# Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Annual Catch Limits and Accountability Measures

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2011-14141

## Record

- **Collection:** Federal Register
- **Document type:** Proposed Rule
- **Published:** June 17, 2011
- **Citation:** 76 FR 35578

## Text

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 648
[Docket No. 100902424-1290-02]
RIN 0648-BA23
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Annual Catch Limits and Accountability Measures

AGENCY:

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

ACTION:

Proposed rule; request for comments.

SUMMARY:

NMFS proposes to implement an Omnibus Amendment to all Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) fishery management plans (FMPs) in order to bring all Council FMPs into compliance with the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA), as amended by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 2006 (MSRA), which requires establishment of Annual Catch Limits (ACLs) and Accountability Measures (AMs) for stocks not subject to the annual life cycle or other exemptions. There are multiple intended effects of the Omnibus Amendment: To establish a comprehensive framework for all Council FMPs that is compliant with the MSA requirements and consistent with the National Standard 1 guidelines issued by NMFS; to implement a process that more formally utilizes scientific recommendations in the establishment of annual catch levels; to establish a framework to derive ACLs with AM backstops from that scientific advice; and to establish processes for revisiting and modifying the measures that would be established by the respective FMP amendments so that overfishing is prevented, stocks are rebuilt as needed, and Optimum Yield (OY) may be achieved for all managed stocks under the Council's jurisdiction.

DATES:

Comments must be received on or before July 18, 2011.

ADDRESSES:

You may submit comments, identified by RIN 0648-BA23, by any one of the following methods:

•
Electronic Submissions:
Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal
http://www.regulations.gov.

•
Fax:
(978) 281-9135.

•
Mail and hand delivery:
Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Northeast Regional Office, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope: “Comments on Mid-Atlantic ACL/AM Omnibus Amendment Proposed Rule.”

Instructions:
All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted to
http://www.regulations.gov
without change. All Personal Identifying Information (for example, name, address,
etc.
) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit Confidential Business Information or otherwise sensitive or protected information.

NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter N/A in the required fields, if you wish to remain anonymous). You may submit attachments to electronic comments in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.

Copies of the draft Omnibus Amendment document, including the Environmental Assessment and Regulatory Impact Review (EA/RIR) and other supporting documents for the Omnibus Amendment are available from Dr. Christopher M. Moore, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Suite 201, 800 North State Street, Dover, DE 19901. The draft Omnibus Amendment, as submitted to NMFS by the Council, is also accessible via the Internet at
http://www.nero.noaa.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael Ruccio, Fishery Policy Analyst, (978) 281-9104.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Congress passed the MSRA in 2006, which was signed into law on January 12, 2007. The MSRA amended the MSA to include new requirements for ACLs and AMs (16 U.S.C. 1853 section 303(a)(15)) and the formal incorporation of scientific advice provided to Regional Fishery Management Councils (RFMCs) from their respective Scientific and Statistical Committees (SSCs) in the establishment of catch levels ((16 U.S.C. 1853 section 302(1)(g)(B)). The inclusion of these new components in the MSA was intended to ensure stock rebuilding, as needed, for stocks subject to overfishing and to ensure all other fish stocks would not become overfished.

National Standard 1 (NS1) of the MSA requires that conservation and management measures “shall prevent overfishing, while achieving, on a continuing basis, the optimum yield (OY) from each fishery * * *”. NS1 guidelines prepared by NMFS provide definitions and descriptive frameworks for how RFMCs should use Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC) recommendations from their SSCs and how to develop and utilize ACL and AM measures now required under the MSA.

To respond to the MSA requirements and NS1 guidelines, the Council decided to amend the Atlantic Mackerel, Squids, and Butterfish; Atlantic Bluefish; Spiny Dogfish; Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass; the Surfclam and Ocean Quahog; and the Tilefish FMPs in a single, comprehensive action. The Omnibus Amendment development process was envisioned from the onset as a multiple year project given amount of work necessary to develop ABC control rules, ACLs, AMs. The Council conducted public scoping and developed the Omnibus Amendment over the course of 2009 and 2010. The development process included several meetings of the full Council, joint meetings with the Council and Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (Commission), meetings of both the Council's SSC and its scientific uncertainty subcommittee, a subgroup of the full SSC which was formed to develop both ABC control rules and approaches for addressing scientific uncertainty, the Omnibus Amendment Fishery Management Action Team, and four formal public hearings. The Council took final action in August 2010 and NMFS has utilized the interim time between the Council's final action to review, comment, and develop the draft implementing regulations contained in this rule.

NMFS proposes regulations to implement the measures in the Council Omnibus Amendment to establish the following: ABC control rules for use by the SSC in recommending ABC to the Council; a risk policy for use in conjunction with the ABC control rules to inform the SSC of the Council's preferred tolerance for the risk of overfishing a stock; ACLs for all Council-managed stocks except
Loligo
and
Illex
squids, which are exempt from the ACL/AM requirements because they are not overfished and have annual life cycles; comprehensive AMs for all established ACLs; descriptions of the process to review ACL and AM performance; and establishment of processes for the future modification of the measures established through the Omnibus Amendment. The Omnibus Amendment would implement the outlined measures through the following specific FMP amendments: Amendment 13 to the Atlantic

Mackerel, Squids, and Butterfish FMP; Amendment 3 to the Atlantic Bluefish FMP; Amendment 2 to the Spiny Dogfish FMP; Amendment 15 to the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass FMP; Amendment 16 to the Surfclam and Ocean Quahog FMP; and Amendment 3 to the Tilefish FMP.

A notice of availability (NOA) for the Omnibus Amendment was published on May 23, 2010 (76 FR 29717). As part for the Secretarial review process for FMP amendments, NMFS is soliciting specific feedback on the decision to approve, partially approve, or disapprove the Council's Omnibus Amendment through the NOA. Public comments are being solicited on the amendment through the end of the comment period on July 22, 2011. In addition, NMFS is proposing through this rule, specific measures to implement the Omnibus Amendment and soliciting public input on those specific measures designed to implement the Omnibus Amendment, should it be fully approved by NMFS. Public comments on the proposed rule must be received by the end of the comment period on the amendment, as published in the NOA, to be considered in the decision to approve or disapprove the amendment. All comments received by the end of the comment period on the amendment, whether specifically directed to the amendment or this proposed rule, will be considered in the approval/disapproval decision. Comments received after that date will not be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on the amendment, but may be considered in the development of the final rule. To be considered, comments must be received by close of business on the last day of the comment period; that does not mean postmarked or otherwise transmitted by that date.

Proposed Measures

The remainder of this preamble is organized into sections along the same lines as the Council's Omnibus Amendment document: Proposed ABC control rules and risk policy; FMP and species-specific proposed ACLs and AMs; and proposed performance review and future Omnibus Amendment measures.

ABC Control Rules

The Council's proposed ABC control rule framework considers the robustness of the overfishing level (OFL) calculation and associated probability distribution generated by either the stock assessment or the SSC. The Council has proposed four ABC control rule levels to address the varying amount of scientific uncertainty contained within the stock assessment information and approaches utilized to derive OFL. The control rule levels are generally organized in rank order from the lowest level of scientific uncertainty (
i.e.,
most certain) to most uncertain and/or data poor. The proposed ABC control rules are designed to be used in conjunction with the Council's proposed risk policy described in the next section of this preamble.

The proposed Level 1 ABC control rule represents an ideal assessment. In theory, a Level 1 stock assessment would likely be unbiased and fully consider uncertainty in the precision of estimates. Under the proposed Level 1 control rule, ABC would be determined by the SSC solely on the basis of the probability of overfishing, as informed by the Council's risk policy, and the probability distribution of the OFL.

The proposed ABC control rule for Level 2 assessments has a higher degree of uncertainty than does Level 1. Level 2 assessments are distinguished from Level 1 in that some key features of the stock biology, fisheries that exploit it, or data collection methods are missing from the assessment and, thus, introduce some level of uncertainty to the assessment information. The ABC in Level 2 assessments will be determined by the Council's risk policy, and the OFL probability distribution will be based on the specified distribution in the stock assessment.

The proposed ABC control rule approach for Level 3 assessments is the same as Level 2 except that the assessment does not contain estimates of the OFL probability distribution or, in the opinion of the SSC, the assessment-provided distribution does not adequately reflect uncertainty in the OFL estimate. Assessments in this level are judged by the SSC to over- or underestimate the accuracy of the OFL, and the SSC would adjust the OFL distribution to develop an ABC by using the Council's risk policy or applying a default control rule of 75 percent of the fishing mortality rate (F) at maximum sustainable yield (F
MSY
) as the ABC if an acceptable OFL distribution cannot be developed by the SSC.

The ABC control rule approach for Level 4 assessments, the lowest level of proposed categorization, does not have point estimates of OFL, or else the OFL distributions are not considered reliable by the SSC. Stocks that are highly uncertain or that fail peer review would fall into the Level 4 category. Stocks in Level 4 may only have a reliable estimate of abundance trend and catch, but may have missing or unreliable absolute abundance, estimates of F, and/or biological reference points. Stocks assigned to Level 4 would have ABC derived by the SSC using case-by-case approaches based on biomass, catch history, and the Council's risk policy.

The Council has acknowledged that the SSC may deviate from the control rule framework or level criteria to recommend an ABC to the Council, but must provide adequate justification for so doing, including why the alternative approach applied is consistent with the best available scientific information.

Council Risk Policy

The Council's proposed risk policy is designed to inform the SSC of the Council's tolerance for the risk of overfishing. The Council's preferred risk policy would be used in conjunction with the ABC control rule framework when the SSC makes ABC recommendations. When an OFL distribution is available and considered reliable by the SSC, the applicable tolerance for overfishing risk, as informed by the risk policy, would be selected from the distribution to derive the ABC recommendation.

The Council's recommended risk policy considers whether the life history of the species in question is typical or atypical, as determined by the SSC, and uses the current stock replenishment threshold defined as the ratio of biomass (B)/B
MSY
to identify the probability of overfishing the stock (see Figure 1). The probability of overfishing would be set at zero when the B/B
MSY
ratio is less than or equal to 0.10; this was identified by the Council as a preventative measure to ensure that biomass for a given stock does not fall to a very low level from which recovery is more difficult. It should be noted that setting the probability of overfishing at zero does not necessarily equate to a prohibition on catch or even landings. The probability of overfishing increases linearly from zero when the B/B
MSY
ratio is 0.10 until the ratio of B/B
MSY
= 1.0. For all B/B
MSY
ratio values greater than or equal to 1.0, the probability of overfishing the stock becomes constant at 40 percent for species with a typical life history, and 35 percent for species with an atypical life history.

EP17JN11.000

For stocks under a rebuilding plan, the risk policy would require that the probability of exceeding the rebuilding target F (F
REBUILD
) would be at least 50 percent, unless modified to a lesser value (
i.e.,
a higher probability that F
REBUILD
would not be exceeded) through a stock rebuilding plan amendment. The Council has indicated that the SSC will be expected to forward as its ABC recommendation the lower ABC resulting from the two possible calculation methods where applying the risk policy to the rebuilding F probability and OFL probability approaches results in different potential ABCs.

If no OFL is available from a stock assessment and no OFL proxy is provided by the SSC when an ABC recommendation is made, the Council's preferred risk policy would not permit increases in ABC until an acceptable OFL has been identified. This aspect of the risk policy is designed to prevent catch from increasing when there are no available criteria with which to determine whether overfishing will occur for the upcoming fishing year.

Annual Catch Limits and Accountability Measures

General Information.
The Council's proposed process would generally rely on the SSC to set ABC at or below OFL, with the reduction from OFL dependent on the amount of scientific uncertainty identified by the SSC. ACLs would be set equal to ABC for all species; however, some species would have sector-level ACLs for commercial and recreational fisheries whose sum would equal the total ABC. These sector ACLs would be based on pre-existing allocations in FMPs. The Council proposes Annual Catch Targets (ACTs) as the primary means of addressing management uncertainty. Council staff or species-specific monitoring committees would review available information and recommend to the Council the amount of reduction from ACL to ACT necessary to address management uncertainty. Where ACLs are divided into sector-specific ACLs, comparable sector ACTs would be utilized that address the associated sector-specific management uncertainties. Estimated discards (
i.e.,
dead discarded catch) would be removed from ACTs to yield either commercial or recreational landing targets, as applicable. In summary, the Council's proposed structure for all FMPs is: OFL
≥
ABC = ACL(s) > ACT(s), with scientific uncertainty addressed at the ABC level by the SSC as an offset from OFL, and management uncertainty addressed by the Council following recommendations from Council staff or species-specific monitoring committees at the ACT level as an offset from the ABC/ACL level.

Many existing proactive AMs in the FMPs will be retained in the Council's proposed approaches. These include adjustments to commercial trip and/or possession limits when landings reach specified levels, and prohibition on retention and landing when commercial quotas are reached. New proactive AMs are being proposed to close recreational fisheries when landings data indicate that target landing levels have been met. The Council has clarified that recreational closures would be based only on “data in hand,” and that projection or forecasting of future landings would not be utilized to predict when the recreational target will be met or exceeded. Thus, recreational fishery closures would only occur if landings data indicate that the target level has already been met or exceeded.

The Council has proposed that lb-for-lb repayment of any catch above the established ACLs to be utilized in all fisheries as the primary reactive AM. Because total stock mortality that must be accounted for under ACLs is comprised of both landings and dead discards (
i.e.,
total catch), the Council has, for some species, proposed slightly different AMs dependent on whether discards, landings, or some combination of both has caused an ACL to be exceeded. It is expected that when changes in dead discard mortality estimates cause ACLs to be exceeded, subsequent year measures would both

evoke the lb-for-lb repayment provisions in reactive AMs and will result in modification of the management uncertainty buffer utilized to establish ACTs. The Council may consider numerous corrective actions if ACTs are exceeded but ACLs are not (
e.g.,
changes to landing or possession limits). In addition, for most recreational sector ACLs the comparison of catch would use a 3-year rolling average to evaluate catch performance. Because the final landings and discard data for both commercial and recreational fisheries are not expected to be available in a timely enough manner to implement reactive AM measures in the fishing year immediately following an ACL overage, it is expected that the lb-for-lb repayment would occur 1 year removed from when the ACL was exceeded (
i.e.,
fishing year +1). Adjustments for ACL overages would be handled through the Council's specification processes and would not be evoked during an ongoing fishing season if the information to determine that an ACL has been exceeded becomes available mid-fishing year.

Atlantic Mackerel.
The Council took final action on Amendment 11 to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squids, and Butterfish FMP in October 2010, which may, among other things, establish a recreational fishery allocation for mackerel. The Omnibus Amendment was developed with two potential Atlantic mackerel options to respond to the recreational allocation measures being considered under Amendment 11.

Under both Atlantic mackerel scenarios, the Council is proposing that ACL be set equal to ABC. The Atlantic Mackerel Monitoring Committee would recommend any necessary management uncertainty reduction required to offset ACL from either a fishery-level ACT or sector level ACTs, dependent on the status of Amendment 11. Estimated discards would be removed from the ACT or ACTs to yield the Domestic Annual Harvest (DAH) for the commercial fishery and either a formal Recreational Harvest Limit or 15,000-mt recreational allocation dependent on if the measures in Amendment 11 are developed and implemented.

The Council is proposing a proactive AM of general inseason closure authority for the recreational fishery when data in hand indicate that the recreational target has been reached or exceeded. If a recreational allocation is established in Amendment 11, reactive AMs would require lb-for-lb repayment of ACL overages within the respective sector level: At the DAH for commercial landing-induced overages; at the recreational harvest limit, for recreational landing based overages; and at the respective ACT level if the overage was not the result of sector-specific landings (
i.e.,
dead discards, research set-asides).

If a recreational allocation is not established by Amendment 11, or that component of Amendment 11 is disapproved by NMFS, all reactive accountability would occur at the ACL, with lb-for-lb reduction of the ACL in a subsequent fishing year, regardless of the cause (
i.e.,
both landing and dead discard-induced overages would result in ACL reduction).

Butterfish.
The Council's proposed structure for the butterfish fishery would set ABC = ACL and use an ACT as an offset to account for management uncertainty. The Council's Butterfish Monitoring Committee would be responsible for recommending the buffer amount for management uncertainty between the ACL and ACT.

Existing proactive AMs would be retained for the butterfish fishery. Specifically, when 80 percent of the DAH is reached, the directed fishery would be closed and an incidental catch limit implemented.

If the ACL is exceeded, lb-for-lb repayment of the overage, regardless if caused by directed landings or estimated dead discards, would occur as soon as is practicable in a subsequent fishing year.

Atlantic Bluefish.
The Council's proposed approach for bluefish would establish a fishery-level ACL equal to ABC, with commercial and recreational sector ACTs. Existing provisions in the Bluefish FMP allow a transfer of catch from the recreational allocation to the commercial fishery; thus, the Council has proposed a fishery-level ACL. The Council's Bluefish Monitoring Committee would recommend the level of management uncertainty necessary to offset the sector ACTs from the ACL.

Existing lb-for-lb repayment of individual state commercial quota overages would continue, irrespective of whether the ACL is exceeded. If the ACL is exceeded and no transfer occurred between the recreational and commercial sectors and the recreational fishery is adjudged to have caused the ACL overage, then the recreational sector ACT would repay the overage lb-for-lb as soon as practicable in a future specification setting process. If the ACL is exceeded in a year when a transfer does occur between sectors, the fishery-level ACL would be reduced by the amount of the overage in a subsequent fishing year, and the amount of transfer between the recreational and commercial sectors would also be reduced by the magnitude of the overage. These adjustments would deal with any landings-based overage of the ACL; if estimated dead discards are responsible for the ACL being exceeded, the fishery-level ACL would be reduced (
i.e.,
lb-for-lb repayment) and no modification to the transfer between sectors would be made. Because the ACL for bluefish is at the fishery level, and no sub-ACL is recommended for the recreational fishery, the Council is not proposing a 3-year rolling average for assessing the performance of the bluefish fishery relative to the ACL. Instead, a year-by-year comparison would be used. In addition, because bluefish are jointly managed with the Commission, the Council is proposing an AM that would seek to reconvene the Commission's Bluefish Management Board and the Council if established total catch or landing levels are different for state and Federal waters. This provision would have to be jointly adopted by both the Commission and implemented in the Federal FMP to become effective. The intention of this provision is to ensure that catch and landing levels remain as consistent as practicable for both state and Federal waters.

The Council also proposes that a multi-year specifications process be added to the Bluefish FMP, so that annual catch levels may be established for up to 3 years at a time. This would ensure that all Council FMPs have provisions to permit specifications to be established for up to 3 years at a time.

Spiny Dogfish.
The spiny dogfish stock spans both U.S. and Canadian waters, and the FMP requires that consideration be given to the amount of spiny dogfish taken in Canada. To accommodate this provision, the Council is proposing that the SSC recommend a stock-level ABC that considers stock-level scientific uncertainty necessary to reduce from OFL. The estimated Canadian catch would be removed from the ABC, resulting in the Domestic ABC, which would in turn be set equal to the U.S. ACL. The Council's Dogfish Monitoring Committee would recommend any necessary management uncertainty reduction needed to reduce catch from the U.S. ACL to the ACT, thus providing a low probability of exceeding the U.S. ACL. Estimated domestic discard mortality would be removed from the ACT to provide the Total Allowable Landings (TAL) for the commercial fishery.

The Council does not propose changes to the existing proactive AMs that permit Federal trip limits to be established though the specifications process and mechanism to close the

Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) when semi-annual commercial landings quotas are reached. The Council is proposing that lb-for-lb repayment of any ACL overage be implemented as the sole reactive AM for the spiny dogfish fishery.

Summer Flounder.
The Council proposes that separate commercial and recreational sector ACLs be established for summer flounder, the sum of which would total the ABC. Sector-specific management uncertainty would be identified by the Summer Flounder Monitoring Committee to establish sector-specific ACTs below the sector ACLs. Estimated discard mortality and research set-aside would be removed from the ACTs to yield the recreational harvest limit and commercial quotas, respectively, with the commercial quota further subdivided into state quotas. Both sector and state allocations would remain unchanged from those currently specified in the FMP.

Existing commercial fishery closure and state-by-state overage repayment provisions would remain in the FMP as AM measures. State commercial overage repayment would occur irrespective of whether or not the ACL is exceeded. The Council is proposing general inseason closure authority for the recreational sector, to be implemented if available data indicate that the recreational harvest limit has already been met or exceeded (
i.e.,
data would not be used to project attainment of the recreational harvest limit). In instances where the sector-specific ACL is exceeded, the applicable ACL would be reduced through lb-for-lb overage repayment for a future fishing year through the specifications process. The recreational sector ACL would utilize a 3-year moving average to evaluate performance of the sector. The moving average would be phased in over a period of 3 years: In year one, catch (sum of recreational sector specific landings and dead discards) would be compared to the prior year catch; in year two, an average catch of years one and two would be used; in year three and in all subsequent years, the average catch from the prior three years would be used.

Similar to other jointly-managed species, the Council proposes that language be adopted by the Commission and added to the Federal FMP to ensure that catch levels are consistent in both state and Federal waters to avoid differential effects on Federal permit holders.

Scup.
The proposed measures for scup would be essentially the same as those proposed for summer flounder, except that the commercial quota would be allocated into three existing quota periods instead of to individual states. All other provisions would function the same as outlined for summer flounder: Sector-specific ACLs; management uncertainty considerations developed by a scup-specific monitoring committee; and sector-specific ACTs. Commercial quota period overages would continue to have lb-for-lb repayment, consistent with the current FMP provisions, regardless of whether the sector ACL is exceeded. Recreational AMs would be evaluated using the same 3-year average approach described for summer flounder. The joint-management provisions between the Commission and Council also apply for scup.

Black Sea Bass.
The proposed measures for black sea bass would be the same as those developed for summer flounder and scup, except that the commercial quota would be administered on a coastwide basis for the fishing year, and lb-for-lb repayment of a commercial landings overage would also occur at the coastwide level, irrespective of whether the commercial-sector ACL is exceeded. All other provisions would function the same as outlined for summer flounder and scup.

Atlantic Surf Clam.
The Council's proposed system for surfclams would set ACL = ABC = Total Allowable Catch (TAC). An ACT set below TAC would be recommended by Council staff to address management uncertainty. Existing Individual Transferable Quota (ITQ) accountability requires lb-for-lb repayment of any permit-specific landing overages. This would be retained as the sole AM for the surfclam fishery.

Ocean Quahog.
The Council's proposed measures for ocean quahog would set ACL=ABC, with Council staff recommending any necessary management uncertainty reductions to yield separate ACTs for the Maine mahogany quahog fishery and the non-Maine fishery as subdivisions below the ACL. Similar to surf clams, 100 percent of ITQ landing overages that occur within the fishery are required to be repaid lb-for-lb. This would remain in place as the non-Maine fishery AM, regardless of whether the ACL is exceeded. If the ACL is exceeded and harvest in the Maine fishery is the cause, the Maine ACT would be adjusted in a following year through a bushel-for-bushel repayment of the overage.

Tilefish.
The Council has proposed that ACL = ABC for tilefish, and that the Tilefish Monitoring Committee would recommend any necessary management uncertainty reduction from ACL to ACT. An estimate of dead discards would be removed from the ACT to produce the Total Allowable Landings (TAL). The existing regulatory structure would continue to allocate 95 percent of the commercially available landings to the Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) permit holders, and 5 percent would be reserved for incidental catch.

Inseason closure authority already exists for the incidental category to be closed when projected landings total the specified category target. The Council has proposed increasing the incidental trip limit from 300 to 500 lb (136 to 227 kg) based on analyses conducted during development of the Omnibus Amendment. If the incidental category exceeds the 5-percent allocation in any given year, the incidental 500-lb (227-kg) trip limit may be reduced in subsequent fishing years.

The Tilefish FMP already contains lb-for-lb landing overage repayment requirements for IFQ permit holders. This authority would be retained as the primary AM for the commercial fishery. If the incidental category is responsible for an ACL overage, the 5-percent allocation would be reduced lb-for-lb in a subsequent year, and the incidental category trip limit may be adjusted as well. If the ACL is exceeded by any other means (
i.e.,
changes in estimated dead discard amounts), lb-for-lb repayment of the overage from a subsequent fishing year ACL would be enacted prior to any IFQ and incidental permit category allocation calculations.

Future Review and Modification of Omnibus Amendment Implemented Processes

The Council has proposed that ABC control rules be reviewed in detail by the SSC 5 years after the implementation of the Omnibus Amendment measures and at least every 5 years thereafter. Reviews can occur more frequently than 5 years, based on the need to address rebuilding plans, overfished stocks, poor control rule performance resulting in overfishing, or other relevant factors. The Council specified that the process to change any ABC control rules would be consistent with the magnitude of the potential changes: For example, minor changes within the existing four levels based on assessment levels could be developed through the Council's specification or framework adjustment process. Addition of new control rule levels or substantial modification of existing criteria within the four levels may require a full FMP amendment.

The Council has proposed that ACL and AM performance reviews occur at least every 5 years, as well, if ACLs are

not routinely exceeded. Consistent with the NS1 guidelines, if the ACL is exceeded for any species with a frequency greater than 25 percent of the time (
i.e.,
more than 1 in 4 years, or in any 2 consecutive years), the Council has proposed to initiate a review of the ACL, ACT, and AM approaches used.

The Council has included in the Omnibus Amendment a comprehensive listing of items that may be modified through specification or a framework adjustment in an effort to preserve a responsive, adaptive process. The limits to modifications of the ABC control rules, risk policy, ACT control rules, AMs, and actions that may be taken under each FMP are provided. In addition, several items are identified that can only be modified through framework adjustment or FMP amendment.

Classification

Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the MSA, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the Atlantic Mackerel, Squids; and Butterfish FMP; Atlantic Bluefish FMP; Spiny Dogfish FMP; Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass FMP; Surfclam and Ocean Quahog FMP; and Tilefish FMP; other provisions of the MSA; and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.

This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

As outlined in the preamble to this proposed rule, the Omnibus Amendment proposes multiple descriptive processes for Council-managed resources: To implement methods of establishing ABC through control rules; establishment of a Council risk policy for the tolerance of overfishing stocks, a required element of ABC control rules; to establish as framework for specifying ACLs derived from ABC with a comprehensive system of AMs; and to provide a description of the future evaluation and modification processes for the ABC control rules, Council risk policy, ACLs, and AMs. The Council conducted a comprehensive evaluation of the potential socioeconomic impacts of the Omnibus Amendment measures in conjunction with the EA analyses. The formal procedures for addressing both scientific and management uncertainty in the catch limit establishment system proposed by the Omnibus Amendment are administrative, as they are entirely a description of process. While the Omnibus Amendment provides detailed descriptions of the frameworks for how scientific and management uncertainty will be considered, as well as how ACLs and AMs would function, the action contains no actual application of the methods to set ABC, apply the risk policy, or establish specific ACLs or AMs for any of the Council's FMPs. As a result, there are no immediate economic impacts to evaluate. Populating the proposed framework with data, which would result in the establishment of catch levels with measurable impacts, will occur in future actions. As the systems proposed by the Omnibus Amendment are utilized in future actions, the specific impacts resulting from the application of the systems will be evaluated through the Council's specification processes for each FMP.

The Council-conducted analyses identified 3,911 unique fishing entities in the Northeast Region, all but 6 of which were determined to be small entities. However, given the administrative aspects of the proposed measures, there are neither expected direct economic or disproportionate impacts to either small or large regulated entities given the aforementioned description of the administrative processes proposed by the Omnibus Amendment. As a result, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared. RFA analysis will be conducted, as appropriate, for subsequent actions taken under the Omnibus Amendment established procedures.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648

Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: June 3, 2011.
Eric C. Schwaab,
Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 648—FISHERIES OF THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES

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

Authority:

16 U.S.C. 1801
et seq.

2. Section 648.14(u)(2)(vii) is added to read as follows:

§ 648.14
Prohibitions.

(u)* * *

(2)* * *

(vii) Land or possess tilefish in or from the Tilefish Management Unit, on a vessel issued a valid tilefish permit under this part, after the incidental fishery is closed pursuant to § 648.245(b), unless fishing under a valid tilefish IFQ allocation permit as specified in § 648.249(a), or engaged in recreational fishing.

3. Section 648.20 is revised to read as follows:

§ 648.20
Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council ABC Control Rules.

General information.
The SSC shall review the following criteria, and any additional relevant information, to assign managed stocks to a specific control rule level when developing ABC recommendations. The SSC shall review the ABC control rule level assignment for stocks each time an ABC is recommended. The ABC may be recommended for up to 3 years for all stocks, with the exception of 5 years for spiny dogfish. The SSC may deviate from the control rule methods or level criteria and recommend an ABC that differs from the result of the ABC control rule calculation; however, any such deviation must include the following: A description of why the deviation is warranted, description of the methods used to derive the alternative ABC, and an explanation of how the deviation is consistent with National Standard 2.

(a)
Level 1 criteria.
(1) Assignment of a stock to Level 1 requires the SSC to determine the following:

(i) All important sources of scientific uncertainty are captured in the stock assessment model;

(ii) The probability distribution of the OFL is calculated within the stock assessment and provides an adequate description of the OFL uncertainty;

(iii) The stock assessment model structure and treatment of the data prior to use in the model includes relevant details of the biology of the stock, fisheries that exploit the stock, and data collection methods;

(iv) The stock assessment provides the following estimates: Fishing mortality rate (F) at MSY or an alternate maximum fishing mortality threshold (MFMT) to define OFL, biomass, biological reference points, stock status, OFL, and the respective uncertainties associated with each value; and

(v) No substantial retrospective patterns exist in the stock assessment

estimates of fishing mortality, biomass, and recruitment.

(2)
Level 1 ABC determination.
Stocks assigned to level 1 by the SSC will have the ABC derived by applying acceptable probability of overfishing from the MAFMC's risk policy found in § 648.21(a) through (d) to the probability distribution of the OFL.

(b)
Level 2 criteria.
(1) Assignment of a stock to Level 2 requires the SSC to determine the following:

(i) Key features of the stock biology, the fisheries that exploit it, and/or the data collection methods for stock information are missing from the stock assessment;

(ii) The stock assessment provides reference points (which may be proxies), stock status, and uncertainties associated with each; however, the uncertainty is not fully promulgated through the stock assessment model and/or some important sources of uncertainty may be lacking;

(iii) The stock assessment provides estimates of the precision of biomass, fishing mortality, and reference points; and

(iv) The accuracy of the minimum fishing mortality threshold and projected future biomass is estimated in the stock assessment using ad hoc methods.

(2)
Level 2 ABC determination.
Stocks assigned to level 2 by the SSC will have the ABC derived by applying acceptable probability of overfishing from the MAFMC's risk policy found in § 648.21(a) through (d) to the probability distribution of the OFL.

(c)
Level 3 criteria.
(1) Assignment of a stock to Level 3 requires the SSC to determine that the stock assessment attributes are the same as those for a level 2 assessment listed in § 648.20(d)(1) through (4), except that the stock assessment does not contain an estimated probability distribution of OFL or the stock assessment provided OFL probability distribution is judged by the SSC to not adequately reflect uncertainty in the OFL estimate.

(2)
Level 3 ABC determination.
Stocks assigned to Level 3 will have ABC derived by one of the following two methods:

(i) The SSC will derive the ABC by applying the acceptable probability of overfishing from the MAFMC's risk policy found in § 648.21(a) through (d) to an SSC-adjusted OFL probability distribution. The SSC will use default levels of uncertainty in the adjusted OFL probability distribution based on literature review and evaluation of control rule performance; or,

(ii) If the SSC cannot develop an OFL distribution, a default control rule of 75 percent of the F
MSY
value will be applied to derive ABC.

(d)
Level 4 criteria.
(1) Assignment of a stock to Level 4 requires the SSC to determine that none of the criteria for Level 1-3 found in § 648.20(a) through (c) were met.

(2)
Level 4 ABC determination.
Stocks assigned to Level 4 will have ABC derived using control rules developed on a case-by-case basis by the SSC based on biomass and catch history and application of the MAFMC's risk policy found in § 648.21(a) through (d).

4. Section 648.21 is revised to read as follows:

§ 648.21
Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council Risk Policy.
The risk policy shall be used by the SSC in conjunction with the ABC control rules in § 648.20(a) through (d) to ensure the MAFMC's preferred tolerance for the risk of overfishing is addressed in the ABC development and recommendation process.

(a)
Stocks under a rebuilding plan.
The probability of not exceeding the F necessary to rebuild the stock within the specified time frame (rebuilding F or F
REBUILD
) must be at least 50 percent, unless the default level is modified to a higher probability for not exceeding the rebuilding F through the formal stock rebuilding plan. A higher probability of not exceeding the rebuilding F would be expressed as a value greater than 50 percent (
e.g.,
75-percent probability of not exceeding rebuilding F, which corresponds to a 25-percent probability of exceeding rebuilding F).

(b)
Stocks not subject to a rebuilding plan.
(1) For stocks determined by the SSC to have an atypical life history, the maximum probability of overfishing as informed by the OFL distribution will be 35 percent for stocks with a ratio of biomass (B) to biomass at MSY (B
MSY
) of 1.0 or higher (
i.e.,
the stock is at B
MSY
or higher). The maximum probability of overfishing shall decrease linearly from the maximum value of 35 percent as the B/B
MSY
ratio becomes less than 1.0 (
i.e.,
the stock biomass less than B
MSY
) until the probability of overfishing becomes zero at a B/B
MSY
ratio of 0.10. An atypical life history is generally defined as one that has greater vulnerability to exploitation and whose characteristics have not been fully addressed through the stock assessment and biological reference point development process.

(2) For stocks determined by the SSC to have a typical life history, the maximum probability of overfishing as informed by the OFL distribution will be 40 percent for stocks with a ratio of B to B
MSY
of 1.0 or higher (
i.e.,
the stock is at B
MSY
or higher). The maximum probability of overfishing shall decrease linearly from the maximum value of 40 percent as the B/B
MSY
ratio becomes less than 1.0 (stock biomass less than B
MSY
) until the probability of overfishing becomes zero at a B/B
MSY
ratio of 0.10. Stocks with typical life history are those not meeting the criteria in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.

(c) For instances in which the application of the risk policy approaches in either paragraph (b)(1) or (2) of this section using OFL distribution, as applicable given life history determination, results in a more restrictive ABC recommendation than the calculation of ABC derived from the use of F
REBUILD
at the MAFMC-specified overfishing risk level as outlined in paragraph (a) of this section, the SSC shall recommend to the MAFMC the lower of the ABC values.

(d) If an OFL cannot be determined from the stock assessment, or if a proxy is not provided by the SSC during the ABC recommendation process, ABC levels may not be increased until such time that an OFL has been identified.

5. Section 648.22 is revised to read as follows:

§ 648.22
Specifications.

(a)
Initial recommended annual specifications.
The Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Monitoring Committee (Monitoring Committee) shall meet annually to develop and recommend the following specifications for consideration by the Squid, Mackerel, and Butterfish Committee of the MAFMC:

(1) Initial OY (IOY), including Research Set-Aside (RSA), DAH, and DAP for
Illex
squid, which, subject to annual review, may be specified for a period of up to 3 years;

(2) ACL; ACT including RSA, DAH, DAP; bycatch level of the TALFF, if any; and butterfish mortality cap for the
Loligo
fishery for butterfish; which, subject to annual review, may be specified for a period of up to 3 years;

(3) ACL; commercial ACT, including RSA, DAH, DAP; JVP if any; TALFF, if any; and recreational ACT, including RSA for mackerel; which, subject to annual review, may be specified for a period of up to 3 years. The Monitoring Committee may also recommend that certain ratios of TALFF, if any, for mackerel to purchases of domestic harvested fish and/or domestic processed fish be established in relation to the initial annual amounts.

(4) IOY, including RSA, DAH, and DAP for
Loligo
squid, which, subject to annual review, may be specified for a period of up to 3 years; and

(5) Inseason adjustment, upward or downward, to the specifications for
Loligo
squid, as specified in paragraph (e) of this section.

(b)
Guidelines.
As the basis for its recommendations under paragraph (a) of this section, the Monitoring Committee shall review the best available data to recommend specifications consistent with the following:

(1)
Loligo and/or Illex squid.
(i) The ABC for any fishing year must be either the maximum OY, or a lower amount, if stock assessments indicate that the potential yield is less than the maximum OY. The OYs specified during a fishing year may not exceed the following amounts:

(A)
Loligo.
—The catch associated with a fishing mortality rate of F
Threshold.

(B)
Illex.
—Catch associated with a fishing mortality rate of F
MSY.

(ii) IOY is a modification of ABC based on social and economic factors. The IOY is composed of RSA and DAH. RSA will be based on requests for research quota as described in paragraph (g) of this section. DAH will be set after deduction for RSA, if applicable.

(2)
Mackerel.
—(i)
ABC.
The MAFMC's SSC shall recommend an ABC to the MAFMC, as described in § 648.20. The mackerel ABC is reduced from the OFL based on an adjustment for scientific uncertainty; the ABC must be less than or equal to the OFL.

(ii)
ACL.
The ACL or Domestic ABC is calculated using the formula ACL = ABC − C, where C is the estimated catch of mackerel in Canadian waters for the upcoming fishing year.

(iii)
OY.
OY may not exceed the ACL, and must take into account the need to prevent overfishing while allowing the fishery to achieve OY on a continuing basis. OY is prescribed on the basis of MSY, as reduced by social, economic, and ecological factors.

(iv)
ACT.
The Monitoring Committee shall identify and review relevant sources of management uncertainty to recommend ACTs for the commercial and recreational fishing sectors as part of the specifications process.

(A)
Commercial sector ACT.
Commercial ACT is composed of RSA, DAH, dead discards, and TALFF. RSA will be based on requests for research quota as described in paragraph (g) of this section. DAH, DAP, and JVP will be set after deduction for RSA, if applicable, and must be projected by reviewing data from sources specified in paragraph (b) of this section and other relevant data, including past domestic landings, projected amounts of mackerel necessary for domestic processing and for joint ventures during the fishing year, projected recreational landings, and other data pertinent for such a projection. The JVP component of DAH is the portion of DAH that domestic processors either cannot or will not use. Economic considerations for the establishment of JVP and TALFF include:

(
1
) Total world export potential of mackerel producing countries.

(
2
) Total world import demand of mackerel consuming countries.

(
3
) U.S. export potential based on expected U.S. harvests, expected U.S. consumption, relative prices, exchange rates, and foreign trade barriers.

(
4
) Increased/decreased revenues to the U.S. from foreign fees.

(
5
) Increased/decreased revenues to U.S. harvesters (with/without joint ventures).

(
6
) Increased/decreased revenues to U.S. processors and exporters.

(
7
) Increases/decreases in U.S. harvesting productivity due to decreases/increases in foreign harvest.

(
8
) Increases/decreases in U.S. processing productivity.

(
9
) Potential impact of increased/decreased TALFF on foreign purchases of U.S. products and services and U.S.-caught fish, changes in trade barriers, technology transfer, and other considerations.

(B)
Recreational sector ACT.
Recreational ACT is composed of RSA, dead discards, and the Recreational Harvest Limit (RHL).

(v)
Performance review.
The Squid, Mackerel, and Butterfish Committee shall conduct a detailed review of fishery performance relative to the mackerel ACL at least every 5 years.

(A) If the ACL is exceeded with a frequency greater than 25 percent (
i.e.,
more than once in 4 years or any two consecutive years), the Squid, Mackerel, and Butterfish Monitoring Committee will review fishery performance information and make recommendations to the MAFMC for changes in measures intended to ensure ACLs are not exceeded as frequently.

(B) The MAFMC may specify more frequent or more specific ACL performance review criteria as part of a stock rebuilding plan following a determination that a stock has become overfished.

(C) Performance reviews shall not substitute for annual reviews that occur to ascertain if prior year ACLs have been exceeded, but may be conducted in conjunction with such reviews.

(3)
Butterfish
—(i)
ABC.
The MAFMC's SSC shall recommend an ABC to the MAFMC, as described in § 648.20. The butterfish ABC is reduced from the OFL based on an adjustment for scientific uncertainty; the ABC must be less than or equal to the OFL.

(ii)
ACL.
The butterfish ACL will be set equal to the butterfish ABC.

(iii)
OY.
OY may not exceed the ACL, and must take into account the need to prevent overfishing while allowing the fishery to achieve OY on a continuing basis. OY is prescribed on the basis of MSY, as reduced by social, economic, and ecological factors.

(iv)
ACT.
The Monitoring Committee shall identify and review relevant sources of management uncertainty to recommend the butterfish ACT as part of the specifications process. The ACT is composed of RSA, DAH, dead discards, and bycatch TALFF that is equal to 0.08 percent of the allocated portion of the mackerel TALFF. RSA will be based on requests for research quota as described in paragraph (g) of this section. DAH and bycatch TALFF will be set after deduction for RSA, if applicable.

(v) The butterfish mortality cap will be allocated to the
Loligo
fishery as follows: Trimester I—65 percent; Trimester II—3.3 percent; and Trimester III—31.7 percent.

(vi) Any underages of the butterfish mortality cap for Trimesters I or II will be applied to Trimester III of the same year, and any overages of the butterfish mortality cap for Trimesters I and II will be applied to Trimester III of the same year.

(vii)
Performance review.
The Squid, Mackerel, and Butterfish Committee shall conduct a detailed review of fishery performance relative to the butterfish ACL in conjunction with review for the mackerel fishery, as outlined in this section.

(c)
Recommended measures.
Based on the review of the data described in paragraph (b) of this section and requests for research quota as described in paragraph (g) of this section, the Monitoring Committee will recommend to the Squid, Mackerel, and Butterfish Committee the measures from the following list that it determines are necessary to ensure that the specifications are not exceeded:

(1) RSA set from a range of 0 to 3 percent of:

(A) The IOY for
Loligo
and/or
Illex.

(B) The commercial and/or recreational ACT for mackerel.

(C) The ACT for butterfish.

(2) Commercial quotas, set after reductions for research quotas.

(3) The amount of
Loligo, Illex,
and butterfish that may be retained, possessed, and landed by vessels issued the incidental catch permit specified in § 648.4(a)(5)(ii).

(4) Commercial minimum fish sizes.

(5) Commercial trip limits.

(6) Commercial seasonal quotas/closures for
Loligo
and
Illex.

(7) Minimum mesh sizes.

(8) Commercial gear restrictions.

(9) Recreational harvest limit, set after reductions for research quotas.

(10) Recreational minimum fish size.

(11) Recreational possession limits.

(12) Recreational season.

(13) Changes, as appropriate, to the Northeast Region SBRM, including the coefficient of variation (CV) based performance standard, fishery stratification, and/or reports.

(14) Modification of existing accountability measures (AMs) utilized by the Monitoring Committee.

(d)
Annual fishing measures.
(1) The Squid, Mackerel, and Butterfish Committee will review the recommendations of the Monitoring Committee. Based on these recommendations and any public comment received thereon, the Squid, Mackerel, and Butterfish Committee must recommend to the MAFMC appropriate specifications and any measures necessary to assure that the specifications will not be exceeded. The MAFMC will review these recommendations and, based on the recommendations and any public comment received thereon, must recommend to the Regional Administrator appropriate specifications and any measures necessary to assure that the ACL will not be exceeded. The MAFMC's recommendations must include supporting documentation, as appropriate, concerning the environmental, economic, and social impacts of the recommendations. The Regional Administrator will review the recommendations and will publish a proposed rule in the
Federal Register
proposing specifications and any measures necessary to assure that the specifications will not be exceeded and providing a 30-day public comment period. If the proposed specifications differ from those recommended by the MAFMC, the reasons for any differences must be clearly stated and the revised specifications must satisfy the criteria set forth in this section. The MAFMC's recommendations will be available for inspection at the office of the Regional Administrator during the public comment period. If the annual specifications for squid, mackerel, and butterfish are not published in the
Federal Register
prior to the start of the fishing year, the previous year's annual specifications, excluding specifications of TALFF, will remain in effect. The previous year's specifications will be superseded as of the effective date of the final rule implementing the current year's annual specifications.

(2) The Regional Administrator will make a final determination concerning the specifications for each species and any measures necessary to assure that the specifications will not be exceeded. After the Regional Administrator considers all relevant data and any public comments, notification of the final specifications and any measures necessary to assure that the specifications will not be exceeded and responses to the public comments will be published in the
Federal Register
. If the final specification amounts differ from those recommended by the MAFMC, the reason(s) for the difference(s) must be clearly stated and the revised specifications must be consistent with the criteria set forth in paragraph (b) of this section.

(e)
Inseason adjustments.
The specifications established pursuant to this section may be adjusted by the Regional Administrator, in consultation with the MAFMC, during the fishing year by publishing notification in the
Federal Register
.

(f)
Distribution of annual Loligo squid commercial quota.
(1) A commercial quota for
Loligo
squid will be allocated annually into trimester periods, based on the following percentages: Trimester I (January-April)—43.0 percent; Trimester II (May-August)—17.0 percent; and Trimester III (September-December)—40.0 percent.

(2) Any underages of commercial period quota for Trimester I that are greater than 25 percent of the Trimester I quota will be reallocated to Trimesters II and III of the same year. The reallocation of quota from Trimester I to Trimester II is limited, such that the Trimester II quota may only be increased by 50 percent; the remaining portion of the underage will be reallocated to Trimester III. Any underages of commercial period quota for Trimester I that are less than 25 percent of the Trimester I quota will be applied to Trimester III of the same year. Any overages of commercial quota for Trimesters I and II will be subtracted from Trimester III of the same year.

(g)
Research set-aside (RSA) quota.
Prior to the MAFMC's quota-setting meetings:

(1) NMFS will publish a Request for Proposals (RFP) in the
Federal Register
, consistent with procedures and requirements established by the NOAA Grants Office, to solicit proposals from industry for the upcoming fishing year, based on research priorities identified by the MAFMC.

(2) NMFS will convene a review panel, including the MAFMC's Comprehensive Management Committee and technical experts, to review proposals submitted in response to the RFP.

(i) Each panel member will recommend which research proposals should be authorized to utilize research quota, based on the selection criteria described in the RFP.

(ii) The NEFSC Director and the NOAA Grants Office will consider each panel member's recommendation, and provide final approval of the projects. The Regional Administrator may, when appropriate, exempt selected vessel(s) from regulations specified in each of the respective FMPs through written notification to the project proponent.

(3) The grant awards approved under the RFPs will be for the upcoming fishing year. Proposals to fund research that would start prior to, or that would end after the fishing year, will not be eligible for consideration. All research and/or compensation trips must be completed within the fishing year for which the research grant was awarded.

(4) Research projects will be conducted in accordance with provisions approved and provided in an Exempted Fishing Permit (EFP) issued by the Regional Administrator.

(5) If a proposal is disapproved by the NEFSC Director or the NOAA Grants Office, or if the Regional Administrator determines that the allocated research quota cannot be utilized by a project, the Regional Administrator shall reallocate the unallocated or unused amount of research quota to the respective commercial and recreational fisheries by publication of a notice in the
Federal Register
in compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act, provided:

(i) The reallocation of the unallocated or unused amount of research quota is in accord with National Standard 1, and can be available for harvest before the end of the fishing year for which the research quota is specified; and

(ii) Any reallocation of unallocated or unused research quota shall be consistent with the proportional division of quota between the commercial and recreational fisheries in the relevant FMP and allocated to the remaining quota periods for the fishing year proportionally.

(6) Vessels participating in approved research projects may be exempted from certain management measures by the Regional Administrator, provided that one of the following analyses of the impacts associated with the exemptions is provided:

(i) The analysis of the impacts of the requested exemptions is included as part of the annual quota specification packages submitted by the MAFMC; or

(ii) For proposals that require exemptions that extend beyond the scope of the analysis provided by the MAFMC, applicants may be required to provide additional analysis of impacts of the exemptions before issuance of an EFP will be considered, as specified in the EFP regulations at § 648.12(b).

6. Section 648.23 is revised to read as follows:

§ 648.23
Gear restrictions.

(a)
Mesh restrictions and exemptions.
(1) Vessels subject to the mesh restrictions in this paragraph (a) may not have available for immediate use any net, or any piece of net, with a mesh size smaller than that required.

(2) Owners or operators of otter trawl vessels possessing 1,000 lb (0.45 mt) or more of butterfish harvested in or from the EEZ may only fish with nets having a minimum codend mesh of 3 inches (76 mm) diamond mesh, inside stretch measure, applied throughout the codend for at least 100 continuous meshes forward of the terminus of the net, or for codends with less than 100 meshes, the minimum mesh size codend shall be a minimum of one-third of the net, measured from the terminus of the codend to the headrope.

(3) Owners or operators of otter trawl vessels possessing
Loligo
harvested in or from the EEZ may only fish with nets having a minimum mesh size of 2
1/8
inches (54 mm) during Trimesters I (Jan-Apr) and III (Sept-Dec); or 1
7/8
inches (48 mm) during Trimester II (May-Aug), diamond mesh, inside stretch measure, applied throughout the codend for at least 150 continuous meshes forward of the terminus of the net, or for codends with less than 150 meshes, the minimum mesh size codend shall be a minimum of one-third of the net measured from the terminus of the codend to the headrope, unless they are fishing consistent with exceptions specified in paragraph (b) of this section.

(i)
Net obstruction or constriction.
Owners or operators of otter trawl vessels fishing for and/or possessing
Loligo
shall not use any device, gear, or material, including, but not limited to, nets, net strengtheners, ropes, lines, or chafing gear, on the top of the regulated portion of a trawl net that results in an effective mesh opening of less than 2
1/8
inches (54 mm) during Trimesters I (Jan-Apr) and III (Sept-Dec), or 1
7/8
inches (48 mm) during Trimester II (May-Aug), diamond mesh, inside stretch measure. “Top of the regulated portion of the net” means the 50 percent of the entire regulated portion of the net that would not be in contact with the ocean bottom if, during a tow, the regulated portion of the net were laid flat on the ocean floor. However, owners or operators of otter trawl vessels fishing for and/or possessing
Loligo
may use net strengtheners (covers), splitting straps, and/or bull ropes or wire around the entire circumference of the codend, provided they do not have a mesh opening of less than 5 inches (12.7 cm) diamond mesh, inside stretch measure. For the purposes of this requirement, head ropes are not to be considered part of the top of the regulated portion of a trawl net.

(ii)
Illex fishery.
Owners or operators of otter trawl vessels possessing
Loligo
harvested in or from the EEZ and fishing during the months of June, July, August, and September for
Illex
seaward of the following coordinates (copies of a map depicting this area are available from the Regional Administrator upon request) are exempt from the
Loligo
gear requirements in paragraph (a)(3) of this section, provided they do not have available for immediate use, as defined in paragraph (b) of this section, any net, or any piece of net, with a mesh size less than 1
7/8
inches (48 mm) diamond mesh or any net, or any piece of net, with mesh that is rigged in a manner that is prohibited by paragraph (a)(3) of this section, when the vessel is landward of the specified coordinates.

Point
N. Lat.
W. Long.

M1
43°58.0′
67°22.0′

M2
43°50.0′
68°35.0′

M3
43°30.0′
69°40.0′

M4
43°20.0′
70°00.0′

M5
42°45.0′
70°10.0′

M6
42°13.0′
69°55.0′

M7
41°00.0′
69°00.0′

M8
41°45.0′
68°15.0′

M9
42°10.0′
67°10.0′

M10
41°18.6′
66°24.8′

M11
40°55.5′
66°38.0′

M12
40°45.5′
68°00.0′

M13
40°37.0′
68°00.0′

M14
40°30.0′
69°00.0′

M15
40°22.7′
69°00.0′

M16
40°18.7′
69°40.0′

M17
40°21.0′
71°03.0′

M18
39°41.0′
72°32.0′

M19
38°47.0′
73°11.0′

M20
38°04.0′
74°06.0′

M21
37°08.0′
74°46.0′

M22
36°00.0′
74°52.0′

M23
35°45.0′
74°53.0′

M24
35°28.0′
74°52.0′

(4)
Mackerel, squid, and butterfish bottom trawling restricted areas.
(i)
Oceanographer Canyon.
No permitted mackerel, squid, or butterfish vessel may fish with bottom trawl gear in the Oceanographer Canyon or be in the Oceanographer Canyon unless transiting. Vessels may transit this area provided the bottom trawl gear is stowed in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (b) of this section. Oceanographer Canyon is defined by straight lines connecting the following points in the order stated (copies of a chart depicting this area are available from the Regional Administrator upon request):

Oceanographer Canyon

Point
N. Lat.
W. Long.

OC1
40°10.0′
68°12.0′

OC2
40°24.0′
68°09.0′

OC3
40°24.0′
68°08.0′

OC4
40°10.0′
67°59.0′

OC1
40°10.0′
68°12.0′

(ii)
Lydonia Canyon.
No permitted mackerel, squid, or butterfish vessel may fish with bottom trawl gear in the Lydonia Canyon or be in the Lydonia Canyon unless transiting. Vessels may transit this area provided the bottom trawl gear is stowed in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (b) of this section. Lydonia Canyon is defined by straight lines connecting the following points in the order stated (copies of a chart depicting this area are available from the Regional Administrator upon request):

Lydonia Canyon

Point
N. Lat.
W. Long.

LC1
40°16.0′
67°34.0′

LC2
40°16.0′
67°42.0′

LC3
40°20.0′
67°43.0′

LC4
40°27.0′
67°40.0′

LC5
40°27.0′
67°38.0′

LC1
40°16.0′
67°34.0′

(b)
Definition of “not available for immediate use.”
Gear that is shown not to have been in recent use and that is stowed in conformance with one of the following methods is considered to be not available for immediate use:

(1)
Nets
—(i)
Below-deck stowage.
(A) The net is stored below the main working deck from which it is deployed and retrieved;

(B) The towing wires, including the leg wires, are detached from the net; and

(C) It is fan-folded (flaked) and bound around its circumference.

(ii)
On-deck stowage.
(A) The net is fan-folded (flaked) and bound around its circumference;

(B) It is securely fastened to the deck or rail of the vessel; and

(C) The towing wires, including the leg wires, are detached from the net.

(iii)
On-reel stowage.
(A) The net is on a reel, its entire surface is covered with canvas or other similar opaque material, and the canvas or other material is securely bound;

(B) The towing wires are detached from the net; and

(C) The codend is removed and stored below deck.

(iv)
On-reel stowage for vessels transiting the Gulf of Maine Rolling Closure Areas, the Georges Bank Seasonal Area Closure, and the Conditional Gulf of Maine Rolling Closure Area.

(A) The net is on a reel, its entire surface is covered with canvas or other similar opaque material, and the canvas or other material is securely bound;

(B) The towing wires are detached from the doors; and

(C) No containment rope, codend tripping device, or other mechanism to close off the codend is attached to the codend.

(2)
Scallop dredges.
(i) The towing wire is detached from the scallop dredge, the towing wire is completely reeled up onto the winch, the dredge is secured, and the dredge or the winch is covered so that it is rendered unusable for fishing; or

(ii) The towing wire is detached from the dredge and attached to a bright-colored poly ball no less than 24 inches (60.9 cm) in diameter, with the towing wire left in its normal operating position (through the various blocks) and either is wound back to the first block (in the gallows) or is suspended at the end of the lifting block where its retrieval does not present a hazard to the crew and where it is readily visible from above.

(3)
Hook gear (other than pelagic).
All anchors and buoys are secured and all hook gear, including jigging machines, is covered.

(4)
Sink gillnet gear.
All nets are covered with canvas or other similar material and lashed or otherwise securely fastened to the deck or rail, and all buoys larger than 6 inches (15.24 cm) in diameter, high flyers, and anchors are disconnected.

(5)
Other methods of stowage.
Any other method of stowage authorized in writing by the Regional Administrator and subsequently published in the
Federal Register
.

(c)
Mesh obstruction or constriction.
The owner or operator of a fishing vessel shall not use any mesh construction, mesh configuration, or other means that effectively decreases the mesh size below the minimum mesh size, except that a liner may be used to close the opening created by the rings in the aftermost portion of the net, provided the liner extends no more than 10 meshes forward of the aftermost portion of the net. The inside webbing of the codend shall be the same circumference or less than the outside webbing (strengthener). In addition, the inside webbing shall not be more than 2 ft (61 cm) longer than the outside webbing.

7. Section 648.24 is revised to read as follows:

§ 648.24
Fishery closures and accountability measures.

(a)
Fishery closure procedures.
—(1)
Loligo.
NMFS shall close the directed fishery in the EEZ for
Loligo
when the Regional Administrator projects that 90 percent of the
Loligo
quota is harvested in Trimesters I and II, and when 95 percent of the
Loligo
DAH has been harvested in Trimester III. The closure of the directed fishery shall be in effect for the remainder of that fishing period, with incidental catches allowed as specified at § 648.26.

(i) If the Regional Administrator determines that the Trimester I closure threshold has been under-harvested by 25 percent or more, then the amount of the underharvest shall be reallocated to Trimester II and Trimester III, as specified at § 648.22(f)(2), through notice in the
Federal Register
.

(ii) [
Reserved
]

(2)
Illex.
NMFS shall close the directed
Illex
fishery in the EEZ when the Regional Administrator projects that 95 percent of the
Illex
DAH is harvested. The closure of the directed fishery shall be in effect for the remainder of that fishing period, with incidental catches allowed as specified at § 648.26.

(b)
Mackerel AMs.
(1)
Mackerel commercial sector EEZ closure.
NMFS shall close the commercial mackerel fishery in the EEZ when the Regional Administrator projects that 90 percent of the mackerel DAH is harvested, if such a closure is necessary to prevent the DAH from being exceeded. The closure of the commercial fishery shall be in effect for the remainder of that fishing year, with incidental catches allowed as specified in § 648.26. When the Regional Administrator projects that the DAH for mackerel shall be landed, NMFS shall close the commercial mackerel fishery in the EEZ, and the incidental catches specified for mackerel in § 648.26 will be prohibited.

(2)
Mackerel commercial landings overage repayment.
If the mackerel ACL is exceeded, and commercial fishery landings are responsible for the overage, then landings in excess of the DAH will be deducted from the DAH the following year, as a single-year adjustment to the DAH.

(3)
Mackerel recreational sector EEZ closure.
NMFS shall close the recreational mackerel fishery in the EEZ when the Regional Administrator determines that recreational landings have exceeded the RHL. This determination shall be based on observed landings and will not utilize projections of future data.

(4)
Mackerel recreational landings overage repayment.
If the mackerel ACL is exceeded, and the recreational fishery landings are responsible for the overage, then landings in excess of the RHL will be deducted from the RHL for the following year, as a single-year adjustment.

(5)
Non-landing AMs, by sector.
In the event that the ACL is exceeded, and that the overage has not been accommodated through other landing-based AMs, but is attributable to either the commercial or recreational sector (such as research quota overages, dead discards in excess of those otherwise accounted for in management uncertainty, or other non-landing overages), then the exact amount, in pounds, by which the sector ACT was exceeded will be deducted from the following year, as a single-year adjustment.

(6)
Mackerel ACL overage evaluation.
The ACL will be evaluated based on a single-year examination of total catch (landings and discards). Both landings and dead discards will be evaluated in determining if the ACL has been exceeded. NMFS shall make determinations about overages and implement any changes to the ACL, in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act, through notification in the
Federal Register
, by March 31 of the fishing year in which the deductions will be made.

(c)
Butterfish AMs
—(1)
Butterfish EEZ closure.
NMFS shall close the directed butterfish fishery in the EEZ when the Regional Administrator projects that 80 percent of the butterfish DAH has been harvested. The closure of the directed fishery shall be in effect for the remainder of that fishing year, with incidental catches allowed as specified at § 648.26.

(2)
Butterfish ACL overage repayment.
If the butterfish ACL is exceeded, then catch in excess of the ACL will be deducted from the ACL the following year, as a single-year adjustment.

(3)
Butterfish mortality cap on the Loligo fishery.
NMFS shall close the directed fishery in the EEZ for
Loligo
when the Regional Administrator projects that 80 percent of the butterfish mortality cap has been harvested in Trimester I, and/or when 90 percent of the butterfish mortality cap has been harvested in Trimester III.

(4)
Butterfish ACL overage evaluation.
The ACL will be evaluated based on a single-year examination of total catch (landings and discards). Both landings and dead discards will be evaluated in determining if the ACL has been exceeded. NMFS shall make determinations about overages and implement any changes to the ACL, in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act, through notification in the
Federal Register
, by March 31 of the fishing year in which the deductions will be made.

(d)
Notification.
Upon determining that a closure is necessary, the Regional Administrator will notify, in advance of the closure, the Executive Directors of the MAFMC, NEFMC, and SAFMC; mail notification of the closure to all holders of mackerel, squid, and butterfish fishery permits at least 72 hours before the effective date of the closure; provide adequate notice of the closure to recreational participants in the fishery; and publish notification of closure in the
Federal Register
.

8. Section 648.25 is revised to read as follows:

§ 648.25
Framework adjustments to management measures.

(a)
Within season management action.
The MAFMC may, at any time, initiate action to add or adjust management measures within the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish FMP if it finds that action is necessary to meet or be consistent with the goals and objectives of the FMP.

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

(2)
MAFMC recommendation.
After developing management actions and receiving public testimony, the MAFMC shall make a recommendation to the Regional Administrator. The MAFMC's recommendation must include supporting rationale, if management measures are recommended, an analysis of impacts, and a recommendation to the Regional Administrator on whether to issue the management measures as a final rule. If the MAFMC recommends that the management measures should be issued as a final rule, the MAFMC must consider at least the following factors, and provide support and analysis for each factor considered:

(i) Whether the availability of data on which the recommended management measures are based allows for adequate time to publish a proposed rule, and whether the regulations would have to be in place for an entire harvest/fishing season.

(ii) Whether there has been adequate notice and opportunity for participation by the public and members of the affected industry in the development of the recommended management measures.

(iii) Whether there is an immediate need to protect the resource.

(iv) Whether there will be a continuing evaluation of management measures following their implementation as a final rule.

(3)
NMFS action.
If the MAFMC's recommendation includes adjustments or additions to management measures and, after reviewing the MAFMC's recommendation and supporting information:

(i) If NMFS concurs with the MAFMC's recommended management measures and determines that the recommended management measures should be issued as a final rule based on the factors specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, the measures will be issued as a final rule in the
Federal Register
.

(ii) If NMFS concurs with the MAFMC's recommended management measures and determines that the recommended management measures should be published first as a proposed rule, the measures will be published as a proposed rule in the
Federal Register
. After additional public comment, if NMFS concurs with the MAFMC recommendation, the measures will be issued as a final rule in the
Federal Register
.

(iii) If NMFS does not concur, the MAFMC will be notified in writing of the reasons for the non-concurrence.

(4)
Emergency actions.
Nothing in this section is meant to derogate from the authority of the Secretary to take emergency action under section 305(e) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

(b) [
Reserved
]

9. Section 648.26 is revised to read as follows:

§ 648.26
Possession restrictions.

(a)
Atlantic mackerel.
During a closure of the commercial Atlantic mackerel fishery that occurs prior to June 1, vessels may not fish for, possess, or land more than 20,000 lb (9.08 mt) of Atlantic mackerel per trip at any time, and may only land Atlantic mackerel once on any calendar day, which is defined as the 24-hr period beginning at 0001 hours and ending at 2400 hours. During a closure of the commercial fishery for mackerel that occurs on or after June 1, vessels may not fish for, possess, or land more than 50,000 lb (22.7 mt) of Atlantic mackerel per trip at any time, and may only land Atlantic mackerel once on any calendar day.

(b)
Loligo.
During a closure of the directed fishery for
Loligo,
vessels may not fish for, possess, or land more than 2,500 lb (1.13 mt) of
Loligo
per trip at any time, and may only land
Loligo
once on any calendar day, which is defined as the 24-hr period beginning at 0001 hours and ending at 2400 hours. If a vessel has been issued a
Loligo
incidental catch permit (as specified at § 648.4(a)(5)(ii)), then it may not fish for, possess, or land more than 2,500 lb

(1.13 mt) of
Loligo
per trip at any time and may only land
Loligo
once on any calendar day.

(c)
Illex.
During a closure of the directed fishery for
Illex,
vessels may not fish for, possess, or land more than 10,000 lb (4.54 mt) of
Illex
per trip at any time, and may only land
Illex
once on any calendar day, which is defined as the 24-hr period beginning at 0001 hours and ending at 2400 hours. If a vessel has been issued an
Illex
incidental catch permit (as specified at § 648.4(a)(5)(ii)), then it may not fish for, possess, or land more than 10,000 lb (4.54 mt) of
Illex
per trip at any time, and may only land
Illex
once on any calendar day.

(d)
Butterfish.
(1) During a closure of the directed fishery for butterfish that occurs prior to October 1, vessels may not fish for, possess, or land more than 250 lb (0.11 mt) of butterfish per trip at any time, and may only land butterfish once on any calendar day, which is defined as the 24-hr period beginning at 0001 hours and ending at 2400 hours. During a closure of the directed fishery for butterfish that occurs on or after October 1, vessels may not fish for, possess, or land more than 600 lb (0.27 mt) of butterfish per trip at any time, and may only land butterfish once on any calendar day. If a vessel has been issued a butterfish incidental catch permit (as specified at § 648.4(a)(5)(ii)), in which case it may not fish for, possess, or land more than 600 lb (0.27 mt) of butterfish per trip at any time, and may only land butterfish once on any calendar day, unless the directed fishery for butterfish closes prior to October 1, then a vessel that has been issued a butterfish incidental catch permit may not fish for, possess, or land more than 250 lb (0.11 mt) of butterfish per trip at any time, and may only land butterfish once on any calendar day.

(2) A vessel issued a butterfish moratorium permit (as specified at § 648.4(a)(5)(i)) may not fish for, possess, or land more than 5,000 lb (2.27 mt) of butterfish per trip at any time, and may only land butterfish once on any calendar day, which is defined as the 24-hr period beginning at 0001 hours and ending at 2400 hours.

10. Section 648.27 is added to read as follows:

§ 648.27
Observer requirements for the Loligo fishery.

(a) A vessel issued a
Loligo
and butterfish moratorium permit, as specified at § 648.4(a)(5)(i), must, for the purposes of observer deployment, have a representative provide notice to NMFS of the vessel name, vessel permit number, contact name for coordination of observer deployment, telephone number or e-mail address for contact; and the date, time, port of departure, and approximate trip duration, at least 72 hr, but no more than 10 days prior to beginning any fishing trip, unless it complies with the possession restrictions in paragraph (c) of this section.

(b) A vessel that has a representative provide notification to NMFS as described in paragraph (a) of this section may only embark on a
Loligo
trip without an observer if a vessel representative has been notified by NMFS that the vessel has received a waiver of the observer requirement for that trip. NMFS shall notify a vessel representative whether the vessel must carry an observer, or if a waiver has been granted, for the specified
Loligo
trip, within 24 hr of the vessel representative's notification of the prospective
Loligo
trip, as specified in paragraph (a) of this section. Any request to carry an observer may be waived by NMFS. A vessel that fishes with an observer waiver confirmation number that does not match the
Loligo
trip plan that was called in to NMFS is prohibited from fishing for, possessing, harvesting, or landing
Loligo
except as specified in paragraph (c) of this section. Confirmation numbers for trip notification calls are only valid for 48 hr from the intended sail date.

(c) A vessel issued a
Loligo
and butterfish moratorium permit, as specified in § 648.4(a)(5)(i), that does not have a representative provide the trip notification required in paragraph (a) of this section is prohibited from fishing for, possessing, harvesting, or landing 2,500 lb (1.13 mt) or more of
Loligo
per trip at any time, and may only land
Loligo
once on any calendar day, which is defined as the 24-hr period beginning at 0001 hours and ending at 2400 hours.

(d) If a vessel issued a
Loligo
and butterfish moratorium permit, as specified in § 648.4(a)(5)(i), intends to possess, harvest, or land 2,500 lb (1.13 mt) or more of
Loligo
per trip or per calendar day, has a representative notify NMFS of an upcoming trip, is selected by NMFS to carry an observer, and then cancels that trip, the representative is required to provide notice to NMFS of the vessel name, vessel permit number, contact name for coordination of observer deployment, and telephone number or e-mail address for contact, and the intended date, time, and port of departure for the cancelled trip prior to the planned departure time. In addition, if a trip selected for observer coverage is canceled, then that vessel is required to carry an observer, provided an observer is available, on its next trip.

11. Section 648.70 is revised to read as follows:

§ 648.70
Annual Catch Limit (ACL).
(a) The MAFMC staff shall recommend to the MAFMC ACLs for the surfclam and ocean quahog fisheries, which shall be less than or equal to the ABCs recommended by the SSC.

(1)
Sectors.
The surfclam and ocean quahog ACLs will be established consistent with the guidelines contained in the Atlantic Surfclam and Ocean Quahog FMP. The ACL for ocean quahog will then be allocated to the Maine and non-Maine components of the fishery according to the allocation guidelines of the Atlantic Surfclam and Ocean Quahog FMP as specified in § 648.78(b).

(2)
Periodicity.
The surfclam and ocean quahog ACLs may be established on an annual basis for up to 3 years at a time, dependent on whether the SSC provides single or multiple year ABC recommendations.

(b)
Performance review.
The MAFMC staff shall conduct a detailed review of the fishery performance relative to the ACLs at least every 5 years.

(1) If the surfclam or the ocean quahog ACL is exceeded with a frequency greater than 25 percent (
i.e.,
more than once in 4 years or any 2 consecutive years), the MAFMC staff will review fishery performance information and make recommendations to the MAFMC for changes in measures intended to ensure the ACL is not exceeded as frequently.

(2) The MAFMC may specify more frequent or more specific ACL performance review criteria as part of a stock rebuilding plan following a determination that a stock has become overfished.

(3) Performance reviews shall not substitute for annual reviews that occur to ascertain if prior year ACLs have been exceeded, but may be conducted in conjunction with such reviews.

12. Section 648.71 is revised to read as follows:

§ 648.71
Annual Catch Targets (ACT).

(a) The MAFMC staff shall identify and review the relevant sources of management uncertainty to recommend ACTs to the MAFMC as part of the surfclam and ocean quahog specification process. The MAFMC staff recommendations shall identify the specific sources of management uncertainty that were considered, technical approaches to mitigating these sources of uncertainty, and any additional relevant information

considered in the ACT recommendation process.

(1)
Sectors.
The surfclam ACT and the sum of the Maine and non-Maine ocean quahog ACTs shall be less than or equal to the ACL for the corresponding stock. The MAFMC staff shall recommend any reduction in catch necessary to address management uncertainty, consistent with paragraph (a) of this section.

(2)
Periodicity.
ACTs may be established on an annual basis for up to 3 years at a time, dependent on whether the SSC provides single or multiple year ABC recommendations.

(b)
Performance review.
The MAFMC staff shall conduct a detailed review of fishery performance relative to ACTs in conjunction with any ACL performance review, as outlined in § 648.70(b)(1) through (3).

13. Section 648.72 is revised to read as follows:

§ 648.72
Specifications.

(a)
Establishing catch quotas.
The amount of surfclams or ocean quahogs that may be caught annually by fishing vessels subject to these regulations will be specified for up to a 3-year period by the Regional Administrator. Specifications of the annual quotas will be accomplished in the final year of the quota period, unless the quotas are modified in the interim pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section. The amount of surfclams available for harvest annually must be specified within the range of 1.85 to 3.4 million bu (98.5 to 181 million L). The amount of ocean quahogs available for harvest annually must be specified within the range of 4 to 6 million bu (213 to 319.4 million L). Quotas for surfclams and ocean quahogs may be specified below these ranges if the ABC recommendation of the SSC limits the ACL to a value less than the minimum of the range indicated.

(1)
Quota reports.
On an annual basis, MAFMC staff will produce and provide to the MAFMC an Atlantic surfclam and ocean quahog annual quota recommendation paper based on the ABC recommendation of the SSC, the latest available stock assessment report prepared by NMFS, data reported by harvesters and processors, and other relevant data, as well as the information contained in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (vi) of this section. Based on that report, and at least once prior to August 15 of the year in which a multi-year annual quota specification expires, the MAFMC, following an opportunity for public comment, will recommend to the Regional Administrator annual quotas and estimates of DAH and DAP within the ranges specified for up to a 3-year period. In selecting the annual quotas, the MAFMC shall consider the current stock assessments, catch reports, and other relevant information concerning:

(i) Exploitable and spawning biomass relative to the OY.

(ii) Fishing mortality rates relative to the OY.

(iii) Magnitude of incoming recruitment.

(iv) Projected effort and corresponding catches.

(v) Geographical distribution of the catch relative to the geographical distribution of the resource.

(vi) Status of areas previously closed to surfclam fishing that are to be opened during the year and areas likely to be closed to fishing during the year.

(2)
Public review.
Based on the recommendation of the MAFMC, the Regional Administrator shall publish proposed surfclam and ocean quahog quotas in the
Federal Register.
The Regional Administrator shall consider public comments received, determine the appropriate annual quotas, and publish the annual quotas in the
Federal Register.
The quota shall be set at that amount that is most consistent with the objectives of the Atlantic Surfclam and Ocean Quahog FMP. The Regional Administrator may set quotas at quantities different from the MAFMC's recommendations only if he/she can demonstrate that the MAFMC's recommendations violate the national standards of the Magnuson-Stevens Act or the objectives of the Atlantic Surfclam and Ocean Quahog FMP or other applicable law.

(b)
Interim quota modifications.
Based upon information presented in the quota reports described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, the MAFMC may recommend to the Regional Administrator a modification to the annual quotas that have been specified for a 3-year period and any estimate of DAH or DAP made in conjunction with such specifications within the ranges specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section. Based upon the MAFMC's recommendation, the Regional Administrator may propose surfclam and or ocean quahog quotas that differ from the annual quotas specified for the current 3-year period. Such modification shall be in effect for a period of up to 3 years, unless further modified. Any interim modification shall follow the same procedures for establishing the annual quotas that are specified for up to a 3-year period.

(c)
Annual quotas.
The annual quotas for surfclams and ocean quahogs will remain effective unless revised pursuant to this section. At the end of a multiyear quota period, NMFS will issue notification in the
Federal Register
if the previous year's specifications will not be changed.

14. Section 648.73 is revised to read as follows:

§ 648.73
Accountability measures.

(a)
Commercial ITQ fishery.
(1) If the ACL for surfclam or ocean quahog is exceeded, and the overage can be attributed to one or more ITQ allocation holders, the full amount of the overage will be deducted from the appropriate ITQ allocation in the following fishing year.

(2) Any amount of an ACL overage that cannot be otherwise attributed to an ITQ allocation holder will be deducted from the appropriate ACL in the following fishing year.

(b)
Maine mahogany quahog fishery.
If the ocean quahog ACL is exceeded, and the Maine mahogany quahog fishery is responsible for the overage, than the Maine fishery ACT shall be reduced in the following year by an amount equal to the ACL overage.

15. Section 648.74 is revised to read as follows:

§ 648.74
Annual individual allocations.

(a)
General.
(1) Each fishing year, the Regional Administrator shall determine the initial allocation of surfclams and ocean quahogs for the next fishing year for each allocation holder owning an allocation pursuant to paragraph (a)(2) of this section. For each species, the initial allocation for the next fishing year is calculated by multiplying the allocation percentage owned by each allocation owner as of the last day of the previous fishing year in which allocation owners are permitted to permanently transfer allocation percentage pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section (
i.e.,
October 15 of every year), by the quota specified by the Regional Administrator pursuant to § 648.72. The total number of cages of allocation shall be divided by 32 to determine the appropriate number of cage tags to be issued or acquired under § 648.77. Amounts of allocation of 0.5 cages or smaller created by this division shall be rounded downward to the nearest whole number, and amounts of allocation greater than 0.5 cages created by this division shall be rounded upward to the nearest whole number, so that allocations are specified in whole cages. These allocations shall be made in the form of an allocation permit specifying the allocation percentage and the allocation in cages and cage tags for each species. An allocation permit is only valid for the entity for which it is issued. Such permits shall be issued on or before December 15, to allow

allocation owners to purchase cage tags from a vendor specified by the Regional Administrator pursuant to § 648.77(b).

(2) The Regional Administrator may, after publication of a fee notification in the
Federal Register,
charge a permit fee before issuance of the permit to recover administrative expenses. Failure to pay the fee will preclude issuance of the permit.

(b)
Transfers
—(1)
Allocation percentage.
Subject to the approval of the Regional Administrator, part or all of an allocation percentage may be transferred in the year in which the transfer is made, to any person or entity eligible to own a documented vessel under the terms of 46 U.S.C. 12102(a). Approval of a transfer by the Regional Administrator and for a new allocation permit reflecting that transfer may be requested by submitting a written application for approval of the transfer and for issuance of a new allocation permit to the Regional Administrator at least 10 days before the date on which the applicant desires the transfer to be effective, in the form of a completed transfer log supplied by the Regional Administrator. The transfer is not effective until the new holder receives a new or revised annual allocation permit from the Regional Administrator. An application for transfer may not be made between October 15 and December 31 of each year.

(2)
Cage tags.
Cage tags issued pursuant to § 648.77 may be transferred at any time, and in any amount subject to the restrictions and procedure specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section; provided that application for such cage tag transfers may be made at any time before December 10 of each year. The transfer is effective upon the receipt by the transferee of written authorization from the Regional Administrator.

(3)
Review.
If the Regional Administrator determines that the applicant has been issued a Notice of Permit Sanction for a violation of the Magnuson-Stevens Act that has not been resolved, he/she may decline to approve such transfer pending resolution of the matter.

16. Section 648.75 is revised to read as follows:

§ 648.75
Shucking at sea and minimum surfclam size.

(a)
Shucking at sea
—(1)
Observers.
(i) The Regional Administrator may allow the shucking of surfclams or ocean quahogs at sea if he/she determines that an observer carried aboard the vessel can measure accurately the total amount of surfclams and ocean quahogs harvested in the shell prior to shucking.

(ii) Any vessel owner may apply in writing to the Regional Administrator to shuck surfclams or ocean quahogs at sea. The application shall specify: Name and address of the applicant; permit number of the vessel; method of calculating the amount of surfclams or ocean quahogs harvested in the shell; vessel dimensions and accommodations; and length of fishing trip.

(iii) The Regional Administrator shall provide an observer to any vessel owner whose application is approved. The owner shall pay all reasonable expenses of carrying the observer on board the vessel.

(iv) Any observer shall certify at the end of each trip the amount of surfclams or ocean quahogs harvested in the shell by the vessel. Such certification shall be made by the observer's signature on the daily fishing log required by § 648.7.

(2)
Conversion factor.
(i) Based on the recommendation of the MAFMC, the Regional Administrator may allow shucking at sea of surfclams or ocean quahogs, with or without an observer, if he/she determines a conversion factor for shucked meats to calculate accurately the amount of surfclams or ocean quahogs harvested in the shell.

(ii) The Regional Administrator shall publish notification in the
Federal Register
specifying a conversion factor, together with the data used in its calculation, for a 30-day comment period. After consideration of the public comments and any other relevant data, the Regional Administrator may publish final notification in the
Federal Register
specifying the conversion factor.

(iii) If the Regional Administrator makes the determination specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, he/she may authorize the vessel owner to shuck surfclams or ocean quahogs at sea. Such authorization shall be in writing and be carried aboard the vessel.

(b)
Minimum surfclam size.
—(1)
Minimum length.
The minimum length for surfclams is 4.75 inches (12.065 cm).

(2)
Determination of compliance.
No more than 50 surfclams in any cage may be less than 4.75 inches (12.065 cm) in length. If more than 50 surfclams in any inspected cage of surfclams are less than 4.75 inches (12.065 cm) in length, all cages landed by the same vessel from the same trip are deemed to be in violation of the minimum size restriction.

(3)
Suspension.
Upon the recommendation of the MAFMC, the Regional Administrator may suspend annually, by publication in the
Federal Register,
the minimum shell-length standard, unless discard, catch, and survey data indicate that 30 percent of the surfclams are smaller than 4.75 inches (12.065 cm) and the overall reduced shell length is not attributable to beds where the growth of individual surfclams has been reduced because of density dependent factors.

(4)
Measurement.
Length is measured at the longest dimension of the surfclam shell.

17. Section 648.76 is revised to read as follows:

§ 648.76
Closed areas.

(a)
Areas closed because of environmental degradation.
Certain areas are closed to all surfclam and ocean quahog fishing because of adverse environmental conditions. These areas will remain closed until the Regional Administrator determines that the adverse environmental conditions no longer exist. If additional areas are identified by the Regional Administrator as being contaminated by the introduction or presence of hazardous materials or pollutants, they may be closed by the Regional Administrator in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section. The areas closed are:

(1)
Boston Foul Ground.
The waste disposal site known as the “Boston Foul Ground” and located at 42°25′36″ N. lat., 70°35′00″ W. long., with a radius of 1 nm (1.61 km) in every direction from that point.

(2)
New York Bight.
The polluted area and waste disposal site known as the “New York Bight” and located at 40°25′04″ N. lat., 73°42′38″ W. long., and with a radius of 6 nm (9.66 km) in every direction from that point, extending further northwestward, westward and southwestward between a line from a point on the arc at 40°31′00″ N. lat., 73°43′38″ W. long., directly northward toward Atlantic Beach Light in New York to the limit of the state territorial waters of New York; and a line from the point on the arc at 40°19′48″ N. lat., 73°45′42″ W. long., to a point at the limit of the state territorial waters of New Jersey at 40°14′00″ N. lat., 73°55′42″ W. long.

(3)
106 Dumpsite.
The toxic industrial site known as the “106 Dumpsite” and located between 38°40′00″ and 39°00′00″ N. lat., and between 72°00′00″ and 72°30′00″ W. long.

(4)
Georges Bank.
The paralytic shellfish poisoning (PSP) contaminated area, which is located on Georges Bank, and located east of 69° W. long., and south of 42°20′ N. lat.

(b)
Areas closed because of small surfclams.
Areas may be closed because they contain small surfclams.

(1)
Closure.
The Regional Administrator may close an area to surfclams and ocean quahog fishing if

he/she determines, based on logbook entries, processors' reports, survey cruises, or other information, that the area contains surfclams of which:

(i) Sixty percent or more are smaller than 4.5 inches (11.43 cm); and

(ii) Not more than 15 percent are larger than 5.5 inches (13.97 cm) in size.

(2)
Reopening.
The Regional Administrator may reopen areas or parts of areas closed under paragraph (b)(1) of this section if he/she determines, based on survey cruises or other information, that:

(i) The average length of the dominant (in terms of weight) size class in the area to be reopened is equal to or greater than 4.75 inches (12.065 cm); or

(ii) The yield or rate of growth of the dominant shell-length class in the area to be reopened would be significantly enhanced through selective, controlled, or limited harvest of surfclams in the area.

(c)
Procedure.
(1) The Regional Administrator may hold a public hearing on the proposed closure or reopening of any area under paragraph (a) or (b) of this section. The Regional Administrator shall publish notification in the
Federal Register
of any proposed area closure or reopening, including any restrictions on harvest in a reopened area. Comments on the proposed closure or reopening must be submitted to the Regional Administrator within 30 days after publication. The Regional Administrator shall consider all comments and publish the final notification of closure or reopening, and any restrictions on harvest, in the
Federal Register
. Any adjustment to harvest restrictions in a reopened area shall be made by notification in the
Federal Register
. The Regional Administrator shall send notice of any action under this paragraph (c)(1) to each surfclam and ocean quahog processor and to each surfclam and ocean quahog permit holder.

(2) If the Regional Administrator determines, as the result of testing by state, Federal, or private entities, that a closure of an area under paragraph (a) of this section is necessary to prevent any adverse effects fishing may have on the public health, he/she may close the area for 60 days by publication of notification in the
Federal Register
, without prior comment or public hearing. If an extension of the 60-day closure period is necessary to protect the public health, the hearing and notice requirements of paragraph (c)(1) of this section shall be followed.

(d)
Areas closed due to the presence of paralytic shellfish poisoning toxin.
—(1)
Maine mahogany quahog zone.
The Maine mahogany quahog zone is closed to fishing for ocean quahogs except in those areas of the zone that are tested by the State of Maine and deemed to be within the requirements of the National Shellfish Sanitation Program and adopted by the Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Conference as acceptable limits for the toxin responsible for PSP. Harvesting is allowed in such areas during the periods specified by the Maine Department of Marine Resources during which quahogs are safe for human consumption. For information regarding these areas contact the State of Maine Division of Marine Resources.

(2) [Reserved]

18. Section 648.77 is revised to read as follows:

§ 648.77
Cage identification.
Except as provided in § 648.78, the following cage identification requirements apply to all vessels issued a Federal fishing permit for surfclams and ocean quahogs:

(a)
Tagging.
Before offloading, all cages that contain surfclams or ocean quahogs must be tagged with tags acquired annually under provisions of paragraph (b) of this section. A tag must be fixed on or as near as possible to the upper crossbar of the cage. A tag is required for every 60 ft
3
(1,700 L) of cage volume, or portion thereof. A tag or tags must not be removed until the cage is emptied by the processor, at which time the processor must promptly remove and retain the tag(s) for 60 days beyond the end of the calendar year, unless otherwise directed by authorized law enforcement agents.

(b)
Issuance.
The Regional Administrator will issue a supply of tags to each individual allocation owner qualifying for an allocation under § 648.74 prior to the beginning of each fishing year, or he/she may specify, in the
Federal Register
, a vendor from whom the tags shall be purchased. The number of tags will be based on the owner's initial allocation as specified in § 648.74(a). Each tag represents 32 bu (1,700 L) of allocation.

(c)
Expiration.
Tags will expire at the end of the fishing year for which they are issued, or if rendered null and void in accordance with 15 CFR part 904.

(d)
Return.
Tags that have been rendered null and void must be returned to the Regional Administrator, if possible.

(e)
Loss.
Loss or theft of tags must be reported by the owner, numerically identifying the tags to the Regional Administrator by telephone as soon as the loss or theft is discovered and in writing within 24 hours. Thereafter, the reported tags shall no longer be valid for use under this part.

(f)
Replacement.
Lost or stolen tags may be replaced by the Regional Administrator if proper notice of the loss is provided by the person to whom the tags were issued. Replacement tags may be purchased from the Regional Administrator or a vendor with a written authorization from the Regional Administrator.

(g)
Transfer.
See § 648.74(b)(2).

(h)
Presumptions.
Surfclams and ocean quahogs found in cages without a valid state tag are deemed to have been harvested in the EEZ and to be part of an individual's allocation, unless the individual demonstrates that he/she has surrendered his/her Federal vessel permit issued under § 648.4(a)(4) and conducted fishing operations exclusively within waters under the jurisdiction of any state. Surfclams and ocean quahogs in cages with a Federal tag or tags, issued and still valid pursuant to this section, affixed thereto are deemed to have been harvested by the individual allocation holder to whom the tags were issued under the provisions of § 648.77(b) or transferred under the provisions of § 648.74(b).

19. Section 648.78 is added to read as follows:

§ 648.78
Maine mahogany quahog zone.

(a)
Landing requirements.
(1) A vessel issued a valid Maine mahogany quahog permit pursuant to § 648.4(a)(4)(i), and fishing for or possessing ocean quahogs within the Maine mahogany quahog zone, must land its catch in the State of Maine.

(2) A vessel fishing under an individual allocation permit, regardless of whether it has a Maine mahogany quahog permit, fishing for or possessing ocean quahogs within the zone, may land its catch in the State of Maine, or, consistent with applicable state law in any other state that utilizes food safety-based procedures including sampling and analyzing for PSP toxin consistent with those food safety-based procedures used by the State of Maine for such purpose, and must comply with all requirements in §§ 648.74 and 648.77. Documentation required by the state and other laws and regulations applicable to food safety-based procedures must be made available by federally permitted dealers for inspection by NMFS.

(b)
ACT monitoring and closures
—(1)
Catch quota.
(i) The ACT for harvest of mahogany quahogs from within the Maine mahogany quahog zone is 100,000 Maine bu (35,239 hL). The ACL may be revised annually within the range of 17,000 and 100,000 Maine bu (5,991 and 35,239 hL) following the

procedures set forth in §§ 648.72 and 648.73, if applicable.

(ii) All mahogany quahogs landed for sale in Maine by vessels issued a Maine mahogany quahog permit and not fishing for an individual allocation of ocean quahogs under § 648.74 shall be applied against the Maine mahogany quahog ACT, regardless of where the mahogany quahogs are harvested.

(iii) All mahogany quahogs landed by vessels fishing in the Maine mahogany quahog zone for an individual allocation of quahogs under § 648.74 will be counted against the ocean quahog allocation for which the vessel is fishing.

(iv) The Regional Administrator will monitor the ACT based on dealer reports and other available information, and shall determine the date when the ACT will be harvested. NMFS shall publish notification in the
Federal Register
advising the public that, effective upon a specific date, the Maine mahogany quahog quota has been harvested, and notifying vessel and dealer permit holders that no Maine mahogany quahog quota is available for the remainder of the year.

(2)
Maine Mahogany Quahog Advisory Panel.
The MAFMC shall establish a Maine Mahogany Quahog Advisory Panel consisting of representatives of harvesters, dealers, and the Maine Department of Marine Resources. The Advisory Panel shall make recommendations, through the Surfclam and Ocean Quahog Committee of the MAFMC, regarding revisions to the annual quota and other management measures.

20. Section 648.79 is added to read as follows:

§ 648.79
Framework adjustments to management measures.

(a)
Within season management action.
The MAFMC may, at any time, initiate action to add or adjust management measures within the Atlantic Surfclam and Ocean Quahog FMP if it finds that action is necessary to meet or be consistent with the goals and objectives of the plan.

(1)
Adjustment process.
The MAFMC shall develop and analyze appropriate management actions over the span of at least two MAFMC meetings. The MAFMC must provide the public with advance notice of the availability of the recommendation(s), appropriate justification(s) and economic and biological analyses, and the opportunity to comment on the proposed adjustment(s) at the first meeting, and prior to and at the second MAFMC meeting. The MAFMC's recommendations on adjustments or additions to management measures must come from one or more of the following categories: Adjustments within existing ABC control rule levels; adjustments to the existing MAFMC risk policy; introduction of new AMs, including sub-ACTs; description and identification of EFH (and fishing gear management measures that impact EFH); habitat areas of particular concern; set-aside quota for scientific research; VMS; OY range; suspension or adjustment of the surfclam minimum size limit; and changes to the Northeast Region SBRM (including the CV-based performance standard, the means by which discard data are collected/obtained, fishery stratification, reports, and/or industry-funded observers or observer set-aside programs). Issues that require significant departures from previously contemplated measures or that are otherwise introducing new concepts may require amendment of the FMP instead of a framework adjustment.

(2)
MAFMC recommendation.
After developing management actions and receiving public testimony, the MAFMC shall make a recommendation to the Regional Administrator. The MAFMC's recommendation must include supporting rationale, if management measures are recommended, an analysis of impacts, and a recommendation to the Regional Administrator on whether to issue the management measures as a final rule. If the MAFMC recommends that the management measures should be issued as a final rule, it must consider at least the following factors, and provide support and analysis for each factor considered:

(i) Whether the availability of data on which the recommended management measures are based allows for adequate time to publish a proposed rule, and whether the regulations would have to be in place for an entire harvest/fishing season.

(ii) Whether there has been adequate notice and opportunity for participation by the public and members of the affected industry in the development of recommended management measures.

(iii) Whether there is an immediate need to protect the resource.

(iv) Whether there will be a continuing evaluation of management measures adopted following their implementation as a final rule.

(3)
NMFS action.
If the MAFMC's recommendation includes adjustments or additions to management measures and after reviewing the MAFMC's recommendation and supporting information:

(i) If NMFS concurs with the MAFMC's recommended management measures and determines that the recommended management measures should be issued as a final rule based on the factors specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, the measures will be issued as a final rule in the
Federal Register
.

(ii) If NMFS concurs with the MAFMC's recommended management measures and determines that the recommended management measures should be published first as a proposed rule, the measures will be published as a proposed rule in the
Federal Register
. After additional public comment, if NMFS concurs with the MAFMC recommendation, the measures will be published as a final rule in the
Federal Register
.

(iii) If NMFS does not concur, the MAFMC will be notified in writing of the reasons for the non-concurrence.

(4)
Emergency actions.
Nothing in this section is meant to derogate from the authority of the Secretary to take emergency action under section 305(e) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

(b) [Reserved]

21. Section 648.100 is revised to read as follows:

§ 648.100
ACL.
(a) The Summer Flounder Monitoring Committee shall recommend to the MAFMC separate ACLs for the commercial and recreational summer flounder fisheries, the sum total of which shall be less than or equal to the ABC recommended by the SSC.

(1)
Sector allocations.
The commercial and recreational fishing sector ACLs will be established consistent with the allocation guidelines contained in the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan (FMP).

(2)
Periodicity.
The summer flounder commercial and recreational sector ACLs may be established on an annual basis for up to 3 years at a time, dependent on whether the SSC provides single or multiple year ABC recommendations.

(b)
Performance review.
The Summer Flounder Monitoring Committee shall conduct a detailed review of fishery performance relative to the sector ACLs at least every 5 years.

(1) If one or both of the sector-specific ACLs is exceeded with a frequency greater than 25 percent (
i.e.,
more than once in 4 years or any 2 consecutive years), the Summer Flounder Monitoring Committee will review fishery performance information and make recommendations to the MAFMC for changes in measures intended to ensure ACLs are not exceeded as frequently.

(2) The MAFMC may specify more frequent or more specific ACL performance review criteria as part of a stock rebuilding plan following a determination that the summer flounder stock has become overfished.

(3) Performance reviews shall not substitute for annual reviews that occur to ascertain if prior year ACLs have been exceeded but may be conducted in conjunction with such reviews.

22. Section 648.101 is revised to read as follows:

§ 648.101
ACT.
(a) The Summer Flounder Monitoring Committee shall identify and review the relevant sources of management uncertainty to recommend ACTs for the commercial and recreational fishing sectors as part of the summer flounder specification process. The Summer Flounder Monitoring Committee recommendations shall identify the specific sources of management uncertainty that were considered, technical approaches to mitigating these sources of uncertainty, and any additional relevant information considered in the ACT recommendation process.

(1)
Sectors.
Commercial and recreational specific ACTs shall be less than or equal to the sector-specific ACLs. The Summer Flounder Monitoring Committee shall recommend any reduction in catch necessary to address sector-specific management uncertainty, consistent with paragraph (a) of this section.

(2)
Periodicity.
ACTs may be established on an annual basis for up to 3 years at a time, dependent on whether the SSC provides single or multiple year ABC recommendations.

(b)
Performance review.
The Summer Flounder Monitoring Committee shall conduct a detailed review of fishery performance relative to ACTs in conjunction with any ACL performance review, as outlined in § 648.100(b)(1) through (3).

23. Section 648.102 is revised to read as follows:

§ 648.102
Specifications.

(a)
Commercial quota, recreational landing limits, research set-asides, and other specification measures.
The Summer Flounder Monito

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2011-14141. Public record. Not legal advice.