 15-day comment period for 

this rule. A longer comment period 

would be impracticable and contrary to 

the public interest because we must 

publish a final rule prior to the start of 

fishing year 2015 on May 1, 2015, to 

enable sectors to fish at the start of the 

fishing year. A vessel enrolled in a 

sector may not fish in fishing year 2015 

unless its operations plan is approved. 

If the final rule is not published prior to 

May 1, the permits enrolled in sectors 

must either stop fishing until their 

operations plan is approved or elect to 

fish in the common pool for the entirety 

of fishing year 2015. Both of these 

options would have very negative 

impacts for the permits enrolled in the 

sectors. Delaying the implementation 

beyond May 1, 2015, would result in an 

unnecessary economic loss to the sector 

members because vessels would be 

prevented from fishing in a month when 

sector vessels landed approximately 10 

percent of several allocations, including 

GB cod east and GB winter flounder. 

Finally, without a seamless transition 

between fishing years 2014 and 2015, a 

delay would require sector vessels to 

remove gear that complies with an 

exemption, and redeploy the gear once 

the final rule is effective. Talking these 

additional trips would require 

additional fuel and staffing when catch 

may not be landed. 

Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

(Magnuson-Stevens Act), the NMFS 

Assistant Administrator has determined 

that this proposed rule is consistent 

with the NE Multispecies FMP, other 

provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act, and other applicable law, subject to 

further consideration after public 

comment. 

This proposed action is exempt from 

the procedures of Executive Order 

12866 because this action contains no 

implementing regulations. 

The Chief Counsel for Regulation of 

the Department of Commerce certified 

to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 

Small Business Administration (SBA) 

that this proposed rule, if adopted, 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

As outlined in the preamble to this 

proposed rule, the purpose of this action 

is the implementation of fishing years 

2015 and 2016 sector operations plans 

and associated regulatory exemptions. 

In an effort to rebuild the NE 

multispecies complex, other actions 

have reduced the allocations of several 

stocks managed by the NE Multispecies 

FMP, and the economic impacts of those 

allocations have been analyzed in 

accordance with their respective 

actions. This action, if finalized, would 

provide flexible fisheries management 

options to reduce the potential social 

and economic hardships resulting from 

those allocation reductions. 

The regulated entities most likely to 

be affected by the proposed action are 

the 102 groundfish-dependent 

ownership entities that own permits 

currently enrolled in sectors, all of 

which are considered small under the 

SBA’s definition of a small finfishing 

business. 

Under the proposed rule, sector 

operations plans for fishing years 2015 

and 2016 would be approved, allowing 

sector participants to use the universal 

sector exemptions granted under 

Amendment 16. In addition to the 

universal sector exemptions granted 

under the approval of individual sector 

operations plans, sector participants 

have requested relaxation of 22 other 

gear, area, administrative, and seasonal 

restrictions. This rule proposes to grant 

19 of the 22 requested exemptions. 

Because all of the regulated entities are 

considered small businesses per the 

SBA guidelines, there are no 

disproportionate impacts for 

participating in sectors and using the 

universal exemptions and additional 

exemptions requested by individual 

sectors. 

All of the requested sector-specific 

exemptions in this proposed rule are 

expected to have a positive economic 

impact on participants, as they further 

increase the flexibility of fishermen to 

land their allocation at their discretion. 

By choosing when and how to land their 

allocations, sector participants have the 

potential to reduce marginal costs, 

increase revenues, and ultimately 

increase profitability. Again, it is 

expected that fishermen will only use 

sector-specific exemptions that they 

believe will maximize utility, and that 

long-term stock impacts from the 

collective exemptions will be minimal 

and will be outweighed by benefits from 

operational flexibility. 

This rule would not impose 

significant negative economic impacts 

on any of the sector participants. No 

small entities would be placed at a 

competitive disadvantage to large 

entities, and the regulations would not 

reduce the profit for any small entities. 

Therefore, this rule would not have a 

significant impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. As a result, an 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is 

not required and none has been 

prepared. 

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

Dated: March 3, 2015. 

Eileen Sobeck, 

Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2015–05386 Filed 3–6–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS