[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 61 (Friday, March 29, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 19368-19392]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-07532]
[[Page 19367]]
Vol. 78
Friday,
No. 61
March 29, 2013
Part II
Department of Commerce
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 648
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Provisions;
Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northeast Multispecies
Fishery; Framework Adjustment 50; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 78 , No. 61 / Friday, March 29, 2013 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 19368]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 648
[Docket No. 130219149-3288-01]
RIN 0648-BC97
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northeast
Multispecies Fishery; Framework Adjustment 50
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; emergency action; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS proposes approval of, and regulations to implement,
measures in Framework Adjustment 50 (Framework 50) to the Northeast
(NE) Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (FMP). Framework 50 would set
specifications for fishing years (FYs) 2013-2015, including 2013 total
allowable catches (TACs) for the three U.S./Canada stocks, modify the
rebuilding program for Southern New England/Mid-Atlantic (SNE/MA)
winter flounder, and revise management measures for this stock
consistent with the proposed rebuilding strategy. This action also
proposes recreational management measures for FY 2013, as well as
revisions to the sector carryover program. An emergency action to
implement a 2013 catch limit for Georges Bank (GB) yellowtail flounder
is also proposed in this action. The proposed regulations are intended
to prevent overfishing, rebuild overfished stocks, achieve optimum
yield, and ensure that management measures are based on the best
available scientific information.
DATES: Comments must be received by April 15, 2013.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2013-0053,
by any of the following methods:
Electronic submissions: Submit all electronic public
comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to
www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2013-0053,
click the ``Comment Now!'' icon,
complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
Mail: Paper, disk, or CD-ROM comments should be sent 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 NE
Multispecies Framework Adjustment 50.''
Fax: (978) 281-9135, Attn: Sarah Heil.
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). Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in
Microsoft Word, Excel, or Adobe PDF file formats only.
Copies of Framework 50, its Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), a draft
of the environmental assessment (EA) prepared for this action, and the
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) prepared by the New
England Fishery Management Council are available from Thomas A. Nies,
Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water
Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950. The IRFA assessing the impacts
of the proposed measures on small entities and describing steps taken
to minimize any significant economic impact on such entities is
summarized in the Classification section of this proposed rule. The
Framework 50 EA, RIR, and IRFA are also accessible via the Internet at
http://www.nefmc.org/nemulti/index.html or http://www.nero.noaa.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sarah Heil, Fishery Policy Analyst,
phone: 978-281-9257, fax: 978-281-9135.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The FMP specifies management measures for 16 species in Federal
waters off the New England and Mid-Atlantic coasts, including both
large-mesh and small-mesh species. Small-mesh species include silver
hake (whiting), red hake, offshore hake, and ocean pout; and large-mesh
species include Atlantic cod, haddock, yellowtail flounder, pollock,
American plaice, witch flounder, white hake, windowpane flounder,
Atlantic halibut, winter flounder, Acadian redfish, and Atlantic
wolffish. Large-mesh species, which are referred to as ``regulated
species,'' are divided into 19 fish stocks, and along with ocean pout,
make up the groundfish complex.
Amendment 16 to the FMP (Amendment 16) established a process for
setting acceptable biological catches (ABCs) and annual catch limits
(ACLs) for regulated species and ocean pout, as well as distributing
the available catch among the various components of the groundfish
fishery. Amendment 16 also established accountability measures (AMs)
for the 20 groundfish stocks in order to prevent overfishing of these
stocks and correct or mitigate any overages of the ACLs. Framework 44
to the FMP (Framework 44) set the ABCs and ACLs for FYs 2010-2012. In
2011, Framework 45 to the FMP (Framework 45) revised the ABCs and ACLs
for five stocks for FYs 2011-2012. Framework 47 to the FMP updated
specifications for most groundfish stocks for FYs 2012-2014 and
modified management measures to make improvements in the fishery after
more than 1 year under ACLs and AMs.
The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) developed and
adopted Framework 50, in conjunction with Framework 48 to the FMP
(Framework 48), based on the biennial review process established in the
FMP to ACLs and revise management measures necessary to rebuild
overfished groundfish stocks and achieve the goals and objectives of
the FMP. The Council initially intended to set the specifications for
FYs 2013-2015, including adoption of FY 2013 TACs for U.S./Canada
stocks, through Framework 48 to the FMP (Framework 48). Framework 48
also includes measures to establish allocations of SNE/MA windowpane
flounder and GB yellowtail flounder for some non-groundfish fisheries,
modify sector management and groundfish fishery AMs, and help mitigate
anticipated impacts of the FY 2013 catch limits. At its December 2012
meeting, the Council voted to remove the specifications from Framework
48 and initiate a separate specifications package (Framework 50) for
final action at its January 2013 meeting. Due to the drastic cuts in
catch limits being proposed for some stocks in FY 2013, the Council
decided that it needed additional time to explore any flexibility that
may be available for setting specifications and to complete the
necessary analyses for the proposed measures. The Council also needed
additional time to develop new management measures for SNE/MA winter
flounder that are expected to
[[Page 19369]]
help mitigate the anticipated impacts of the proposed FY 2013 catch
limits. In addition, the Council wanted to wait for the results of the
December 2012 benchmark assessments for Gulf of Maine (GOM) and GB cod
that were not yet available when the Council took final action on
Framework 48.
Proposed Measures
The measures proposed by Framework 50 are described below. The
proposed regulations to implement measures in Framework 50 were deemed
by the Council to be consistent with Framework 50, and necessary to
implement the proposed measures as specified in section 303(c) of the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-
Stevens Act). Some of the measures included in this action are being
proposed by NMFS under the authority of section 305(d) of the Magnuson-
Stevens Act, which says that the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) may
promulgate regulations necessary to ensure that fishery management
plans or amendments are implemented in accordance with the Magnuson-
Stevens Act. These measures, which are identified and described in this
preamble, are necessary to reconcile conflicts between the sector
carryover program and the conservation objectives of the FMP in a
manner consistent with the National Standards of the Magnuson-Stevens
Act. This proposed rule also includes management measures for the
common pool and recreational fisheries for FY 2013 that are not
included in Framework 50, but that may be considered by the Regional
Administrator (RA) under authority provided by the FMP.
1. Southern New England/Mid-Atlantic Winter Flounder Rebuilding Program
The current rebuilding strategy for SNE/MA winter flounder was
implemented in 2004 with a targeted rebuilding end date of 2014 with a
median probability of success. In 2008, data showed that the stock
would not rebuild by 2014, even in the absence of all fishing
mortality, but would likely rebuild between 2015 and 2016. As a result,
Amendment 16 adopted management measures that would result in fishing
mortality rates as close to zero as practicable. The stock is not
currently allocated to sectors, and possession is prohibited by
commercial and recreational vessels.
A benchmark assessment was completed in June 2011 for SNE/MA winter
flounder and concluded that there was less than a 1-percent chance that
SNE/MA winter flounder would rebuild by 2014, even if no fishing
mortality were allowed from 2012 to 2014. Based on the assessment
results, NMFS determined that SNE/MA winter flounder was not making
adequate rebuilding progress. Section 304(e)(7) of the Magnuson-Stevens
Act says that if the Secretary finds that an FMP has not resulted in
adequate progress toward ending overfishing and rebuilding, the
Secretary must immediately notify the Council and recommend
conservation and management measures that would achieve adequate
progress. Therefore, on behalf of the Secretary, NMFS notified the
Council in May 2012 that the SNE/MA winter flounder rebuilding program
was not making adequate progress. As a result, NMFS also notified the
Council that it must implement a revised rebuilding plan for the stock
within 2 years, or by May 1, 2014, consistent with the rebuilding
requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. In December 2012, the Council
developed a proposal to re-specify the ABC for SNE/MA winter flounder
to achieve an ACL of at least 1,400 mt while continuing to prevent
overfishing. The Council also proposed to allocate this stock to
sectors beginning in FY 2013. To allow the Council's proposed revisions
to the management approach for SNE/MA winter flounder (see Item 2 of
this preamble for more information), NMFS notified the Council that it
must revise the rebuilding program for this stock.
Therefore, Framework 50 proposes to revise the rebuilding strategy
for SNE/MA winter flounder to rebuild the stock by 2023 with a median
probability of success. During the rebuilding program, catch limits
would be set based on the fishing mortality rate (F) that would rebuild
the stock within its rebuilding timeframe (Frebuild).
However, groundfish stock projections have recently demonstrated a
tendency to overestimate stock growth. Therefore, short-term catch
advice for SNE/MA winter flounder could reduce catches from
Frebuild in order to account for the scientific uncertainty
in the projections. If SNE/MA winter flounder stock size increases more
rapidly than originally projected, Frebuild would be
recalculated, which could allow increased catch limits in the future.
The minimum rebuilding time (Tmin) is the amount of time
a stock is expected to take to rebuild to its maximum sustainable yield
(MSY) biomass level in the absence of any fishing mortality. For SNE/MA
winter flounder, Tmin is 6 yr (from 2013), or 2019. Because
the stock can rebuild in less than 10 yr in the absence of all fishing
mortality, the maximum rebuilding period for SNE/MA winter flounder is
10 yr. A rebuilding end date of 2023 rebuilds the stock as quickly as
possible taking into account the needs of fishing communities. The
proposed rebuilding strategy would return greater net benefits than a
rebuilding strategy that targets an end date between 2019 and 2023.
2. Southern New England/Mid-Atlantic Winter Flounder Management
Measures
Landing Restrictions
As described in Item 1 of this preamble, the prohibition on
retention for SNE/MA winter flounder was adopted by Amendment 16 to
keep fishing mortality rates as close to zero as practicable in order
to rebuild this stock. This measure has effectively reduced fishing
mortality and overfishing is not occurring for this stock. At its
December 2012 meeting, the Council developed measures that would modify
the management program for SNE/MA winter flounder as one way to help
mitigate the anticipated impacts of the proposed reductions in the FY
2013 catch limits.
Framework 50 proposes to allocate SNE/MA winter flounder to
sectors. As adopted by Amendment 16, each vessel's potential sector
contribution (PSC) for SNE/MA winter flounder would be calculated using
dealer landings during FYs 1996 through 2006. In addition, Framework 50
proposes to allow landings of SNE/MA winter flounder by commercial and
recreational vessels. Sector vessels would be required to land all
legal-sized SNE/MA winter flounder, and common pool vessels would be
allowed to land legal-sized fish within the trip limit, or any other
inseason restrictions, specified by the RA. The current minimum fish
size for SNE/MA winter flounder is 12 in (30.5 cm). Common pool
management measures for FY 2013 are proposed in Item 8 of this
preamble.
These measures are proposed in conjunction with the revised
rebuilding plan for the stock (see Item 1 of this preamble). Allowing
landings of SNE/MA winter flounder is expected to provide additional
fishing opportunities for groundfish vessels in FY 2013 to offset low
quotas for some groundfish stocks and promote achieving optimum yield
in the fishery. Landings of the stock would also provide the
opportunity to collect biological samples from landed fish after 4
years of a prohibition on possession.
[[Page 19370]]
Commercial Fishery Accountability Measures
Currently, the AM for SNE/MA winter flounder is zero possession.
There is no reactive AM for the stock. In December 2011, a Court order
in Oceana v. Locke required that reactive AMs be developed for all of
the stocks not currently allocated to sectors. As a result, Framework
48 proposes an area-based AM for commercial groundfish vessels that
would implement gear restrictions for common pool and sector vessels in
certain areas if the total ACL for SNE/MA winter flounder is exceeded.
Framework 50 proposes to replace this area-based AM for SNE/MA winter
flounder for sector vessels with the standard sector AM. All catch
(landings and discards) of SNE/MA winter flounder would be attributed
to a sector's annual catch entitlement (ACE). Sector vessels would be
required to stop fishing in season in the SNE/MA winter flounder stock
area once the entire sector's ACE is caught, unless the sector leases
additional ACE. A sector may also propose a program to fish on a sector
trip in fisheries that are known to have bycatch of NE multispecies,
when it does not have ACE for certain stocks, if the sector can show
that the limiting stock(s) would be avoided. The proposed rule for the
FY 2013 Sector Operations Plans and Contracts and Allocation of the NE
Multispecies ACE provides additional detail on this provision (78 FR
16220, March 14, 2013). If a sector exceeds its ACE for the fishing
year, the sector's ACE would be reduced by the amount of the overage in
the following fishing year. This proposed revision to the AM for sector
vessels is made in conjunction with the proposed measure to allocate
the stock to sectors and allow landings.
Framework 50 proposes to retain the area-based AM that was proposed
in Framework 48 for common pool vessels. However, the AM proposed in
this action would be triggered if the common pool sub-ACL is exceeded
(not the total ACL as proposed in Framework 48) by more than the
management uncertainty buffer. Currently, the management uncertainty
buffer for the common pool fishery is 5 percent for SNE/MA winter
flounder. The management uncertainty buffers can be revised each time
the specifications are set, so the buffer used for the common pool
fishery could change in future actions. The AM for common pool vessels
would require trawl vessels fishing on a NE multispecies day-at-sea
(DAS) to use approved selective trawl gear in certain areas. Approved
gears include the separator trawl, the Ruhle trawl, the mini-Ruhle
trawl, rope trawl, and any other gear authorized by the Council in a
management action, or approved for use consistent with the process
defined in Sec. 648.85(b)(6). This area-based AM would not restrict
common pool vessels fishing with longline or gillnet gear. The AM would
be implemented in the fishing year following the overage, and would be
effective for the entire fishing year. The proposed AM would account
for an overage of the common pool sub-ACL of up to 20 percent. If the
common pool fishery exceeds its sub-ACL by 20 percent or more, the AM
would be implemented, and this measure would be reviewed in a future
action.
As adopted by Amendment 16, if the total ACL is exceeded, and the
overage is caused by a sub-component of the fishery that is not
allocated a sub-ACL, and does not have an AM, the overage would be
distributed among the components of the fishery that do have a sub-ACL,
and if necessary, the pertinent AM would be triggered. If sub-ACLs are
allocated to additional fisheries in the future, and AMs developed for
those fisheries, the AM for any fishery would only be implemented if it
exceeds its sub-ACL, or if the total ACL for the stock is exceeded. If
only one fishery exceeds it sub-ACL, only the AM for that fishery would
be implemented.
3. U.S./Canada Total Allowable Catches
Eastern GB cod, eastern GB haddock, and GB yellowtail flounder are
managed jointly with Canada through the U.S./Canada Resource Sharing
Understanding (Understanding). Each year the Transboundary Management
Guidance Committee (TMGC), a government-industry committee made up of
representatives from the U.S. and Canada, recommends a shared TAC for
each stock based on the most recent stock information and the TMGC
harvest strategy. The TMGC's harvest strategy for setting catch levels
is to maintain a low to neutral risk (less than 50 percent) of
exceeding the fishing mortality limit reference for each stock
(Fref = 0.18, 0.26, and 0.25 for cod, haddock, and
yellowtail flounder, respectively). The TMGC's harvest strategy also
specifies that when stock conditions are poor, fishing mortality should
be further reduced to promote rebuilding. The shared TACs are allocated
between the U.S. and Canada based on a formula that considers
historical catch percentages (10-percent weighting) and the current
resource distribution based on trawl surveys (90-percent weighting).
The U.S./Canada Management Area comprises the entire stock area for GB
yellowtail flounder; therefore, the U.S. TAC for this stock is also the
U.S. ABC. Eastern GB cod and haddock are sub-units of the total GB cod
and haddock stocks. The U.S./Canada TACs for these stocks are a portion
of the total ABC.
Assessments for the three transboundary stocks were completed in
June 2012 by the Transboundary Resources Assessment Committee (TRAC). A
detailed summary of the 2012 TRAC assessment can be found at: http://www2.mar.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/science/trac/tsr.html. The TMGC met in September
2012 to recommend shared TACs for FY 2013. Based on the results of the
2012 TRAC assessment, the TMGC recommended a shared TAC of 600 mt for
eastern GB cod, 10,400 mt for eastern GB haddock, and 500 mt for GB
yellowtail flounder. At its November 14, 2012, meeting, the Council
recommended the TMGC's guidance for eastern GB cod and haddock for FY
2013, but it did not recommend the TMGC's guidance for GB yellowtail
flounder. The Council selected a preferred-alternative for GB
yellowtail flounder of 1,150 mt for FY 2013, which is more than double
the TMGC's recommendation of 500 mt. The regulations specify that the
Council can refer any or all of the recommended TACs back to the TMGC
and request changes to the TACs. Although the Council selected a
preferred alternative for GB yellowtail flounder that differed from the
TMGC's recommendation, the Council did not request that the TMGC
convene to reconsider its recommendation for 2013. The Council's
recommendation for GB yellowtail flounder was based on its Scientific
and Statistical Committee's (SSC's) recommendation that 1,150 mt could
be a backstop ABC if measures were adopted to ensure there is no
directed fishery, and bycatch is reduced as much as possible. NMFS
raised serious concerns with the Council's recommendation for GB
yellowtail flounder during the development of this action, and these
concerns are outlined in further detail in Item 4 of this preamble. Due
to concerns about the approvability of the Council's preferred ABC
alternative of 1,150 mt, NMFS is also proposing an ABC of 500 mt,
consistent with the TMGC's recommendation. If the Council's preferred
ABC is disapproved in the final rule for Framework 50, NMFS would
implement the TMGC-recommendation of 500 mt through a Secretarial
emergency action under authority at section 305(c) of the Magnuson-
Stevens Act.
The proposed 2013 U.S./Canada TACs and the percentage share for
each
[[Page 19371]]
country are listed in Table 1. Any overages of the eastern GB cod,
eastern GB haddock, or GB yellowtail flounder U.S. TACs would be
deducted from the U.S. TAC in the following fishing year. If FY 2012
catch information indicates that the U.S. fishery exceeded its TAC for
any of the shared stocks, NMFS would reduce the FY 2013 U.S. TAC for
that stock in a future management action, as close to May 1, 2013, as
possible. As proposed in Framework 48, if any fishery that is allocated
a portion of the U.S. TAC exceeds its allocation, which causes an
overage of the U.S. TAC, the overage reduction would be applied to this
fishery's sub-ACL in the following fishing year.
Table 1--Proposed 2013 U.S./Canada TACS (Mt, Live Weight) and Percentage Shares
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GB Yellowtail Flounder *
Eastern GB -------------------------------
TAC Eastern GB cod haddock Council- Proposed
preferred emergency
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Shared TAC............................ 600 10,400 1,150 500
---------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. TAC........................................ 96 (16%) 3,952 (38%) 495 (43%) 215 (43%)
---------------------------------------------------------------
Canada TAC...................................... 504 (84%) 6,448 (62%) 656 (57%) 285 (57%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The GB yellowtail flounder TACs proposed by the Council and NMFS are described in more detail in Item 4 of
this preamble.
4. Overfishing Levels and Acceptable Biological Catches
The overfishing level (OFL) for each stock in the FMP is calculated
using the estimated stock size and FMSY (i.e., the fishing
mortality rate that, if applied over the long term, would result in
maximum sustainable yield). The SSC recommends ABCs for each stock that
are lower than the OFLs to account for scientific uncertainty. In most
cases, the ABCs are calculated using the estimated stock size for a
particular year and are based on the catch associated with 75 percent
of FMSY, or Frebuild, whichever is lower.
However, in recent years, catch projections for groundfish stocks have
been overly optimistic. Catch projections often overestimate stock
growth and underestimate fishing mortality. As a result, even catches
that were substantially lower than the projected catch resulted in
overfishing for some stocks. So, in many cases, the SSC has recommended
ABCs that are lower than the catch associated with 75 percent of
FMSY or Frebuild, or constant catches for FYs
2013-2015, in order to account for scientific uncertainty. Appendix III
to the Framework 50 EA provides additional detail on the proposed OFLs
and ABCs for each stock (see ADDRESSES for information on how to get
this document).
As part of the biennial review process for the FMP, the Council
adopts OFLs and ABCs for 3 years at a time. Although it is expected
that the Council will adopt new catch limits every 2 years, specifying
catch levels for a third year ensures there are default catch limits in
place in the event that a management action is delayed. This action
proposes the OFLs and ABCs for FYs 2013-2015 for most groundfish
stocks, which are presented in Table 2, with a few exceptions that are
described below. For GB cod, haddock, and yellowtail flounder, the
Canadian share of the ABC, or the expected Canadian catch, is deducted
from the total ABC. See Table 1 for the Canadian share of these stocks.
The U.S. ABC is the amount available to the U.S. fishery after
accounting for Canadian catch.
Catch limits for GB and GOM winter flounder and pollock were
adopted in a previous action and are restated here. Also, as mentioned
above, GB yellowtail flounder is managed jointly with Canada, and catch
limits are set annually for this stock. As a result, Framework 50 only
proposes catch limits for GB yellowtail flounder for FY 2013. In
addition, the last stock assessment for white hake was completed in
2008. A benchmark assessment for this stock was completed in February
2013; however, the results of this assessment are not yet available at
the time of this proposed rule, and were not available when the Council
was developing this action. As a result, the SSC recommended that the
FY 2013 OFL and ABC for white hake be kept constant to the FY 2012 OFL
and ABC. Consistent with established policy, NMFS believes that the
best scientific information available will be determined based on the
information that is available to the Council during the development of
an action. Thus, NMFS considers the FY 2013 specifications for white
hake proposed in Framework 50 to be based on the best scientific
information available. Should additional information become available
that may indicate a change to the FY 2013 catch limit for white hake,
the Council or NMFS could consider a separate action to change the
white hake catch limits for FY 2013.
Many of the proposed FY 2013 ABCs are substantially lower than the
FY 2012 ABCs. Most notably, the proposed GB cod catch level would be
approximately 61 percent lower when compared to FY 2012, and the GOM
cod catch level would be approximately 78 percent lower compared to FY
2012. Although the Council's recommended ABC for GB yellowtail flounder
would be approximately the same as FY 2012, the proposed emergency
rulemaking would result in a quota that is approximately 62 percent
lower than the FY 2012 catch limit. Some proposed ABCs are status quo
to FY 2012 (GB and GOM winter flounder and white hake), and some
proposed ABCs are higher than FY 2012. The proposed FY 2013 SNE/MA
winter flounder ABC is over 150 percent greater than FY 2012 as a
result of the revised management measures for this stock, which are
expected to mitigate some of the economic impacts of this proposed
action.
[[Page 19372]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP29MR13.014
Proposed FY 2013 Georges Bank Yellowtail Catch Limit
NMFS has serious concerns with the Council's preferred-alternative
for the FY 2013 GB yellowtail flounder ABC. The 2012 TRAC assessment
noted that, in recent years, catches based on the approved assessment
model (Split Series model) have not reduced fishing mortality below the
fishing mortality limit reference (Fref), or increased
spawning stock biomass as expected. As a result, the 2012 TRAC
assessment concluded that 2013 catches should not be based on the
unadjusted model results because these catches would likely fail to
achieve management objectives for this stock. Catches in 2013 based on
the unadjusted model would be approximately 882 mt.
The 2012 TRAC assessment showed that the retrospective pattern in
the assessment has increased in magnitude. Retrospective patterns in an
assessment could be caused by a number of factors, such as changes in
the level of catch that is assumed in the assessment, changes in the
natural mortality rate (M), and changes in the survey catchability for
a stock. However, fixing a retrospective pattern is difficult because
it is often hard to determine the exact cause. Due to the increased
magnitude of the retrospective pattern, five sensitivity analyses were
performed at the 2012 TRAC to attempt to characterize the uncertainty
and risk in the 2013 catch advice. The sensitivity analyses show that a
2013 quota in the range of 200 mt to 500 mt would minimize the
retrospective bias. The 2012 TRAC results indicate that the lower end
of the 2013 quota range would have a greater probability that F would
be less than Fref, and that the adult biomass would
increase, than the higher end of the range.
Based on the 2012 TRAC, the TMGC recommended a shared quota of 500
mt (U.S. share 215 mt) for 2013. This recommendation considers the
increasing retrospective bias in the GB yellowtail flounder assessment.
The TMGC noted that a quota of 500 mt is lower than the catch level
that would have less than a 50-percent chance of exceeding
Fref based on the unadjusted projection results (882 mt).
The TMGC also noted that a quota of 500 mt would be expected to result
in an increase in the stock size and falls within the range
[[Page 19373]]
of sensitivity analyses provided by the 2012 TRAC assessment.
The SSC met in August 2012 to recommend a FY 2013 OFL and ABC for
GB yellowtail flounder. The SSC recommended a range of FY 2013 ABCs for
GB yellowtail flounder from 200 mt up to 1,150 mt. The SSC noted that a
2013 catch limit of 200 mt would have a low probability of overfishing
and would be expected to allow the stock to increase, and that a 2013
catch limit of 400-500 mt may have a greater probability of overfishing
than 200 mt, but would allow some rebuilding. The SSC also noted that
the basis for a FY 2013 ABC of 400-500 mt was similar to the basis of
its ABC recommendation for FY 2012. The SSC recommended an ABC of 1,150
mt as a backstop measure only, and noted that unintentional bycatch may
exceed 500 mt, but total removals should be less than the FY 2012 ABC
of 1,150 mt. Under this ABC alternative, the SSC recommended that there
should be no directed fishery for GB yellowtail flounder, and that
measures should be taken to reduce bycatch as much as possible. Thus,
the SSC concluded that an FY 2013 ABC of 1,150 mt is status quo to the
FY 2012 ABC, and would only be appropriate when management measures
have a high probability of resulting in low fishing mortality rates. At
a subsequent meeting in November 2012, the SSC was unable to determine
a single OFL value, given the uncertainty in the assessment, and noted
that its ABC recommendation of 1,150 mt is not based on the 2012 TRAC
assessment. The SSC determined that the OFL for GB yellowtail flounder
is unknown.
The SSC's recommendation of 1,150 mt for FY 2013 included a number
of conditions that NMFS does not believe the Council satisfied. The
Council did not adopt any management measures that would prevent
targeting of GB yellowtail flounder or that would result in a high
probability of low fishing mortality rates under this ABC alternative.
The SSC did not endorse an FY 2013 ABC of 1,150 mt as an appropriate
catch level for a directed fishery, and therefore, as currently
crafted, the Council's preferred ABC alternative for 2013 appears to be
at odds with the SSC recommendation.
NMFS believes that the 2012 TRAC assessment for GB yellowtail
flounder represents the best scientific information available. The
recommendation for a FY 2013 ABC of 1,150 mt is higher than the catch
levels suggested by the unadjusted model results (882 mt). The TRAC
indicated that 2013 catches based on the unadjusted model would likely
fail to achieve management objectives, and would not appropriately
account for the retrospective bias in the assessment. Therefore, based
on the 2012 TRAC assessment, a FY 2013 ABC of 1,150 mt would also
likely fail to prevent overfishing. Also, the SSC did not reject the
2012 TRAC assessment. Even if the Council had adopted management
measures to prevent a directed fishery, as recommended by the SSC, an
ABC of 1,150 mt does not appear to be consistent with the 2012 TRAC
assessment. As a result, NMFS does not believe that a 2013 catch of
1,150 mt is consistent with the best scientific information available.
NMFS is requesting specific comments on the basis of this
determination, and other specific factors that should be considered in
setting the FY 2013 ABC for GB yellowtail flounder at this particular
level.
In the event that NMFS disapproves the FY 2013 ABC of 1,150 mt
proposed in Framework 50, NMFS is proposing an emergency action to
implement FY 2013 catch limits for GB yellowtail flounder under
Secretarial authority provided in section 305(c) of the Magnuson-
Stevens Act. The FMP does not have any rollover provisions for the FY
2012 quotas if the FY 2013 catch limits are not specified for GB
yellowtail flounder. Thus, if the Council's preferred alternative is
disapproved, there would be no specifications set for the stock until
further action was taken. If no catch limit is specified for GB
yellowtail flounder, there would be a potential to cause harm to the
resource and severely disrupt the fishery. Sector vessels would be
unable to fish beginning on May 1, 2013, in the GB stock area without
ACE for GB yellowtail flounder. In addition, other components of the
fishery would not be constrained by an ACL that, if exceeded, would
trigger an AM (e.g., the scallop fishery, the small-mesh fisheries).
This would undermine the joint management of this stock with Canada
under the Understanding and increase the likelihood of overfishing. As
a result, NMFS, on behalf of the Secretary, finds that a fishery-
related emergency exists, and has determined that this situation meets
the emergency criteria set forth by NMFS for emergency rulemaking (62
FR 44421, August 21, 1997).
NMFS proposes an OFL of 882 mt and a FY 2013 ABC of 500 mt. This
would result in a U.S. quota for GB yellowtail flounder of 215 mt after
deducting the Canadian share of the ABC. This ABC is consistent with
both the TMGC and SSC's recommendations, and is within the range of
2013 catch levels suggested by the sensitivity analyses conducted at
the 2012 TRAC assessment. A 2013 catch level of 500 mt would allow some
stock rebuilding, and is less than the 2013 catch level based on the
unadjusted model results (882 mt) that the TRAC recommended should not
be used as the basis for 2013 catch advice. The lower quota of 200 mt
included in the 2012 TRAC results has a higher probability of not
exceeding Fref. But, in the sensitivity analyses performed
by the TRAC, a 2013 catch of 500 mt would have only a 4-percent chance
of exceeding Fref (0.25) in one of the sensitivity analyses.
This catch level would also result in some stock rebuilding in all of
the sensitivity analyses. The 2012 TRAC assessment did not calculate an
average output for the models presented and did not recommend averaging
the sensitivity analyses as a basis for catch advice. Thus, NMFS does
not believe it is appropriate to average the five sensitivity analyses,
and therefore, all of the analyses should be considered in setting the
2013 ABC. A catch limit of 500 mt would balance the need to account for
the retrospective bias in the assessment and allow some stock
rebuilding, and would be substantially below the proposed OFL for the
stock.
Proposed FYs 2013-2015 Catch Limits for GOM Cod
A benchmark assessment was completed for GOM cod in December 2012,
and the Stock Assessment Review Committee (SARC) approved two different
assessment models. One assessment model (base case model) assumes the
natural mortality rate (M) is 0.2. The second assessment model
(Mramp model) assumes that M has increased from 0.2 to 0.4
in recent years, though the SARC did not conclude that M would remain
0.4 indefinitely. As a result, fishing mortality targets used in the
catch projections from both models are based on reference points that
assume M=0.2. A detailed summary of the benchmark assessment is
available from the Northeast Fisheries Science Center at: http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/saw/saw55/crd1301.pdf.
The SSC recommended two constant catch ABC alternatives for FYs
2013-2015: 1,249 mt and 1,550 mt. The SSC preferred an ABC of 1,249 mt.
Their rationale for this preferred lower level was to help conserve the
stock and increase the likelihood of rebuilding. Based on these two
recommendations from the SSC, the Council selected a preferred
alternative for a constant catch of 1,550 mt for FYs 2013-2015. Under
the base case model, a constant ABC of 1,550 mt would end overfishing
in FY 2013 and would have at least a
[[Page 19374]]
50-percent probability of avoiding overfishing. An ABC of 1,550 mt
would be higher than 75% FMSY until FY 2015, which is the
Council's ABC control rule. Under the Mramp model, the
proposed ABC would be the FMSY catch level in FY 2015, and
would be above FMSY in FY 2013 and FY 2014. An ABC of 1,550
mt would be expected to result in a dramatic reduction from current
fishing mortality estimates and would also allow stock growth, but is a
departure from the ABC control rule adopted by the Council in Amendment
16.
Amendment 16 specified that the ABC control rule should be used in
the absence of information that allows a more explicit determination of
scientific uncertainty for a stock. Amendment 16 also stated that, if
information was available to more accurately characterize scientific
uncertainty, it could be used by the SSC to set the ABC. Furthermore,
National Standard 1 gives deference to SSCs to recommend ABCs to
Fishery Management Councils that are departures from established
control rules. In such situations, SSCs are expected to make use of the
best scientific information available, and to provide ample
justification on why the control rule is not the best approach for the
particular circumstances.
The SSC determined that having two assessment models allowed for a
better understanding of the nature and extent of the scientific
uncertainty. As a result, the SSC concluded that both ABC alternatives
appropriately use the assessment outcomes and account for scientific
uncertainty. In addition, although multiple catch projections are
available for GOM cod, the assessment did not evaluate an averaged
output and did not recommend using an average of the two assessment
models. Thus, in this case, NMFS does not believe it is appropriate to
average the catch projections for GOM cod, and that all of the
information must be considered. Lower catch limits will always increase
the likelihood that stock growth will occur, and under this rationale,
an ABC of 1,249 mt would have greater, and more immediate, increases in
biomass than an ABC of 1,550 mt. However, in considering the assessment
results and catch projections for both ABC alternatives, a constant
catch ABC of 1,550 mt for FYs 2013-2015 would likely end overfishing
and result in stock rebuilding. This constant catch scenario also
accounts for the uncertainty in the assessment and the SARC's
conclusion that although M may have increased in recent years, it will
likely return to 0.2 in the future.
5. Annual Catch Limits
Unless otherwise noted below, the U.S. ABC for each stock (for each
fishing year) is divided into the following fishery components to
account for all sources of fishing mortality: State waters (portion of
ABC expected to be caught from state waters by vessels that are not
subject to the FMP); other sub-components (expected catch by non-
groundfish fisheries); Atlantic sea scallop fishery; mid-water trawl
fishery; small-mesh fisheries; commercial groundfish fishery; and
recreational groundfish fishery. Expected catch from state waters and
other sub-components is deducted from the ABC first, and the remaining
portion of the ABC is the amount available to the fishery components
that receive an allocation for the stock and that are subject to AMs.
Currently, the scallop fishery receives an allocation for GB and SNE/MA
yellowtail flounder, the mid-water trawl fishery receives an allocation
for GB and GOM haddock, and the recreational groundfish fishery
receives an allocation for GOM cod and haddock. Framework 48 proposes
to allocate a portion of the SNE/MA windowpane flounder ABC to the
scallop fishery and a portion of the GB yellowtail flounder ABC to the
small-mesh fisheries. This proposed rule assumes these measures would
be approved in Framework 48; however, if either of these measures is
disapproved, the final ACLs for these stocks may change.
Once the 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, management uncertainty is
estimated using the following criteria: Enforceability, monitoring
adequacy, precision of management tools, latent effort, and catch of
groundfish in non-groundfish fisheries. Appendix III of the Framework
50 EA provides a detailed description of the process used to estimate
management uncertainty and calculate ACLs for this action (see
ADDRESSES for information on how to get this document).
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
fishery, state waters, and non-groundfish fisheries) are counted
against the catch limit for each stock. Components of the fishery that
are allocated a sub-ACL for a particular stock are subject to AMs if
the catch limit is exceeded. The state waters and other sub-components
are not considered ACLs, and represent the expected catch by components
of the fishery outside of the FMP that are not subject to AMs.
Framework 50 proposes ACLs for each groundfish stock based on the
ABCs proposed in Item 4 of this preamble. The proposed ACLs for FYs
2013-2015 are listed in Tables 3 through 5. 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 all sectors and the cumulative PSCs
associated with those sectors. The proposed distribution of the
groundfish sub-ACL between the common pool and sectors shown in Tables
3 through 5 are based on FY 2013 PSCs and FY 2012 sector rosters. FY
2013 sector rosters will not be finalized until May 1, 2013, because
owners of individual permits signed up to participate in sectors have
until the end of FY 2012, or April 30, 2013, to drop out of a sector
and fish in the common pool for FY 2013. Therefore, it is possible that
the sector and common pool sub-ACLs listed in the tables below may
change due to changes in the sector rosters. Updated sub-ACLs will be
published in early May, if necessary, to reflect the final FY 2013
sector rosters as of May 1, 2013.
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
[[Page 19375]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP29MR13.015
[[Page 19376]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP29MR13.016
[[Page 19377]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP29MR13.017
[[Page 19378]]
6. Incidental Catch Total Allowable Catches and Allocations to Special
Management Programs
Incidental catch TACs are 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 DAS Program), in order to
limit the catch of these stocks under each program. Table 6 shows the
percentage of the common pool sub-ACL allocated to the special
management programs and the proposed FYs 2013-2015 Incidental Catch
TACs for each stock. Beginning in FY 2013, NMFS proposes to remove GB
winter flounder and SNE/MA yellowtail flounder from the list of species
of concern because the stocks are no longer overfished, and overfishing
is not occurring. GB winter flounder is projected to be rebuilt by
2014, and SNE/MA yellowtail flounder was declared rebuilt in November
2012. Any catch on a trip that ends on a Category B DAS (either Regular
or Reserve B DAS) is attributed to the Incidental Catch TAC for the
pertinent stock. Catch on a trip that starts under a Category B DAS and
then flips to a Category A DAS is not counted against the Incidental
Catch TACs. Any catch from these trips would be counted against the
common pool sub-ACL.
The Incidental Catch TAC is further divided among each special
management program based on the percentages listed in Table 7. The
proposed FYs 2013-2015 Incidental Catch TACs for each special
management program are listed in Table 8. The FY 2013 sector rosters
will not be finalized until May 1, 2013, for the reasons mentioned
earlier in this preamble. Therefore, the common pool sub-ACL may change
due to changes to the FY 2013 sector rosters. Updated incidental catch
TACs would be published in a future adjustment rule, if necessary,
based on the final sector rosters as of May 1, 2013.
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP29MR13.018
[[Page 19379]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP29MR13.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP29MR13.020
[[Page 19380]]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-C
7. Common Pool Trimester 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 divided into trimester TACs. Table 9 shows the
percentage of the common pool sub-ACL that is allocated to each
trimester for each stock. The distribution of the common pool sub-ACLs
into trimesters was adopted by Amendment 16 and is based on recent
landing patterns. Once NMFS projects 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. The area closure applies to
all common pool vessels fishing with gear capable of catching the
pertinent stock. The trimester TAC areas for each stock, as well as the
applicable gear types, are defined at Sec. 648.82(n)(2). Any uncaught
portion of the trimester TAC in Trimester 1 or Trimester 2 will be
carried forward to the next trimester (e.g., any remaining portion of
the Trimester 1 TAC will be added to the Trimester 2 TAC). Overages of
the trimester TAC in Trimester 1 or Trimester 2 will be deducted from
the Trimester 3 TAC. Any overages of the total 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 will not be carried over into
the following fishing year.
The proposed FYs 2013-2015 common pool trimester TACs are listed in
Table 10 based on the ACLs and sub-ACLs proposed in this action (see
Item 5 of this preamble). As described earlier, vessels have until
April 30, 2013, to drop out of a sector, and common pool vessels may
join a sector through April 30, 2013. If the proposed sub-ACLs included
in this rule change as a result of changes to FY 2013 sector rosters,
the trimester TACs would also change. Based on the final sector
rosters, NMFS would publish a rule in early May 2013, if necessary, to
update the common pool trimester TACs, and notify the public of these
changes.
Table 9--Percentage of Common Pool Sub-ACL Distributed to Each Trimester
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percentage of common pool sub-ACL
Stock -----------------------------------------------
Trimester 1 Trimester 2 Trimester 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GB Cod.......................................................... 25 37 38
GOM Cod......................................................... 27 36 37
GB Haddock...................................................... 27 33 40
GOM Haddock..................................................... 27 26 47
GB Yellowtail Flounder.......................................... 19 30 52
SNE/MA Yellowtail Flounder...................................... 21 37 42
CC/GOM Yellowtail Flounder...................................... 35 35 30
American Plaice................................................. 24 36 40
Witch Flounder.................................................. 27 31 42
GB Winter Flounder.............................................. 8 24 69
GOM Winter Flounder............................................. 37 38 25
Redfish......................................................... 25 31 44
White Hake...................................................... 38 31 31
Pollock......................................................... 28 35 37
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 19381]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP29MR13.021
[[Page 19382]]
8. Annual Measures for FY 2013 Under Regional Administrator Authority
The FMP provides authority for the RA 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 the management
measures being considered by the RA for FY 2013 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 50, and were
not specifically proposed by the Council, but are proposed in
conjunction with Framework 50 for expediency purposes and because they
relate to the proposed specifications in Framework 50. The RA may
implement measures differing from those proposed in this action based
on public comments received, and if information indicates such measures
are necessary to meet the requirements of the FMP. The measures
implemented through RA authority for FY 2013 will be implemented
through the Framework 50 final rule, or, if necessary, through a
separate final rule.
The RA has the authority to modify common pool trip limits in order
to prevent exceeding the common pool sub-ACLs and facilitate harvest so
total catch approaches the common pool sub-ACLs. Table 11 provides a
summary of the default trip limits that would take effect in FY 2013 if
the RA takes no action, the current common pool trip limits for FY
2012, and the proposed trip limits that would be in effect for the
start of FY 2013. Table 12 provides a summary of the proposed FY 2013
cod trip limits for vessels fishing with a Handgear A, Handgear B, or
Small Vessel Category permit.
Proposed trip limits for FY 2013 were developed after considering
changes to the FY 2013 common pool sub-ACLs and sector rosters,
trimester TACs for FY 2013, catch rates of each stock during FY 2012,
bycatch, and other available information. For stocks that include a
range of potential trip limits in Table 11 and 12, a final trip limit
would be specified in the final rule implementing these measures based
upon public comment. NMFS is requesting public input on common pool
trip limits for FY 2013, particularly on the proposed trip limit for
SNE/MA winter flounder since possession has been prohibited for this
stock since FY 2009.
The default cod trip limit is 300 lb (136.1 kg) per trip for
Handgear A vessels, unless either the GOM or GB cod trip limit
applicable to vessels fishing under a NE multispecies DAS is adjusted
below 300 lb (136.1 kg). If the trip limit for NE multispecies DAS
vessels drops below 300 lb (136.1 kg), the Handgear A trip limit must
be adjusted to be the same. The regulations also require that the
Handgear B vessel trip limit for GOM and GB cod be adjusted
proportionally (rounded up to the nearest 25 lb (11.3 kg)) to the
default cod trip limits applicable to NE multispecies DAS vessels. The
default cod trip limit for NE multispecies common pool vessels fishing
under a Category A DAS is 800 lb (362.9 kg) per DAS for GOM cod and
2,000 lb (907.2 kg) per DAS for GB cod. For FY 2013, NMFS is proposing
a range of GOM cod trip limits for vessels fishing under a Category A
DAS that are between 38 and 88 percent lower than the default limit
specified in the regulations. Therefore, the proposed FY 2013 GOM cod
trip limits for Handgear A and B vessels are adjusted downwards, as
required, from the default cod trip limit for these vessels. NMFS is
proposing the default cod trip limits for GB cod for Handgear A and B
vessels in FY 2013.
Vessels with a Small Vessel category permit can possess up to 300
lb (136.1 kg) of cod, haddock, and yellowtail combined per trip. For FY
2013, NMFS is proposing that the maximum amount of cod and haddock
(within the 300-lb (136.1-kg) trip limit) be adjusted proportionally to
the trip limits applicable to NE multispecies DAS vessels (see Table
12).
Table 11--Proposed FY 2013 Common Pool Trip Limits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Default Limit in Proposed FY 2013 trip
Stock regulations Current FY 2012 trip limit limit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GOM cod...................... 800 lb (362.9 kg) per DAS, 2,000 lb (907.2 kg) per 100 lb (45.4 kg)-500 lb
up to 4,000 lb (1,814.3 DAS, up to 6,000 lb (226.8 kg) per DAS, up
kg) per trip. (2,721.6 kg) per trip. to 500 lb (226.8 kg)-
1,500 lb (680.4 kg) per
trip.
GB cod....................... 2,000 lb (907.2 kg) per 3,000 lb (1,360.8 kg) per 2,000 lb (907.2 kg) per
DAS, up to 20,000 lb DAS, up to 30,000 lb DAS, up to 20,000 lb
(9,072 kg) per trip. (13,607.8 kg) per trip. (9,072 kg) per trip.
GOM haddock.................. unrestricted.............. 1,000 lb (453.6 kg) per 50 lb (22.7 kg)-100 lb
trip. (45.4 kg) per trip.
GB haddock................... unrestricted.............. 10,000 lb (4,535.9 kg) per 10,000 lb (4,535.9 kg)
trip. per trip.
GOM winter flounder.......... unrestricted.............. 250 lb (113.4 kg) per trip 500 lb (226.8 kg) per
trip.
SNE/MA winter flounder....... unrestricted.............. n/a....................... 5,000 lb (2,268 kg) per
DAS up to 15,000 lb
(6,803.9 kg) per trip.
GB winter flounder........... unrestricted.............. 1,000 lb (453.6 kg) per 1,000 lb (453.6 kg) per
trip. trip.
CC/GOM yellowtail flounder... 250 lb (113.4 kg) per DAS, 500 lb (226.8 kg) per DAS, 500 lb (226.8 kg) per
up to 1,500 (680.4 kg) up to 2,000 (907.2 kg) DAS, up to 2,000 lb
per trip. per trip. (907.2 kg) per trip.
GB yellowtail flounder....... unrestricted.............. 500 lb (226.8 kg) per trip 100 lb (45.4 kg)-200 lb
(90.7 kg) per trip.
SNE/MA yellowtail flounder... 250 lb (113.4 kg) per DAS, 5,000 lb (2268 kg), up to 2,000 lb (907.2 kg), up
up to 1,500 (680.4 kg) 15,000 lb (6,803.9 kg) to 6,000 lb (2,721.6 kg)
per trip. per trip. per trip.
American plaice.............. unrestricted.............. unrestricted.............. unrestricted.
Pollock...................... 1,000 lb (453.6 kg) per 10,000 lb (4,535.9 kg) per 10,000 lb (4,535.9 kg)
DAS; up to 10,000 lb trip. per trip.
(4,535.9 kg) per trip.
Witch flounder............... unrestricted.............. 250 lb (113.4 kg) per trip 500 lb (226.8 kg) per
trip.
White hake................... 500 lb (226.8 kg) per DAS; 500 lb (226.8 kg) per trip 500 lb (226.8 kg) per
up to 2,000 lb (907.2 kg) trip.
per trip.
Redfish...................... unrestricted.............. unrestricted.............. unrestricted.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 19383]]
Table 12--Proposed FY 2013 Cod Trips Limits for Handgear A, Handgear B, and Small Vessel Category Permits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed FY 2013 GOM cod Proposed FY 2013 GB cod
Permit Default cod trip limit trip limit trip limit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Handgear A................... 300 lb (136.1 kg) per trip 100 lb (45.4 kg) up to 300 300 lb (136.1 kg) per
lb (136.1 kg) per trip. trip.
Handgear B................... 75 lb (34.0 kg) per trip.. 25 lb (11.3 kg) up to 50 75 lb (34.0 kg) per trip.
lb (22.7 kg) per trip.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small Vessel Category........ 300 lb (136.1 kg) of cod, haddock, and yellowtail flounder combined; Maximum of
25 lb (11.3 kg)-175 lb (79.4 kg) of GOM cod and 25 lb (11.3 kg) of GOM haddock
within the 300-lb combined trip limit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The RA has 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 TAC and
the amount of GB yellowtail flounder caught outside of the SAP. In
2005, Framework 40B (70 FR 31323; June 1, 2005) implemented a provision
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 (i.e., 150 trips of 15,000 lb (6,804 kg)/trip, 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 GB yellowtail sub-
ACLs of 592,823 lb (268,900 kg) and 248,241 lb (112,600 kg), derived
from the proposed catch limits of 1,150 mt and 500 mt, respectively,
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.
Therefore, this action proposes to allocate zero trips to the Closed
Area II Yellowtail Flounder/Haddock SAP for FY 2013. Vessels could
still fish in this SAP in FY 2013 using a haddock separator trawl, a
Ruhle trawl, or hook gear. Vessels would not be allowed to fish in this
SAP using flounder nets.
9. Recreational Fishing Measures
Framework 48 proposes to modify the recreational fishery AM and
give the RA authority to adjust recreational management measures for
the upcoming fishing year to ensure the recreational fishery catches,
but does not exceed, its sub-ACL. Although this measure has not been
approved yet, due to the timing of Framework 48, and the drastic
reductions proposed for some FY 2013 catch limits, NMFS has begun
developing recreational management measures for FY 2013. The Council
convened its Recreational Advisory Panel (RAP) on February 15, 2013, in
order to provide NMFS guidance on FY 2013 management measures. For GOM
cod, the RAP recommended a 9-fish possession limit and a minimum fish
size of 19 in (48.3 cm). These are status quo management measures from
FY 2012. For GOM haddock, the RAP recommended an unlimited possession
limit (status quo from FY 2012) and an increase to the minimum fish
size from 18 in (45.7 cm) to 21 in (53.3 cm).
Consistent with the RAP's recommendation, NMFS proposes a 9-fish
possession limit and a minimum fish size of 19 in (48.3 cm) for GOM cod
in FY 2013. For GOM haddock, NMFS proposes an unlimited possession
limit and a minimum fish size of 21 in (53.3 cm) for FY 2013. The
proposed recreational management measures for FY 2013, and the current
FY 2012 measures, are presented in Table 13. The proposed measures were
developed using the Bio-economic Length-Structured Angler Simulation
Tool, which was developed by the Northeast Fisheries Science Center.
This model was peer-reviewed by a panel that consisted of members of
the New England Fishery Management Council and Mid-Atlantic Fishery
Management Council's SSCs, as well as an outside expert in recreational
fisheries economics.
Analysis shows that recreational removals would likely decline in
FY 2013, primarily due to changing stock conditions. As a result, FY
2013 recreational measures are not drastically different than the FY
2012 measures, even though the proposed reductions in the FY 2013 catch
limits are relatively large. NMFS proposes to raise the minimum fish
size from 18 in (45.7 cm) to 21 in (53.3 cm), for GOM haddock, with no
bag limit. The bag limit for GOM haddock does not affect recreational
haddock mortality very much because analysis shows that there would be
fewer trips encountering legal-sized haddock in FY 2013. This
translates into lower expected fishing effort and landings. The minimum
fish size for GOM haddock has a greater impact on recreational haddock
and cod catch, as well as the total number of recreational trips.
Initial analysis shows that the proposed FY 2013 recreational measures
would have less than a 50-percent probability of exceeding the
recreational sub-ACLs for GOM cod and haddock. Implementation of these
measures under RA authority is contingent upon the approval of the
proposed recreational fishery AM in Framework 48.
Table 13--Current FY 2012 and Proposed FY 2013 Recreational Management Measures for GOM Cod and Haddock
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current FY 2012 measures Proposed FY 2013 measures
Stock ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bag limit Minimum size Bag Limit Minimum Size
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GOM Cod....................... 9................ 19 in (48.3 cm).. 9................ 19 in (48.3 cm).
GOM Haddock................... Unlimited........ 18 in (45.7 cm).. Unlimited........ 21 in (53.3 cm).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 19384]]
10. Carryover of Unused Sector Annual Catch Entitlement
Background
The FMP authorizes up to 10 percent of unused sector ACE for all
allocated regulated stocks, with the exception of GB yellowtail
flounder, to be brought forward for use in the following fishing year.
Termed ``carryover,'' this concept was part of the overall design of
sectors in Amendment 16, and was intended to leave it up to individual
fishermen and sector managers to determine when and where they will
fish throughout the year. Among other things, the sector system, which
includes carryover, was intended to provide flexibility to vessels as
to when and how they fish which, among other benefits, promotes greater
safety at sea, as prescribed by National Standard 10. For example, the
ability to carry over unused catch further advances safety benefits by
removing the incentive to fish for remaining allocations of groundfish
stocks at the end of a fishing year even under unsafe conditions.
The carryover provision implementing regulations found at Sec.
648.87(b)(1)(i)(C) and the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS)
for Amendment 16, however, did not specify how carryover should be
accounted for under the concurrently implemented ACL system. In the 2
fishing years since the implementation of Amendment 16, NMFS has
allowed up to the full 10-percent carryover of unused sector ACE. To
date, NMFS has accounted for carryover by first attributing catch
against any available carryover, without deducting it from the sector's
ACE for that year. After the amount carried over has been fully caught,
the sector's remaining catch for the year has been attributed to, and
deducted from, the sector's ACE for that year.
For multiple reasons, this method of accounting has thus far
functioned without causing the overall ACLs to be exceeded. Generally,
sectors have seldom fully harvested available stock ACE, often electing
to under-harvest to provide carryover to the following fishing year. In
addition, the ability for sectors to fully utilize all species' ACE is
often constrained by stocks with lower ACE availability. Catch by other
fishery components has routinely been below their respective sub-ACLs.
These factors have, to date, helped ensure that fishery-level ACLs have
not been exceeded by the accounting system that NMFS has used. Even if
sectors had routinely exceeded their sub-ACL, other fishery components
could under-harvest their sub-ACL such that the overall ACL was not
exceeded. This has been true despite the reduction in catch limits for
some stocks from one fishing year to the next.
As ACL-based management programs have been implemented around the
country and their first years of use evaluated, the issue of unused
catch carryover has been discussed nationwide. Amendment 16, although
it did not reconcile the problem, acknowledged the potential for
carryover to either increase the risk of or cause overfishing in a
given year, particularly in the event that year-to-year catch limits
declined steeply and available allocations and carryover were fully
harvested (Amendment 16 FEIS, pp. 505-6). Based on these evaluations
and the dynamics of significant proposed reductions in some of the
groundfish ACLs for FY 2013, NMFS now believes that a carryover from
one fishing year to another must be fully accounted for in the second
year ACLs to be consistent with the catch limit requirements in the
Magnuson-Stevens Act and National Standard 1 guidelines. The current
carryover accounting practice of the Northeast Region may be
inconsistent with this conclusion to the extent it results in an ACL in
one year to be exceeded due to additional carried over catch from the
preceding year. This accounting practice would also be inconsistent
with conservation objectives of Amendment 16. On the other hand, to
completely eliminate the carryover provision because of these concerns
would potentially conflict with safety and management flexibility
benefits that are consistent with the National Standard 10 provision of
promoting safety at sea and national standards to promote efficiency
and mitigate negative impacts on the fishing industry. As a result,
there is a fundamental conflict between the conservation and management
objectives of Amendment 16 between the need to ensure adherence to the
catch limits for conservation purposes and the benefits of promoting
safety at sea and management flexibility.
FY 2013 Unused ACE Carryover Issues
If NMFS continues its past practice, sectors would receive up to 10
percent of unused FY 2012 ACE for all groundfish stocks subject to the
carryover provision for use in FY 2013, without attribution to the 2013
sector sub-ACLs. Because of the magnitude of the reductions in catch
limits for some stocks for FY 2013, it is likely that FY 2013 allocated
catch combined with FY 2012 carryover could cause fishery-level ACLs
and ABCs to be exceeded. For GOM cod, this potential total catch level
would exceed the overfishing limit.
Despite discussions between NMFS and the Council regarding these
issues, no clarification as to how to account for carryover was
included in either Framework 48 or 50 for May 1, 2013, leaving
ambiguity in the regulations on how to address the fundamental conflict
previously described in this section. In the absence of clarification
by the Council, NMFS' authority to address this conflict consists of a
1-year emergency action under Secretary authority provided in section
305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and/or a clarification of the
existing program under section 305(d) of the Act.
In this rule, NMFS proposes to modify the existing carryover
program for FY 2013 through section 305(c) emergency authority in order
to limit carryover of GOM cod and to clarify the need to continue the
current accounting practice for carryovers for FY 2013, as a
transitional measure only, as it pertains to all other carryover
eligible stocks. NMFS also seeks public comment on a proposal to
clarify, under section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, how to
account for carryover in FY 2014 and beyond.
Proposed FY 2012 to FY 2013 Carryover Measures
NMFS does not propose to change the amount of carryover allowed for
stocks in FY 2013 except for GOM cod. NMFS has determined that the
carryover amount for GOM cod, which is based on an allocation in FY
2012 that allowed for overfishing, must be reduced to ensure that the
total potential catch (i.e., fishery level ACL + carryover) remains
below the overfishing limit for FY 2013. NMFS proposes to use emergency
authority provided by section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act to
reduce GOM cod from the 10 percent specified in current regulations to
1.85 percent of unused FY 2012 GOM cod ACE in FY 2013. NMFS does not
propose to change its recent practice of not counting carryover against
a sector's ACE. The intent not to change the carryover amounts, except
for GOM cod, nor the current accounting practice for these carryover
amounts, was announced to the public on February 14, 2013, to allow the
industry to plan its activities for the remainder of FY 2012.
Use of 305(c) emergency rulemaking authority to reduce the amount
of GOM cod available as carryover meets the required rationale set
forth by NMFS for 305(c) emergency rulemaking (62 FR 44421, August 21,
1997). The Council has not taken action to address the potential for FY
2012 to FY 2013
[[Page 19385]]
carryover of up to 10 percent to result in overfishing the GOM cod
stock. The failure of the Council to take appropriate action was not
foreseeable because the final revised assessment of GOM cod upon which
the Council would have relied to address carryover problems was not
available until January 2013. Therefore, NMFS, on behalf of the
Secretary, finds that a fishery-related emergency exists. Specifically,
the currently provided maximum 10-percent carryover authorized by the
FMP would permit a total potential catch that exceeds the GOM cod
overfishing limit. As a result, reduction in the maximum carryover
amount is necessary to ensure that the total potential catch, if
attained in FY 2013, will not result in overfishing. Failing to take
this emergency action would present a serious conservation problem
because the GOM cod stock is overfished, subject to overfishing, and
was determined last year by NMFS to have not made adequate rebuilding
progress.
Given the timing of Frameworks 48 and 50, continuing the accounting
practice for the other groundfish stocks, as a 1-year transitional
practice, is necessary to balance the conservation objectives of
Amendment 16 with the National Standard 10 safety benefits and
management flexibility provided by a carryover. NMFS has determined
that continuing to account for these carryover levels for 1 more year
only can be done without increasing the risk of overfishing in FY 2013
and without jeopardizing the long-term health of these stocks.
Moreover, these carryover amounts represent the maximum available under
existing regulations. The actual amount carried forward would depend on
each sector's utilization of ACE in FY 2012. For example, if a sector
harvests 97 percent of a carryover eligible stock other than GOM cod,
the sector would be permitted to use 3 percent of its FY 2012 ACE in FY
2013. Although accounting for carryovers in this manner may result in
exceeding the Framework 50 sector sub-ACLs and could increase the risk
of exceeding the overall ACLs, this approach prevents catch from
exceeding the overfishing limit, given the uncertainty buffers built
into the management program.
NMFS has developed an appendix to the Framework 50 EA that provides
analysis and rationale supporting these carryover amounts in the short-
term (see ADDRESSES).
Allowing the continuation of NMFS' recent practice of not counting
carryover against a sector's ACE is necessary and appropriate to
address problems arising from the late timing and notice to industry of
our intent. An anticipated carryover of up to 10 percent, based on
NMFS' past practice, has been part of the fishing industry's planning
process since the inception of sector management in 2010. To
substantially reduce or eliminate carryover late in the fishing year
could have the undesirable consequence of incentivizing a race to fish
in the final weeks of the fishing year, as fishermen attempt to fully
utilize available FY 2012 catch limits, thereby negating the safety
benefits carryover provides. Therefore, given these safety concerns,
which NMFS is obligated to consider under National Standard 10, and the
determination that continuing the current accounting practice for
carryovers presents little risk of overfishing or harm to the stocks,
NMFS concludes that maintaining this approach for 2013 only strikes the
right balance under the law.
Summary of FY 2012 to FY 2013 Proposed Carryover Analysis
NMFS evaluated the likelihood that the total potential catch would
lead to overfishing for stocks eligible for carryover. This evaluation
is part of the 1-year transition period only. The evaluation showed
that, for many stocks, total potential catch would be 81 percent or
less of the OFL. Despite the potential to exceed the Council-
recommended ACLs and SSC-recommended ABCs, NMFS believes there is a
very low likelihood that overfishing could occur for these stocks if
the total potential catch is realized in FY 2013. These stocks are GB
cod and haddock, SNE/MA yellowtail flounder, witch flounder, GB and GOM
winter flounder, Acadian redfish, white hake, and pollock. For other
stocks--GOM haddock, CC/GOM yellowtail flounder, and American plaice--
total potential catch ranged between 81 and 91 percent of the OFL. The
total potential catch for the revised GOM cod carryover amount, 1.85
percent of the FY 2012 ACE, is 94 percent of the OFL.
Carryover from FY 2013 to FY 2014 and Beyond
Although the current accounting practice for carryovers for FY 2013
can be justified, such practice is not appropriate for FY 2014 and
thereafter because there is sufficient time to alert the fishing
industry of how NMFS intends to account for carryover in the future in
a way that is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the National
Standard Guidelines, and other provisions. This is necessary to
reconcile the fundamental conflict between ensuring long-term
compliance with catch limits and the need to provide, at some level,
the safety and management benefits of carryovers. Because the Council
did not specify in Amendment 16, or clarify how to account for
carryover in light of this conflict in proposed Frameworks 48 or 50,
NMFS has determined it has the responsibility under section 305(d) to
propose regulations ensuring that the measures of Amendment 16 and
Frameworks 48 and 50 can be carried out in a manner consistent with the
Magnuson-Stevens Act. NMFS has concluded it has the authority to
propose such regulations because they are fundamentally administrative
in nature that clarify the carryover accounting process. These
regulations are justified by this unusual circumstance in which
previously approved Council-recommended measures conflict with each
other and must be reconciled in order to be carried out consistent with
the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the National Standard Guidelines.
NMFS proposes to clarify the carryover provision in terms of how
much carried over catch is accounted for against a sector's ACE, for
the purposes of determining which AMs are triggered by exceeding the
ACE. Under the proposed clarifying regulatory text, NMFS proposes to
count carryover, except for a nominal de minimus amount, against a
sector's ACE only for the purpose of triggering the reactive pound-for-
pound AM based on overage paybacks specified at Sec.
648.87(b)(4)(iii).
NMFS believes that this approach is more consistent with the intent
of carryover. It may not be possible to fully assess the impacts of
carryover in the next fishing year until complete information is
available to determining the overall catch of groundfish stocks for the
preceding year. This proposed system allows for the potential that a
sector may use more of its carryover amount depending on whether the
stock in question is likely to exceed the overall ACL. Therefore, the
amount of carryover caught by a sector would not count against its ACE
for the purpose of triggering the in-season closure AM if the ACE is
exceeded. This is because it would not be clear whether catching the
carryover amount would result in the fishery exceeding the overall ACL
until after fishing year is over and final catch is known.
This approach would allow sectors to continue fishing beyond their
initially allocated ACE up to the full carryover amount for which they
are eligible based on their prior year under-harvest without having to
stop fishing in the stock area subject to a closure once an
[[Page 19386]]
ACE is exceeded. Sectors could strategize the benefits of fishing the
carryover versus the possibility of triggering the pound for pound
reduction in the following year's ACE if that AM is triggered. The
maximum amount allowed would remain 10 percent. At the end of the
fishing year, or as soon as possible after, NMFS would evaluate the
total fishery catch relative to the total ACL. The amount of carryover
counted against the sector ACE would depend on whether the total catch
for the stock exceeds that stock's ACL. This approach would operate as
follows:
If the total ACL for the year is not exceeded, any
carryover used would not be counted against a sector's ACE. No reactive
AM would be required. Essentially, because the total ACL was not
exceeded, most likely because sectors or other fishery components did
not fully utilize their respective allocations for the year, there
would be no consequence associated with the use of carryover. This
would result in accounting that is similar to the current carryover
accounting practice wherein carryover use is not directly attributed to
the sector's ACE for the fishing year in which the carryover is taken.
If the total ACL for the year has been exceeded and
carryover was used, NMFS would only count the amount of carryover used
above the total ACL against sector ACE. Individual sectors responsible
for the ACL overage as a result of carryover use would be subject to
pound-for-pound overage repayment specified by the FMP AMs. It is
possible that some portion of carryover use may not be attributed to
sector ACE, even if the total ACL is exceeded. If other fishery
components contribute to the ACL overage, sectors would only be charged
for the carryover ACE used.
In the event that a situation similar to FY 2013 occurs,
wherein substantial catch reductions are required, NMFS would reserve
the right to modify the allowable carryover amount in excess of the de
minimus level so that the total potential catch did not exceed the OFL.
For FY 2013, NMFS is making this type of modification using section
305(c) authority in large part due to the timing considerations and
lack of adequate public notice and comment; however, in future similar
situations, NMFS would rely on section 305(d) authority to modify the
allowable carryover amounts.
The provision would not count a guaranteed de minimus amount of
carryover against a sector's ACE and would provide some certainty that
carryover would be available without any negative consequences. The
industry, therefore, could count on, and factor into their
decisionmaking, this guaranteed carryover late in the fishing year
which helps promote, albeit on a modest scale, safety at sea. NMFS has
not yet determined an appropriate de minimus amount. One option would
be to provide an amount sufficient to cover an average trip's landing
for the stock in question, with the rationale being that if a single
trip is not made late in the fishing year because of safety concerns or
market conditions, the foregone catch from that trip could be carried
forward. Another option would be to allow a small percentage of the
following year's ACE for the stock in question (e.g., 1 percent of the
stock's FY 2014 ACE). This would better ensure that available de
minimus carryover was consistent with the prevailing stock conditions
and catch advice for the year in which carryover would be harvested.
Allowing for a de minimus carryover without negative consequences
in the groundfish fishery can be justified on a couple of grounds. The
amount provided, if taken, would not be expected to cause fishery-level
ACLs to be exceeded. The analysis conducted for FY 2012 to FY 2013
carryover has illustrated that the fishery has not operated in a manner
that fully utilizes available allocations. Even with the 10 percent
routinely set aside from the sector sub-ACL to provide carryover, few
stocks have utilized greater than 85 percent of the available stock
level ACL. In addition, depending on how much carryover is caught, the
benefit to the stock from not catching that amount in the previous year
may permit stock growth sufficient to offset the effects of any de
minimus carryover allowed in the next year. As previously stated, NMFS
is continuing to develop de minimus carryover analyses and will provide
completed results to the Council's Groundfish Plan Development Team and
Groundfish Committee for their review and input. It is not expected
that the de minimus carryover amount would be re-evaluated annually;
however, if the ongoing analysis indicates this would be a critical
component to ensure ACLs were not likely to be exceeded, then annual
review could be contemplated.
NMFS believes this proposed approach maintains the original intent
of the carryover program established by Amendment 16 in enhancing the
flexibility of sectors in planning their fishing year, while still
promoting safety and ensuring that there will be AMs for using
carryover if overall ACLs are exceeded. This general description of the
proposed accounting change does not explicitly discuss the implications
of leasing ACE. Leasing, as well as other complexities of the
accounting system, have not yet been closely evaluated by NMFS or
discussed with the Council and public. As a result, NMFS is soliciting
public comment on the conceptual approach proposed. After considering
comments received, NMFS may further clarify any remaining details,
either in collaboration with the Council or independently, for FY 2014
implementation. The Council may also take action to revise the
carryover program for FY 2014.
Classification
Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the
NMFS Assistant Administrator has made a preliminary determination that,
except for those measures identified as problematic, this proposed rule
is consistent with Framework 50, 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 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 includes this section of the
preamble to this rule and analyses contained in Framework 50 and its
accompanying EA/RIR/IRFA. The IRFA describes the economic impact that
this proposed rule would have on small entities, if adopted. A
description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal
basis for this action are contained in Framework 50, the beginning of
this section (SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION) in the preamble, and in the
SUMMARY section of the preamble. A copy of the full analysis is
available from the Council (see ADDRESSES). A summary of the IRFA
follows.
Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which the
Proposed Rule Would Apply
The Small Business Administration (SBA) defines a small business as
one that:
(1) Is independently-owned and operated;
[[Page 19387]]
(2) Is not dominant in its field of operation; and
(3) Has annual gross revenues that do not exceed--
$4.0 million in the case of commercial harvesting
entities, or
$7.0 million in the case of for-hire fishing entities; or
(4) Has fewer than--
500 employees in the case of fish processors, or
100 employees in the case of fish dealers.
This action would mainly impact commercial harvesting entities
engaged in the limited access groundfish fishery, as well as both the
limited access general category and limited access scallop fisheries.
The limited-access groundfish fishery is further classified as vessels
enrolled in the sector program and those in the common pool. In
general, sector-enrolled businesses rely more heavily on sales of
groundfish species than common pool-enrolled vessels. At the beginning
of the 2012 groundfish fishing year on May 1, 2012, there were 1,382
individual limited access permits. Each of these permits was eligible
to join a sector or enroll in the common pool. Alternatively, they
could allow their permit to expire by failing to renew it. There were
827 permits enrolled in the sector program and 584 enrolled in the
common pool. The limited access (LA) scallop fisheries can be further
classified as limited access and limited access general category (LAGC)
scallop permits. At the beginning of the 2012 scallop fishing year on
March 1, 2012, there were 342 active LA scallop and 603 active LGC
permits.
Individually permitted vessels may hold permits for several
fisheries, and may harvest species of fish that are regulated by
several different fishery management plans, even beyond those impacted
by this proposed action. In addition, 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 this analysis, ownership
entities are defined by those entities with common ownership personnel
as listed on permit application documentation. Only permits with
identical ownership personnel are categorized as an ownership entity.
For example, if five permits have the same seven personnel listed as
co-owners on their application paperwork, those seven personnel form
one ownership entity, covering those five permits. If one or several of
the seven owners also own additional vessels, with sub-sets of the
original seven personnel or with new co-owners, those ownership
arrangements are deemed to be separate ownership entities for the
purpose of this analysis.
Ownership data are available for the four primary sub-fisheries
potentially impacted by the proposed action from 2010 onward. These are
the sector and common pool segments in the groundfish fishery, and the
LA and LAGC scallop fisheries. Due to data limitations, only 1 year's
gross receipts are reported, and calendar year 2011 serves as the
baseline year for this analysis. Calendar year 2012 data are not yet
available in a fully audited form.
In 2011, there were 1,370 distinct ownership entities identified.
Of these, 1,312 are categorized as small entities, and 58 are large
entities, based on SBA guidelines. These totals may mask some diversity
among the entities. Many, if not most, of these ownership entities
maintain diversified harvest portfolios and obtain gross sales from
many fisheries, and are not dependent on any one fishery. However, not
all are equally diversified. The entities that depend most heavily on
sales from harvesting species that are impacted by this proposed action
are most likely to be affected. So, for this analysis, we identified
ownership groups that are most likely to be impacted by the proposed
measures. We identified these groups as those that derive greater than
50 percent of their gross sales from sales of either regulated
groundfish or scallops. Using this threshold, 135 entities are
groundfish-dependent, of which 131 are small entities, and four are
large entities. There are 47 entities that are scallop-dependent, of
which 39 are small entities, and 8 are large entities.
This action also regulates the Atlantic herring fishery. The
herring fishery receives an allocation of GB and GOM haddock as a
result of bycatch of these stocks that occurs in the fishery. In 2012,
there were 3 large entities and 86 small entities that had limited
access herring permits. There were 1,984 small entities that had an
open access herring permit. Open access permits make up a very small
proportion of the landings in the herring fishery, and derive little
revenue from this fishery. Some entities that hold a limited access
herring permit have gross revenues greater than $4 million. However,
none of these entities reported any herring revenues during 2010-2012,
and as a result, these entities are unlikely to be affected by this
action. In addition, analysis predicts that it is unlikely that the
midwater trawl herring fleet would exceed its sub-ACLs for GOM or GB
haddock. As a result, the small regulated entities that derive revenues
from the herring fishery are not expected to be impacted by this
proposed action.
In addition to the commercial harvesting entities, this action
would also impact the recreational harvesting entities that participate
in the groundfish fishery. Party/charter permits for the groundfish
fishery are open access. All party/charter fishing businesses that
catch cod or haddock may be affected by this action. During FY 2010,
762 party/charter permits were issued. Of these 762 permits, 332 permit
holders reported taking and retaining any species on at least one for-
hire trip. In FY 2010, 285 of these permit holders reported catching at
least one cod or haddock. Of the 285 permit holders that reported
catching at least one cod or haddock in FY 2010, 148 reported fishing
in the GOM stock area (the recreational fishery only has a quota for
GOM cod and haddock). In 2011, 170 party/charter vessels reported
landings of GOM cod or haddock. All regulated party/charter operators
are small entities. The median value of gross revenues from passengers
was just over $9,000, and did not exceed $500,000 in any year from 2001
to 2010.
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 50 EA. All of the proposed alternatives would have impacts on
a substantial number of small entities. The economic impacts of the
proposed measures on the groundfish fishery are expected to be severe
and negative. The proposed action may place small entities at a
significant competitive disadvantage relative to large entities,
particularly those small entities engaged in the commercial groundfish
fishery. Analysis shows that smaller entities, those generating less
than $500K in annual gross sales, would likely be the most impacted.
Total gross sales losses for these entities are estimated to be
approximately 20-25 percent. Gross sales losses from groundfish are
estimated to be 50-80 percent. Profitability of many small entities
would also likely be significantly reduced under the proposed
groundfish catch limits.
[[Page 19388]]
Southern New England/Mid-Atlantic Winter Flounder Management Measures
The proposed revision to the SNE/MA winter flounder rebuilding
strategy may avoid a loss of an estimated $40.2 million in net present
value compared to the no action. This assumes that landings of the
stock would be allowed, which is proposed in conjunction with the
revised rebuilding program. Five rebuilding scenarios were analyzed in
addition to the no action alternative. Two of these scenarios failed to
rebuild the stock within 10 years, and thus, would violate rebuilding
requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The other rebuilding
strategies would meet Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements, but would
rebuild in a shorter timeframe than 10 years, and as a result would
have lower net economic benefits than the proposed action. If the
Council did not take any action, the rebuilding strategy would be to
rebuild the stock by 2014, which is unlikely even in the absence of all
fishing mortality. The management objective for SNE/MA winter flounder
would be to keep fishing mortality as close to zero as possible. This
has the smallest net economic benefit when compared to all of the
rebuilding scenarios analyzed.
This action also proposes to allocate SNE/MA winter flounder to
sectors and allow landing of the stock. In FY 2013, landings of SNE/MA
winter flounder are estimated to be worth $5.4 million in ex-vessel
gross revenues based on the preferred ABC alternative. Approximately
$4.3 million of these estimated revenues would accrue to sector
vessels, and the rest to common pool vessels. Landing of this stock has
been prohibited since FY 2010. As a result, it is difficult to
anticipate the economic impacts of the revised ABC/ACL for this stock
because there are not enough trips to help characterize future fishing
activity. If the Council did not take any action, possession of SNE/MA
winter flounder would continue to be prohibited, and fishing vessel
revenues would be lower when compared to the Council's preferred
alternative. Revenues of other groundfish stocks may also be reduced
since there may be fewer groundfish trips as a result of the inability
to land SNE/MA winter flounder.
This action proposes to modify the commercial fishery AM for SNE/MA
winter flounder in conjunction with allocating the stock to sectors.
There is a risk that sectors could catch their ACE prematurely within
the fishing year and no longer be able to fish in the SNE/MA winter
flounder stock area. This would have negative economic impacts due to
lost revenue from the catch of other species, or increased costs as a
result of having to fish outside of the area. However, analysis shows
that it is unlikely that sector vessels would catch their entire
allocation of SNE/MA winter flounder. As a result, this option would
give sector vessels greater flexibility and would potentially result in
higher revenues and lower costs.
Annual Catch Limit Specifications
This proposed action would set specifications for FYs 2013-2015 for
most groundfish stocks. The new ABCs would be set based on the latest
benchmark stock assessment information, which is considered the best
scientific information available and consistent with the, the ABC
control rules in the FMP, Magnuson-Stevens Act requirments. and other
applicable law. Because NFMS can only approve or disapprove measures
recommended in Framework 50, the only other possible alternatives to
the catch limits proposed that would mitigate negative impacts would be
higher catch limits. Alternative higher catch limits are not viable or
permissible under the law because they would not be consistent with the
goals, objectives, and requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the
FMP, particularly the requirement to end overfishing immediately. 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. For all stocks, except GB yellowtail
flounder, the Council recommended the highest ABCs allowed given the
best available science, the SSC's recommendations, and Magnuson-Stevens
Act and FMP requirements to end overfishing and rebuild fish stocks.
The only other legally available alternatives to these proposed catch
limits would be lower limits, which would not mitigate the economic
impacts of the proposed action to the fishery. The Council's
recommendation for GB yellowtail flounder does not appear to be
consistent with the best scientific information available, would likely
fail to end overfishing, and as a result, would violate Magnuson-
Stevens Act requirements. The proposed emergency action for GB
yellowtail flounder is the highest ABC possible to avoid overfishing
based on the best scientific information available.
If the Council took no action to revise the specifications for FY
2013-2015, no specifications would be set for most stocks in FY 2013.
The FY 2012 catch limits expire on April 30, 2013, and the FMP does not
specify any rollover provisions for specifications. As a result, if no
catch limits are specified as proposed in this action, groundfish
vessels would be unable to fish. This would be expected to have greater
negative economic impacts than the proposed action, and would be
predicted to have much less revenues as well. If no action is taken to
specify catch limits, Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements to achieve
optimum yield and consider the needs of fishing communities would be
violated.
For the reasons mentioned above, the proposed alternative is the
only reasonable and legal alternative available that would mitigate the
economic impacts of the proposed action to the extent possible.
Although there are no other viable alternatives to mitigate negative
impacts in the narrow scope and context of Framework 50 and this
proposed rule, there are numerous mitigation measures that have been
extensively discussed, considered, and implemented in Amendment 16, and
parallel measures that are being proposed for implementation in FY
2013. Amendment 16 established various measures to mitigate negative
impacts of lower catch limits, including the sector program that
provides substantial flexibility in when, how and where fishing can
occur, the carryover provisions from year to year of uncaught quota,
special provisions for certain small segments of the fishing fleet, and
other measures that can be considered. The Amendment 16 FEIS and final
rule can be found on the Council's Web site at: http://www.nefmc.org/nemulti/index.html. In addition, both the Council and NMFS are
proposing, concurrently with this rule, other measures to mitigate the
impacts of the anticipated reductions in the FY 2013 catch limits for
most stocks. Mitigating measures are being proposed in Framework 48,
including reduction in minimum fish sizes for some species and
revisions to the discard strata for GB yellowtail flounder, an
emergency action to increase monkfish trip limits, and the FY 2013
Sector Operations Plans and Contracts and Allocation of the NE
Multispecies ACE rulemaking which proposes 25 exemptions to allow more
flexibility for sector vessels. NMFS has also already taken action on
some measures, including announcing its intent to cover at-sea
monitoring costs for sector vessels in FY 2013, and an exemption for
sector vessels to allow more fishing opportunity on redfish, which is a
healthy groundfish stock. All of these proposed and implemented
[[Page 19389]]
measures can be found at: http://www.nero.noaa.gov/sfd/sfdmulti.html.
The analysis to estimate the economic impacts of this proposed
action considered two different scenarios using a low (Scenario 1) and
high (Scenario 2) ACL for both GOM cod and GB yellowtail flounder. Both
scenarios have similar estimated groundfish gross revenues for FY 2013.
Compared to FY 2011, groundfish gross revenues are expected to be
approximately 28-30 percent lower. Gross groundfish revenues are
expected to be 18 to 20 percent lower than those predicated for FY
2012. Under the proposed action, gross revenues for all species on
groundfish trips are expected to be 23 to 25 percent less in FY 2013
when compared to FY 2011, and 11 to 13 percent lower compared to the
predicated FY 2012 revenues. These expected revenues in FY 2013 assume
the full 10-percent carryover is available to sector vessels from FY
2012 to FY 2013. As explained below, if the carryover available to
sector vessels is lower, expected revenue could decrease.
The home port states of Connecticut, New Hampshire, and New Jersey
are expected to have the largest percentage declines in landings value
compared to FY 2011. Massachusetts would likely see the largest overall
decline in gross revenue since FY 2011, with an expected decrease of
approximately $21 million. All ports would be negatively affected by
this proposed action. Chatham, MA, is expected to have the largest
percentage decline in landings value since FY 2011.
The impacts of the proposed action would be non-uniformly
distributed across vessel length classes. The economic impact is
expected to fall heaviest on the smallest vessel length class (less
than 30 feet (9.1 m)) and is expected to taper off as vessel length
increases up to the largest vessel length class (greater than 75 feet
(22.9 m)). This result is not surprising; relative to larger vessels,
small vessels have less scalability in terms of landings, and have a
smaller geographic range.
Under both scenarios analyzed, net revenues are expected to decline
much less substantially than gross revenues. Gross revenues on sector
trips in FY 2013 are expected to decline by approximately $26 million
to $27 million from FY 2011, which is a 23 to 25-percent decrease. Net
revenues are expected to decline by a range of only $2 to $3 million,
or approximately 4 to 6 percent, from FY 2011. This is due in part to
limitations of the analysis, which underestimates actual trip costs,
and in part to efficiency gains that are predicted to occur.
Maintaining net revenues would most likely occur at the expense of
smaller vessels operating at a low profit margin that would be forced
to lease their quota or sell their permits. Under the proposed action,
crew-days, days absent, and total sector trips would also be expected
to decline substantially relative to FY 2011, since only the most
efficient trips are expected to occur under such highly restrictive
quota allocations. Fewer operating vessels and days absent would
translate into a reduction in earning opportunities for crew members.
The proposed action would reduce the scallop fishery allocation for
GB and SNE/MA yellowtail flounder by at least 38 percent, and 52
percent, respectively. If the scallop fishery exceeds its allocation by
more than 56 percent, scallop vessels would not have access to Closed
Area II, and revenues would decline by $16.2 million. If an overage
occurs, and is less than 56 percent, the AM areas for the scallop
fishery would be open to fishing part of the year. Fishing effort could
likely be moved to other months. Shorter scallop fishing windows could
increase operating costs and have potential negative price impacts from
short-term supply increases. If effort was shifted to other seasons
when the meat weights are highest, there could be some positive impacts
on the long-term revenues, which could offset some negative economic
effects.
The Council-preferred alternative for the FY 2013 GB yellowtail
flounder ABC would result in a scallop allocation of 192.1 mt, and the
proposed emergency action to implement a FY 2013 ABC of 500 mt would
result in a scallop allocation of 83.4 mt. The medium estimate of GB
yellowtail flounder bycatch by the scallop fishery in FY 2013 is 85.3
mt. The high estimate of 2013 GB yellowtail flounder bycatch is 152.8
mt. Thus, if these estimates are accurate, it is unlikely that a
significant overage would occur in FY 2013. As a result, scallop-
dependent small entities are not expected to be significantly impacted
by this action. NMFS is seeking comments on the economic impacts of the
proposed GB yellowtail flounder levels on the scallop fishery.
Carryover
This proposed action would continue to allow up to 10 percent of
unused FY 2012 sector ACE to be used in FY 2013 in conjunction with the
proposed catch limits in this action. NMFS is proposing to reduce the
allowable GOM cod unused ACE from a maximum of 10 percent down to a
maximum of 1.85 percent to better ensure overfishing does not occur.
The actual amount of carryover to FY 2013 depends on the amount of ACE
not harvested in FY 2012.
The economic impact analysis conducted for Framework 50 assumed
that the full 10-percent carryover amount, including GOM cod, was
available and utilized for all carryover-eligible stocks. As such,
carryover contributes to the projected $64.3 million gross groundfish
revenues resulting from the preferred-alternative catch limits. The
analysis also evaluated if no carryover of GOM cod was permitted in FY
2013. This reduced projected gross groundfish revenue by $2.6 million
to $61.7 million. NMFS estimates that the 1.85-percent GOM cod
carryover could contribute approximately $50,000 to the FY 2013 gross
groundfish revenue (i.e., roughly 1.85 percent of the $2.6 million
value of GOM cod carryover). Consistent with the overall findings on FY
2013 catch limit economic impacts, the reduction in GOM cod carryover
proposed by NMFS would have the highest impact on vessels under 30 feet
(9.1 m) in length.
The proposed carryover amounts mitigate adverse economic impact to
the maximum extent possible while ensuring NMFS meets its statutory
obligation to propose catch limits, in this case FY 2013 ACLs plus the
potential carryover, that do not result in overfishing stocks.
FY 2013 Recreational Management Measures
This proposed action would increase the minimum fish size for GOM
haddock in the recreational fishery. Total potential losses in gross
revenues for party/charter vessels operating in the GOM as a result of
the proposed action were estimated to be approximately $974 thousand.
Total potential losses in gross revenues were estimated by multiplying
the projected FY 2013 decline in fishing trips (7,109 trips) by the
estimated average access fee paid by party/charter anglers ($137).
Assuming the number of actively participating party/charter vessels in
FY 2013 would be the same as in FY 2011, the proposed action would
result in an average projected gross revenue loss of $5,729 per vessel
($974 thousand divided by 170 vessels). Actual losses would likely be
lower than estimated, since some anglers may switch to other species
besides haddock and cod (striped bass, bluefish, black sea bass, scup,
etc.) not considered in this analysis. For-hire businesses that are
able to offer more non-groundfish fishing trips specifically marketed
towards alternative species
[[Page 19390]]
may be able offset some of the estimated losses.
Description of the Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements of the Proposed Rule
This action contains no new collection-of-information, reporting,
or recordkeeping requirements. This action does not duplicate, overlap,
or conflict with any other Federal law.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648
Fisheries, Fishing, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
Dated: March 27, 2013.
Alan D. Risenhoover,
Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, performing the functions and
duties of the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs,
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. Further amend Sec. 648.82, as proposed to be amended at 78 FR
18188, March 25, 2013, by adding paragraph (n)(2)(vi), to read as
follows:
Sec. 648.82 Effort-control program for NE multispecies limited access
vessels.
* * * * *
(n) * * *
(2) * * *
(vi) SNE/MA winter flounder AM. If the common pool fishery sub-ACL
for SNE/MA winter flounder is exceeded, including the common pool's
share of any overage of the total ACL, as specified at Sec.
648.90(a)(5), by an amount that exceeds the management uncertainty
buffer, the AM described in this paragraph would be implemented in the
following fishing year. The AM would be effective for the entire
fishing year. Common pool vessels fishing on a NE Multispecies DAS with
trawl gear may only use a haddock separator trawl, as specified in
Sec. 648.85(a)(3)(iii)(A); a Ruhle trawl, as specified in Sec.
648.85(b)(6)(iv)(J)(3); a rope separator trawl, as specified in Sec.
648.84(e); or any other gear approved consistent with the process
defined in Sec. 648.85(b)(6) in the SNE/MA Winter Flounder Trawl Gear
AM Areas. The AM areas are defined below, and are bounded by the
following coordinates, connected in the order listed by straight lines,
unless otherwise noted.
SNE/MA Winter Flounder Trawl Gear AM Area 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point N. latitude W. longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1....................................... 41[deg]10' \(1)\
71[deg]40'
2....................................... 41[deg]10' 71[deg]20'
3....................................... 41[deg]00' 71[deg]20'
4....................................... 41[deg]00' 71[deg]40'
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\(1)\ Point 1 connects to Point 2 along 41[deg]10' N or the southern
coastline of Block Island, RI, whichever is farther south.
SNE/MA Winter Flounder Trawl Gear AM Area 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point N. latitude W. longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1....................................... 41[deg]20' 70[deg]30'
2....................................... 41[deg]20' 70[deg]20'
3....................................... 41[deg]00' 70[deg]20'
4....................................... 41[deg]00' 70[deg]30'
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SNE/MA Winter Flounder Trawl Gear AM Area 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point N. latitude W. longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1....................................... 41[deg]20' 69[deg]20'
2....................................... 41[deg]20' 69[deg]10'
3....................................... 41[deg]10' 69[deg]10'
4....................................... 41[deg]10' 69[deg]20'
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SNE/MA Winter Flounder Trawl Gear AM Area 4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point N. latitude W. longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1....................................... 41[deg]20' 69[deg]20'
2....................................... 41[deg]20' \(1)\
3....................................... \(1)\ 69[deg]00'
4....................................... 41[deg]00' 69[deg]00'
5....................................... 41[deg]00' 69[deg]10'
6....................................... 41[deg]10' 69[deg]10'
7....................................... 41[deg]10' 69[deg]20'
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\(1)\ The southwest-facing boundary of Closed Area I.
* * * * *
0
3. Further amend Sec. 648.85, as proposed to be amended at 78 FR
18188, March 25, 2013, by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (b)(5) introductory text, (b)(5)(i),
(b)(6)(iv)(D), (b)(8)(v)(F), and (b)(8)(v)(H), and
0
b. Adding paragraph (b)(5)(iii).
The added and revised text reads as follows:
Sec. 648.85 Special management programs.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(5) Incidental Catch TACs. Unless otherwise specified in this
paragraph (b)(5), Incidental Catch TACs shall be based upon the portion
of the ACL for a stock specified for the common pool vessels pursuant
to Sec. 648.90(a)(4), and allocated as described in this paragraph
(b)(5), for each of the following stocks: GOM cod, GB cod, GB
yellowtail flounder, CC/GOM yellowtail flounder, American plaice, white
hake, SNE/MA winter flounder, and witch flounder. Because GB yellowtail
flounder and GB cod are transboundary stocks, the incidental catch TACs
for these stocks shall be based upon the common pool portion of the ACL
available to U.S. vessels. NMFS shall send letters to limited access NE
multispecies permit holders notifying them of such TACs.
(i) Stocks other than GB cod and GB yellowtail flounder. With the
exception of GB cod and GB yellowtail flounder, 100 percent of the
Incidental Catch TACs specified in this paragraph (b)(5) shall be
allocated to the Regular B DAS Program described in paragraph (b)(6) of
this section.
* * * * *
(iii) GB yellowtail flounder. The Incidental Catch TAC for GB
yellowtail flounder specified in this paragraph (b)(5) shall be
subdivided as follows: 50 percent to the Regular B DAS Program
described in paragraph (b)(6) of this section and 50 percent to the
Eastern U.S./Canada Haddock SAP described in paragraph (b)(8) of this
section.
* * * * *
(6) * * *
(iv) * * *
(D) Landing limits. Unless otherwise specified in this paragraph
(b)(6)(iv)(D), or restricted pursuant to Sec. 648.86, a NE
multispecies vessel fishing in the Regular B DAS Program described in
this paragraph (b)(6), and fishing under a Regular B DAS, may not land
more than 100 lb (45.5 kg) per DAS, or any part of a DAS, up to a
maximum of 1,000 lb (454 kg) per trip, of any of the following species/
stocks from the areas specified in paragraph (b)(6)(v) of this section:
Cod (both GOM and GB), American plaice, white hake, witch flounder,
SNE/MA winter flounder, and GB yellowtail flounder; and may not land
more than 25 lb (11.3 kg) per DAS, or any part of a DAS, up to a
maximum of 250 lb (113 kg) per trip of CC/GOM yellowtail flounder. In
addition, trawl vessels, which are required to fish with a haddock
separator trawl, as specified in paragraph (a)(3)(iii)(A) of this
section, or a Ruhle trawl, as specified in paragraph (b)(6)(iv)(J) of
this section, and other gear that may be required in order to reduce
catches of stocks of concern as described in paragraph (b)(6)(iv)(J) of
this section, are restricted to the trip limits specified in paragraph
(e) of this section.
* * * * *
(8) * * *
(v) * * *
[[Page 19391]]
(F) Landing limits. Unless otherwise restricted under this part, a
vessel fishing any portion of a trip in the Eastern U.S./Canada Haddock
SAP under a NE multispecies DAS may not fish for, possess, or land more
than 1,000 lb (453.6 kg) of cod, per trip, regardless of trip length. A
common pool vessel fishing in the Eastern U.S./Canada Haddock SAP under
a NE multispecies DAS is subject to the haddock requirements described
in Sec. 648.86(a), unless further restricted under paragraph
(a)(3)(iv) of this section. A common pool vessel fishing in the Eastern
U.S./Canada Haddock SAP may not land more than 100 lb (45.5 kg) per
DAS, or any part of a DAS, of GB yellowtail flounder, up to a maximum
of 500 lb (227 kg) of all flatfish species, combined. Possession of
monkfish (whole weight) and skates (whole weight) is limited to 500 lb
(227 kg) each, unless otherwise restricted by Sec. 648.94(b)(3), and
possession of lobsters is prohibited. Possession limits for all other
stocks are as specified in Sec. 648.86.
* * * * *
(H) Incidental TACs. The maximum amount of GB cod and GB yellowtail
flounder, both landings and discards, that may be caught when fishing
in the Eastern U.S./Canada Haddock SAP Program in a fishing year by
vessels fishing under a Category B DAS, as authorized in paragraph
(b)(8)(v)(A) of this section, is the amount specified in paragraphs
(b)(5)(ii) and (iii) of this section. All regulated species and ocean
pout caught by a vessel on a sector trip will be applied against the
ACE for each stock that is specified for the sector in which the vessel
participates.
* * * * *
0
4. Sec. 648.86 is amended by revising paragraph (l) to read as
follows:
Sec. 648.86 NE Multispecies possession restrictions.
* * * * *
(l) Ocean pout, windowpane flounder, and Atlantic wolffish. A
vessel issued a limited access NE multispecies permit, an open access
NE multispecies Handgear B permit, or a limited access monkfish permit
and fishing under the monkfish Category C or D permit provisions may
not fish for, possess, or land ocean pout, windowpane flounder, or
Atlantic wolffish.
* * * * *
0
5. Sec. 648.87 is amended as follows:
0
a. Revise paragraphs (b)(1)(i)(A) and (c)(2)(ii)(A);
0
b. Suspend paragraph (b)(1)(i)(C); and
0
c. Add paragraphs (b)(1)(i)(F) and (b)(1)(i)(G).
The added and revised text reads as follows:
Sec. 648.87 Sector allocation.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) Allocated stocks. Each sector shall be allocated a TAC in the
form of an ACE for each NE multispecies stock, with the exception of
Atlantic halibut, ocean pout, windowpane flounder (both the GOM/GB and
the SNE/MA stocks), and Atlantic wolffish based upon the cumulative
PSCs of vessels/permits participating in each sector during a
particular fishing year, as described in paragraph (b)(1)(i)(E) of this
section.
* * * * *
(F)(1) Carry-over. (i) With the exception of GB yellowtail flounder
and GOM cod, a sector may carry over an amount of ACE equal to up to 10
percent of its original ACE allocation for each stock that is unused at
the end of one fishing year into the following fishing year. A sector
may carry over an amount of ACE equal to up to 1.85 percent of its
original GOM cod ACE allocation that is unused at the end of one
fishing year into the following fishing year.
(ii) For FY 2013, no carryover shall be counted against a sector's
ACE.
(2) Eastern GB cod and haddock carryover. Any unused ACE allocated
for Eastern GB stocks pursuant to paragraph (b)(1)(i)(B) of this
section will contribute to the 10-percent carry-over allowance for each
stock, as specified in paragraph (b)(1)(i)(F)(1), but will not increase
an individual sector's allocation of Eastern GB stocks during the
following year.
(3) Carry-over when vessels leave or change sectors. Carry-over 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.
(G) Carryover accounting. (1) Beginning in FY 2014, carryover of a
particular stock attributed to a sector, other than the NMFS-specified
de minimus amount, shall be counted against the sector's ACE only for
purposes of determining an overage subject to the AM in paragraph
(b)(4)(iii) of this section in circumstances there the stock-level ACL
has been exceeded.
(2) In instances where the stock-level ACL has been exceeded and
sectors have utilized available carryover in excess of the NMFS
specified de minimus amount, the sector will be subject to the AM
provision, inclusive of the carryover amount in excess of the stock-
level ACL, as outlined in paragraph (b)(4)(iii) of this section.
(3) NMFS reserves the right to reduce the available eligible
carryover amount to ensure the total potential catch, the stock-level
ACL plus the carryover amount, does not exceed the stock overfishing
limit, to maintain consistency with the requirements of the Magnuson-
Stevens Act.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) * * *
(A) Trip limits on NE multispecies stocks for which a sector
receives an allocation of ACE pursuant to paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this
section (i.e., all stocks except Atlantic halibut, ocean pout,
windowpane flounder, and Atlantic wolffish);
* * * * *
Sec. 648.89 [Amended]
0
6. Section 648.89 is amended as follows:
0
a. Remove paragraph (c)(7); and
0
b. Redesignate paragraph (c)(6) as paragraph (c)(5);; paragraph (c)(8)
as paragraph (c)(6) and paragraph (c)(9) as paragraph (c)(7) .
0
7. Further amend Sec. 648.90, as proposed to be amended at 78 FR
18188, March 25, 2013, by revising paragraph (a)(5)(i)(A) to read as
follows:
Sec. 648.90 NE multispecies assessment, framework procedures and
specifications, and flexible area action system.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(5) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) Excessive catch by common pool vessels. If the catch of
regulated species and ocean pout by common pool vessels exceeds the
amount of the ACL specified for common pool vessels pursuant to
paragraph (a)(4)(iii)(H)(2) of this section, then the AMs described in
Sec. 648.82(n) shall take effect. Pursuant to the distribution of
ABCs/ACLs specified in paragraph (a)(4)(iii)(H)(2) of this section, for
the purposes of this paragraph (a)(5)(i)(A), the catch of each
regulated species or ocean pout stock not allocated to sectors pursuant
to Sec. 648.87(b)(1)(i)(F) (i.e., Atlantic halibut, ocean pout,
windowpane flounder, and Atlantic wolffish) during fishing years 2010
and 2011 shall be added to the catch of such stocks by common pool
vessels to determine whether the differential DAS counting AM described
in Sec. 648.82(n)(1) shall take effect. If such catch does not exceed
the portion of the ACL specified for common pool vessels pursuant to
paragraph (a)(4)(iii)(H)(2) of
[[Page 19392]]
this section, then no AMs shall take effect for common pool vessels.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2013-07532 Filed 3-28-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P