# 78 FR 18188: Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northeast (NE) Multispecies Fishery; Framework Adjustment 48

> Federal · Regulations · In force

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2013-06774

## Section

- **Citation:** 78 FR 18188
- **Heading:** Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northeast (NE) Multispecies Fishery; Framework Adjustment 48
- **Jurisdiction:** Federal
- **Kind:** Regulations
- **Status:** In force
- **Text as of:** August 14, 2026
- **Source:** Compiled text
- **Location:** Federal Register / Vol. 78 / 78 FR 18188

## Text

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 648 [Docket No. 120814336-3249-01] RIN 0648-BC27 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northeast (NE) Multispecies Fishery; Framework Adjustment 48 AGENCY:
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION:
Proposed rule; request for comments.

SUMMARY:
NMFS proposes approval of, and regulations to implement, measures in Framework Adjustment 48 to the NE Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (FMP). Framework 48 is the first of two parallel actions developed by the New England Fishery Management Council (Council) as part of the biennial review process to respond to updated stock information and to adjust other management measures in the NE multispecies (groundfish) fishery. Framework 48 proposes new status determination criteria for Gulf of Maine (GOM) cod, Georges Bank (GB) cod, and Southern New England/Mid-Atlantic (SNE/MA) yellowtail flounder, based on new benchmark assessments completed for these stocks in 2012 and 2013. Framework 48 would also establish allocations of SNE/MA windowpane flounder and GB yellowtail flounder for exempted fisheries, and modify the allocation of GB yellowtail flounder to the scallop fishery, to address increased bycatch of these species. In addition, Framework 48 would amend existing accountability measures (AMs) for GOM/GB and SNE/MA windowpane flounders, ocean pout, and Atlantic halibut and establish new “reactive” AMs for Atlantic wolffish and SNE/MA winter flounder. These measures would make way for the other parallel action, Framework 50, which would set acceptable biological catches (ABCs) and annual catch limits (ACLs) for fishing years (FY) 2013-2015
uld amend existing accountability measures (AMs) for GOM/GB and SNE/MA windowpane flounders, ocean pout, and Atlantic halibut and establish new “reactive” AMs for Atlantic wolffish and SNE/MA winter flounder. These measures would make way for the other parallel action, Framework 50, which would set acceptable biological catches (ABCs) and annual catch limits (ACLs) for fishing years (FY) 2013-2015. Framework 48 also contains several measures intended to improve the administration of the fishery and enhance fishing opportunities for groundfish vessels to mitigate potential negative economic impacts from reductions in catch limits proposed by Framework 50. These measures include: Clarification of the goals and performance standard for sector monitoring programs; elimination of dockside monitoring requirements; cost-sharing of monitoring costs between the industry and NMFS; reduction of the minimum fish size for several stocks; and allowing groundfish sectors to petition the Regional Administrator for limited access to groundfish mortality closures. This rule also proposes several regulatory changes to correct inadvertent errors in the NE multispecies regulations.

DATES:
Comments must be received by April 9, 2013.

ADDRESSES:
You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2013-0050, by any of the following methods:
• Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D= NOAA-NMFS-2013-0050, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
• Mail: Submit written comments to John K. Bullard, Regional Administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930.
• Fax: (978) 281-9135; Attn: Melissa Hooper.
Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered by NMFS
er or attach your comments.
• Mail: Submit written comments to John K. Bullard, Regional Administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930.
• Fax: (978) 281-9135; Attn: Melissa Hooper.
Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous). Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, or Adobe PDF file formats only.
Copies of FW 48, its Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), a draft of the environmental assessment (EA) prepared for this action, and the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) prepared by the Council are available from Thomas Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950. The IRFA assessing the impacts of the proposed measures on small entities and describing steps taken to minimize any significant economic impact on such entities is summarized in the Classification section of this proposed rule. The FW 48 EA/RIR/IRFA are also accessible via the Internet at http://www.nefmc.org/nemulti/index.html or http://www.nero.noaa.gov. Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this rule should be submitted to the Regional Administrator at the address above and to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) by email at OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov, or fax to (202) 395-7285
net at http://www.nefmc.org/nemulti/index.html or http://www.nero.noaa.gov. Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this rule should be submitted to the Regional Administrator at the address above and to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) by email at OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov, or fax to (202) 395-7285.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Melissa Hooper, Fishery Policy Analyst, phone: 978-281-9166, fax: 978-281-9135.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background
The FMP specifies management measures for 16 species of groundfish in Federal waters off the New England and Mid-Atlantic coasts, including both large-mesh and small-mesh species. Small-mesh species include silver hake (whiting), red hake, offshore hake, and ocean pout; and large-mesh species (also referred to as “regulated species”) include Atlantic cod, haddock, yellowtail flounder, pollock, American plaice, witch flounder, white hake, windowpane flounder, Atlantic halibut, winter flounder, redfish, and Atlantic wolffish. Large-mesh species, which are referred to as “regulated species,” are divided into 19 fish stocks, and along with ocean pout, comprise the groundfish complex of 20 stocks managed under the NE Multispecies FMP.
Amendment 16 to the FMP (Amendment 16) established a process for setting ABCs and ACLs for regulated species and ocean pout, as well as distributing the available catch among the various components of the groundfish fishery. Amendment 16 also established AMs for these 20 groundfish stocks in order to prevent overfishing of these stocks and correct or mitigate any overages of the ACLs. Framework 44 to the FMP (Framework 44) set the ABCs and ACLs for FYs 2010-2012. In 2011, Framework 45 to the FMP (Framework 45) revised the ABCs and ACLs for five stocks for FYs 2011-2012
the various components of the groundfish fishery. Amendment 16 also established AMs for these 20 groundfish stocks in order to prevent overfishing of these stocks and correct or mitigate any overages of the ACLs. Framework 44 to the FMP (Framework 44) set the ABCs and ACLs for FYs 2010-2012. In 2011, Framework 45 to the FMP (Framework 45) revised the ABCs and ACLs for five stocks for FYs 2011-2012. Framework 47 to the FMP (Framework 47) updated specifications for most stocks for FYs 2012-2014 and modified management measures in the fishery after more than 1 year under ACLs and AMs.
In June 2012, the Council initiated development of Framework 48 to respond to benchmark and assessment updates completed for all groundfish stocks in 2012. Updated information in these assessments requires revisions to the status determination criteria for GOM cod, GB cod, and SNE/MA yellowtail flounder and implementation of updated ABCs and ACLs for most stocks for FYs 2013-2015. These measures are necessary to prevent overfishing and facilitate the rebuilding of groundfish stocks as required by the FMP. Because of the need to end overfishing, substantial reductions in catch limits are being proposed for some stocks. To mitigate negative economic impacts anticipated for groundfish vessels and their communities, the Council developed several measures in Framework 48 intended to increase fishing opportunities and improve profitability in the groundfish fishery. Framework 48 also proposes AMs for Atlantic halibut, Atlantic wolffish, and SNE/MA winter flounder in response to a Court Order and remand in Oceana v. Locke et al. that held that so-called “reactive” AMs had not been developed for the 6 stocks not allocated to sectors (“non-allocated stocks”) in Amendment 16. Framework 48 recommends reactive AMs for 3 of these stocks, for which reactive AMs have not been established since Amendment 16.
At its December 2012 meeting, the Council voted to split the framework in order to provide more time to consider new catch limits
ld that so-called “reactive” AMs had not been developed for the 6 stocks not allocated to sectors (“non-allocated stocks”) in Amendment 16. Framework 48 recommends reactive AMs for 3 of these stocks, for which reactive AMs have not been established since Amendment 16.
At its December 2012 meeting, the Council voted to split the framework in order to provide more time to consider new catch limits. Proposed specifications for FY 2013-2015 were put into Framework 50, which was approved by the Council for submission at its January 2013 meeting. The Council took final action on all non-ACL measures in Framework 48 at its December meeting. As a result, the measures in Framework 48 and considered in this proposed rule would make administrative changes to the FMP to make way for Framework 50, which would specify ABCs and ACLs for all stocks for FY 2013-2015 in a separate proposed and final rule. Implementation of both actions is targeted for the start of the 2013 fishing year on May 1, 2013.
Proposed Measures
The measures proposed by Framework 48 are described below. The proposed regulations implementing measures in Framework 48 were deemed by the Council to be consistent with Framework 48, and necessary to implement such provisions pursuant to section 303(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act through a March 13, 2013, letter from the Council Chairman to the NMFS Regional Administrator.
1. Status Determination Criteria for GOM and GB Cod, and SNE/MA Yellowtail Flounder
Amendment 16 updated the status determination criteria for NE regulated species and ocean pout stocks based on the best available scientific information as determined by the 2008 Groundfish Assessment Review Meeting (GARM III). Framework 45 updated the status determination criteria for pollock to reflect the results of a new pollock stock assessment conducted in 2010, and Framework 47 updated the status determination criteria for the three winter flounder stocks and GOM cod based on assessments completed for those stocks in 2011
ntific information as determined by the 2008 Groundfish Assessment Review Meeting (GARM III). Framework 45 updated the status determination criteria for pollock to reflect the results of a new pollock stock assessment conducted in 2010, and Framework 47 updated the status determination criteria for the three winter flounder stocks and GOM cod based on assessments completed for those stocks in 2011.
An assessment for SNE/MA yellowtail flounder was completed in June 2012. New assessments were also completed for GOM and GB cod in December 2012 and for white hake in February 2013. Framework 48 proposes to update the status determination criteria for SNE/MA yellowtail flounder, GOM and GB cod, to incorporate the results of these recent stock assessments into the FMP. The proposed revisions are based on the best scientific information available.
The December 2011 assessment for GOM cod indicated that overfishing was occurring and the stock was overfished. In response to new information, including revised discard mortality rates and updated recreational data, another assessment for GOM cod was conducted in December 2012. Two population assessment models were accepted at the 55th Stock Assessment Review Committee (SARC) in December 2012. One assessment model assumes that the natural mortality rate (M) is 0.2 (M=0.2 model). The second assessment model assumes that M has increased from 0.2 to 0.4 in recent years (M ramp model). The results of both of these models indicate that overfishing is occurring and the stock is overfished. In addition, the December 2012 stock assessment for GB cod indicates that overfishing is occurring and the stock is overfished.
The previous assessment conducted for SNE/MA yellowtail flounder in 2008 (GARM III) determined that this stock was experiencing overfishing and was overfished. A new benchmark assessment (SARC 54) was completed for this stock in June 2012
ng and the stock is overfished. In addition, the December 2012 stock assessment for GB cod indicates that overfishing is occurring and the stock is overfished.
The previous assessment conducted for SNE/MA yellowtail flounder in 2008 (GARM III) determined that this stock was experiencing overfishing and was overfished. A new benchmark assessment (SARC 54) was completed for this stock in June 2012. The SARC considered two stock recruitment scenarios used in the assessment, which would lead to very different conclusions about stock status. A “recent recruitment” scenario, which assumed that a possible change in productivity has reduced the size of incoming year classes since 1990, would lead to the conclusion that the stock is not experiencing overfishing, is not overfished, and is rebuilt to a new, much lower biomass target. Alternately, a “two-stanza” scenario assumed that recruitment over the entire time series was a function of spawning stock biomass (SSB), and would lead to the conclusion that the stock continues to experience overfishing, is overfished, and would not be expected to rebuild even if the fishing mortality were held to zero. While neither scenario could be ruled out, the SARC concluded that the evidence was 60:40 in favor of the “recent recruitment” scenario. Based on the new assessment results, the Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) and the Northeast Fisheries Science Center support the “recent recruitment” scenario for use as the best available scientific information to manage the stock. Therefore, the new stock status determinations for the stock resulting from SARC 54 is that the stock is not experiencing overfishing, is not overfished, and is rebuilt.
The final results of the white hake assessment are not yet available. GARM III was the last benchmark assessment conducted for white hake. This assessment indicated that overfishing was occurring for white hake and the stock was overfished
the new stock status determinations for the stock resulting from SARC 54 is that the stock is not experiencing overfishing, is not overfished, and is rebuilt.
The final results of the white hake assessment are not yet available. GARM III was the last benchmark assessment conducted for white hake. This assessment indicated that overfishing was occurring for white hake and the stock was overfished. Final results from the February 2013 benchmark assessment for white hake are scheduled to become available in mid-March, around the approximate time of the publication of this proposed rule. In anticipation of this new information, the Council recommended updating the status determination criteria for white hake among its preferred alternatives in Framework 48, with the actual updated status determination criteria to be determined pending the results of the assessment. As with GOM and GB cod, the Council anticipated that this information would be available in time for NMFS to propose the revised status determination criteria recommended by the assessment in this Framework 48 proposed rule. However, as the assessment results were not available in time for publication of this proposed rule, the Council's proposed changes to the status determination criteria for white hake are incomplete. Therefore, NMFS is not proposing any changes to the white hake status determination criteria through this rulemaking.
There is preliminary information from the February 2013 assessment for white hake, however, that may justify a higher ABC than is proposed in Framework 50. This stock is important for the commercial groundfish fishery, and any potential increase in the FY 2013 ABC for this stock would benefit groundfish vessels. If new stock information
The revised status determination criteria proposed in this rule are presented in Table 1. Numerical estimates of these criteria are presented in Table 2
hat may justify a higher ABC than is proposed in Framework 50. This stock is important for the commercial groundfish fishery, and any potential increase in the FY 2013 ABC for this stock would benefit groundfish vessels. If new stock information
The revised status determination criteria proposed in this rule are presented in Table 1. Numerical estimates of these criteria are presented in Table 2. There are two sets of status determination criteria for GOM cod because two models were accepted at the benchmark assessment in December 2012, as described above. Although two assessment models were approved, there is only one numerical estimate proposed for the maximum fishing mortality threshold for GOM cod. The SARC did not conclude that M would remain at 0.4 in perpetuity, and therefore, did not provide reference points for this scenario.
Table 1—Proposed Status Determination Criteria for SNE/MA Yellowtail Flounder, GOM and GB Cod Stock Biomass target Minimum biomass threshold Maximum fishing mortality threshold SNE/MA yellowtail flounder SSB 40%MSP 1/2 B target F 40%MSP GOM cod SSB 40%MSP 1/2 B target F 40%MSP GB cod SSB 40%MSP 1/2 B target F 40%MSP SSB = spawning stock biomass; MSP = maximum spawning potential; B = biomass; F = fishing mortality rate; MSY = maximum sustainable yield Table 2—Numerical Estimates of the Proposed Status Determination Criteria for SNE/MA Yellowtail Flounder, GOM and GB Cod Stock Biomass target (mt) Maximum fishing mortality threshold MSY (mt) SNE/MA yellowtail flounder 2,995 0.31 773 GOM cod (M=0.2 model) 54,743 0.18 9,399 GOM cod (M ramp model) 80,200 13,786 GB cod 186,535 0.18 30,622 2. SNE/MA Windowpane Flounder Sub-ACLs
The catch limit for each stock is divided among the various fishery components (e.g., commercial groundfish fishery, recreational groundfish fishery, scallop fishery, state waters). Components of the fishery that are allocated a sub-ACL for a particular stock are subject to AMs if the catch limit is exceeded
p model) 80,200 13,786 GB cod 186,535 0.18 30,622 2. SNE/MA Windowpane Flounder Sub-ACLs
The catch limit for each stock is divided among the various fishery components (e.g., commercial groundfish fishery, recreational groundfish fishery, scallop fishery, state waters). Components of the fishery that are allocated a sub-ACL for a particular stock are subject to AMs if the catch limit is exceeded. “ACL sub-components” represent the expected catch by components of the fishery that are not subject to AMs (e.g., state waters). Currently, only the common pool fishery has a sub-ACL for SNE/MA windowpane flounder. The stock is not allocated to sectors, and therefore, all sector and common pool catch is attributed to the common pool sub-ACL. Framework 48 proposes to allocate a sub-ACL of SNE/MA windowpane flounder to the scallop fishery and rename the other sub-component the “other fisheries sub-ACL.”
Scallop Fishery Sub-ACL
The sub-ACL of SNE/MA windowpane flounder allocated to the scallop fishery would be 36 percent of the ABC. This allocation is based on the 90th percentile of the scallop fishery catches (as a percent of the total catch) for calendar years (CYs) 2001 through 2010. GARM III and the 2012 Assessment Update for SNE/MA windowpane flounder only included catches from limited access scallop dredge and trawl vessels. The 90th percentile of these catches (as a percent of the total catches) from CYs 2001-2010 is 32 percent. However, this does not account for catches of SNE/MA windowpane flounder by General Category scallop vessels. From 2001 to 2003, there was limited observer coverage of General Category scallop dredge and trawl vessels. From 2004-2011, the average General Category catch of this stock was 22 mt. As a result, 22 mt was added to the limited access scallop dredge and trawl vessel catch for each year (CYs 2001-2010). The combined total is 36 percent
NE/MA windowpane flounder by General Category scallop vessels. From 2001 to 2003, there was limited observer coverage of General Category scallop dredge and trawl vessels. From 2004-2011, the average General Category catch of this stock was 22 mt. As a result, 22 mt was added to the limited access scallop dredge and trawl vessel catch for each year (CYs 2001-2010). The combined total is 36 percent. The scallop fishery's sub-ACL would be calculated by reducing the portion of the ABC allocated to the scallop fishery (sub-ABC) to account for management uncertainty. The management uncertainty buffer is determined each time the groundfish specifications are set.
If this measure is approved, AMs for the scallop fishery would be developed in a future management action during 2013 through the Atlantic Sea Scallop FMP. AMs would be implemented in time to be effective by the start of scallop FY 2014 (i.e., March 1, 2014), and would be retroactively applied to FY 2013. If the scallop fishery exceeds its sub-ACL for SNE/MA windowpane in FY 2013, the AMs adopted in a future management action would be triggered. Also, similar to the measure adopted in Framework 47 for the scallop fishery's SNE/MA and GB yellowtail flounder sub-ACLs, the scallop fishery AM for SNE/MA windowpane flounder would only be triggered if the total ACL is exceeded and the scallop fishery's sub-ACL is also exceeded, or if the scallop fishery exceeds its sub-ACL by 50 percent or more.
The total ACL for SNE/MA windowpane was exceeded by more than 100 percent in FY 2010 and FY 2011. In both years, total catch by sector and common pool vessels was below the common pool sub-ACL for this stock, and scallop vessels accounted for more than 25 percent of the total catch in FY 2011, and almost 50 percent of the catch in FY 2010. However, because the scallop fishery is not currently allocated a sub-ACL, it was not subject to an AM. Instead, the AM that was triggered in both years as a result of the ACL overage only applied to common pool vessels
s below the common pool sub-ACL for this stock, and scallop vessels accounted for more than 25 percent of the total catch in FY 2011, and almost 50 percent of the catch in FY 2010. However, because the scallop fishery is not currently allocated a sub-ACL, it was not subject to an AM. Instead, the AM that was triggered in both years as a result of the ACL overage only applied to common pool vessels. Scallop vessel catch of SNE/MA windowpane flounder is large enough to undermine the effectiveness of the ACL and AM for this stock. Therefore, a sub-ACL for the scallop fishery would help prevent overfishing and would ensure
Other Sub-Components Sub-ACL
In addition to large catches of SNE/MA windowpane flounder by the scallop fishery in recent years, other non-groundfish fisheries have accounted for approximately half of the total SNE/MA windowpane flounder catch in FY 2010 and FY 2011. Currently, any overages of the total ACL caused by this component of the fishery are applied to the commercial groundfish fishery (and only to common pool vessels prior to FY 2012), and the AM does not apply to non-groundfish vessels. As a result, there are no measures in place to constrain catches of SNE/MA windowpane flounder by these vessels, which could undermine the effectiveness of the ACL and AM for this stock.
This action proposes to make the “other sub-component” an “other fisheries sub-ACL.” Because “sub-components” of the fishery are not subject to AMs, this administrative measure makes it possible to adopt an AM that applies to those non-groundfish fisheries that fish with gear responsible for most of the catch of this stock in the “other” sub-component. The AM for SNE/MA windowpane flounder that would apply to commercial vessels is described in Item 6 of this preamble. This measure would prevent overfishing of SNE/MA windowpane flounder and ensure all components of the fishery are accountable for their catches of this stock.
3
-groundfish fisheries that fish with gear responsible for most of the catch of this stock in the “other” sub-component. The AM for SNE/MA windowpane flounder that would apply to commercial vessels is described in Item 6 of this preamble. This measure would prevent overfishing of SNE/MA windowpane flounder and ensure all components of the fishery are accountable for their catches of this stock.
3. Scallop Fishery Sub-ACL for GB Yellowtail Flounder Based on Estimated Catch
Currently, the scallop fishery's allocation of GB yellowtail flounder is determined each time groundfish specifications are set. There is no established allocation scheme, though in recent years, the scallop fishery's sub-ACL for this stock was based on the projected GB yellowtail flounder needed to fully harvest the scallop sub-ACL. The scallop fishery was allocated 100 percent of its projected need in FY 2010, and 90 percent of its projected need in FY 2011 and FY 2012.
This action proposes to allocate a fixed percentage of the U.S. ABC for GB yellowtail flounder to the scallop fishery. For FY 2013 only, 40 percent of the U.S. ABC for GB yellowtail flounder would be allocated to the scallop fishery. Beginning in FY 2014, 16 percent of the U.S. ABC for this stock would be allocated to the scallop fishery. The allocation to the scallop fishery would be 16 percent of the U.S. ABC each year from FY 2014 onward. The scallop fishery sub-ACL would be calculated by reducing the scallop fishery's portion of the ABC (sub-ABC) to account for management uncertainty.
The percentage allocation for the scallop fishery beginning in FY 2014 forward is based on recent catch history by the scallop fishery from CYs 2002 through 2011. This measure would simplify the specification of the scallop fishery's GB yellowtail flounder allocation each year. In addition, allocating a fixed percentage of the ABC to the scallop fishery would further incentivize avoiding yellowtail flounder while maximizing the catch of scallops
beginning in FY 2014 forward is based on recent catch history by the scallop fishery from CYs 2002 through 2011. This measure would simplify the specification of the scallop fishery's GB yellowtail flounder allocation each year. In addition, allocating a fixed percentage of the ABC to the scallop fishery would further incentivize avoiding yellowtail flounder while maximizing the catch of scallops.
Although the scallop fishery would be allocated a fixed percentage of GB yellowtail flounder, this action would not modify the existing regulation that requires NMFS to re-estimate the expected scallop fishery catch of GB yellowtail flounder for the current fishing year by January 15. If the scallop fishery is projected to catch less than 90 percent of its GB yellowtail flounder sub-ACL, the Regional Administrator may reduce the scallop fishery sub-ACL to the amount projected to be caught, and increase the groundfish fishery sub-ACL by any amount up to the amount reduced from the scallop allocation. Overages will be calculated based on the revised sub-ACLs for the commercial groundfish fishery and the scallop fishery, and any applicable AMs would be triggered.
GB yellowtail flounder is managed jointly with Canada. In addition to the ACLs and AMs that the U.S. uses to manage the fishery, the Transboundary Resource Sharing Understanding (Understanding) also specifies that any overage of the U.S. total allowable catch (TAC) for GB yellowtail flounder would result in a pound-for-pound reduction of the U.S. TAC in the following fishing year. Therefore, if a component of the fishery exceeds its sub-ACL, which causes an overage of the U.S. TAC, the necessary reduction required by the Understanding would be taken from the sub-ACL of the fishery component that caused the overage.
4. Small-Mesh Fisheries Sub-ACL for GB Yellowtail Flounder
Currently, the quota for GB yellowtail flounder is only allocated to the commercial groundfish fishery and the scallop fishery
the fishery exceeds its sub-ACL, which causes an overage of the U.S. TAC, the necessary reduction required by the Understanding would be taken from the sub-ACL of the fishery component that caused the overage.
4. Small-Mesh Fisheries Sub-ACL for GB Yellowtail Flounder
Currently, the quota for GB yellowtail flounder is only allocated to the commercial groundfish fishery and the scallop fishery. If catches by the “other” sub-component (non-groundfish fisheries) cause an overage of the ACL, any AMs that are triggered only apply to the commercial groundfish and scallop fisheries. Framework 48 proposes to allocate a sub-ACL of GB yellowtail flounder to the small-mesh bottom trawl fisheries, which are defined as vessels fishing with bottom otter trawl with a codend mesh size of less than 5 inches (12.7 cm). Small-mesh bottom trawl vessels fishing on GB typically target whiting and squid.
This action would allocate 2 percent of the U.S. ABC for GB yellowtail flounder to the small-mesh fisheries. This allocation is based on the median catch of GB yellowtail flounder by the small-mesh fisheries from CYs 2004 through 2011. Observer coverage of small-mesh fisheries was limited prior to 2004, which is why the time period (CYs 2004-2011) was selected. The small-mesh fishery sub-ACL would be calculated by reducing the portion of the ABC allocated to the small-mesh fisheries (2 percent) to account for management uncertainty. Each time the groundfish specifications are set, the management uncertainty buffer necessary for these small-mesh fisheries would be determined. If the small-mesh fisheries catch of GB yellowtail flounder exceeds the sub-ACL, the pertinent AMs would be triggered. If this measure is approved, AMs would need to be developed for those fisheries (e.g., Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish; Small-Mesh Multispecies) as soon as possible to be effective for any overage in FY 2014
er necessary for these small-mesh fisheries would be determined. If the small-mesh fisheries catch of GB yellowtail flounder exceeds the sub-ACL, the pertinent AMs would be triggered. If this measure is approved, AMs would need to be developed for those fisheries (e.g., Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish; Small-Mesh Multispecies) as soon as possible to be effective for any overage in FY 2014.
Although small-mesh fishery catches of GB yellowtail flounder have generally been less than 100 mt in recent years, the U.S. ABC for the stock has been declining. As a result, the small-mesh fishery catches account for an increasing percentage of the total U.S. catch. This measure would help ensure that small-mesh fishery catches would be constrained and prevent overages of the annual quota. In addition, because GB yellowtail flounder is jointly managed with Canada, keeping U.S. catches within the U.S. TAC is important to achieve the management and conservation objectives of the Understanding. A sub-ACL for small-mesh fisheries, and associated AMs, would help ensure the component of the fishery that causes an overage would be held accountable. This proposed measure would also likely prevent inequities that would occur if the commercial groundfish and scallop fisheries were held accountable for overages caused by the small-mesh fisheries.
5. Recreational Fishery AM
This action proposes to revise the recreational AM. The current
The Council provided guidance on its preference of measures that NMFS should consider if additional recreational effort controls are necessary to reduce GOM cod or GOM haddock catches, though this guidance does not restrict NMFS's discretion in selecting management measures that would best achieve, but not exceed, the recreational sub-ACL. If additional effort controls are necessary to reduce cod catches, the Council's non-binding preference is that NMFS first consider increases to minimum fish sizes, then adjustments to seasons, followed by changes to bag limits
addock catches, though this guidance does not restrict NMFS's discretion in selecting management measures that would best achieve, but not exceed, the recreational sub-ACL. If additional effort controls are necessary to reduce cod catches, the Council's non-binding preference is that NMFS first consider increases to minimum fish sizes, then adjustments to seasons, followed by changes to bag limits. If additional effort controls are necessary to reduce haddock catches, the Council's non-binding preference is that NMFS first consider increases to minimum size limits, then changes to bag limits, and adjustments to seasons last.
The current recreational AM only allows management measures to be adjusted if the recreational sub-ACL is exceeded; however, there is no mechanism to adjust recreational measures for the upcoming fishing year if it is projected that the recreational fishery would exceed, or not fully harvest, its quota. This action would allow measures to be proactively adjusted, which would help prevent overages of the recreational sub-ACL, and prevent substantial underharvests of the recreational sub-ACL. In addition, the requirement for NMFS to consult with the Council while developing measures allows increased opportunity for public comment, and provides states more opportunity to coordinate their recreational measures with NMFS.
If this measure is adopted, any adjustments to recreational measures that are necessary for FY 2013 would be announced as soon as possible and implemented on or about the start of the fishing year. Due to timing constraints, development of recreational measures for FY 2013 began prior to this proposed rule. To expedite the consideration of recreational measures for FY 2013, the Council delegated the recommendation of adjustments to these measures to the RAP. The Council's RAP met in early February 2013 to discuss potential measures for FY 2013, and the Council forwarded the RAP's recommendations to NMFS
g constraints, development of recreational measures for FY 2013 began prior to this proposed rule. To expedite the consideration of recreational measures for FY 2013, the Council delegated the recommendation of adjustments to these measures to the RAP. The Council's RAP met in early February 2013 to discuss potential measures for FY 2013, and the Council forwarded the RAP's recommendations to NMFS. Recreational management measures for FY 2013 will be announced in a separate rulemaking.
6. Commercial Groundfish Fishery AMs
AMs are required to help prevent overfishing and ensure accountability in the fishery. Proactive AMs are intended to prevent ACLs from being exceeded, and reactive AMs are meant to correct or mitigate overages of ACLs if they occur. Amendment 16 implemented AMs for all of the groundfish stocks; however, upon approving Amendment 16, NMFS notified the Council that the AMs developed for the non-allocated stocks lacked sector-specific AMs. NMFS recommended that the Council develop appropriate AMs for these stocks in a future action, and as a result, Framework 47 modified the AMs for these stocks in 2012.
During development of Framework 47, there was ongoing litigation on Amendment 16. Oceana, an environmental organization, challenged Amendment 16 partially because it lacked sector-specific AMs for the non-allocated stocks. On December 20, 2011, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia upheld most of Amendment 16, but found that the Amendment's lack of sector-specific reactive AMs, that is AMs that are triggered after an ACL is exceeded, for non-allocated stocks (GOM/GB and SNE/MA windowpane flounders, ocean pout, Atlantic halibut, Atlantic wolffish, and SNE/MA winter flounder) violated the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The Court remanded the issue to NMFS and the Council for further action. Because the Council took final action on Framework 47 in November 2011, before the Court decided the case, it did not specifically or fully address the Court's remand in Framework 47
and SNE/MA windowpane flounders, ocean pout, Atlantic halibut, Atlantic wolffish, and SNE/MA winter flounder) violated the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The Court remanded the issue to NMFS and the Council for further action. Because the Council took final action on Framework 47 in November 2011, before the Court decided the case, it did not specifically or fully address the Court's remand in Framework 47.
Amendment 16 adopted a prohibition on possession for all of the non-allocated stocks, except for Atlantic halibut, which has a one-fish per trip possession limit. Framework 47 adopted reactive AMs for ocean pout, both stocks of windowpane flounder, and Atlantic halibut for sector and non-sector (“common pool”) vessels that would be triggered if the total ACL is exceeded. For ocean pout and both stocks of windowpane flounder, if the total ACL is exceeded in the fishing year, gear-restricted areas would apply to both sector and common pool vessels in the second year following the overage, and would remain in place for the entire fishing year. For Atlantic halibut, if the total ACL is exceeded the possession limit for sector and common pool vessels would be reduced to zero (from one fish per trip) in the second year following the overage. Framework 47 identified the prohibition on possession of SNE/MA winter flounder and Atlantic wolffish as AMs for these two stocks. The Court subsequently held that these AMs, which were described as “proactive” AMs, were not sufficient and that “reactive” AMs were needed as well.
Upon approval of Framework 47, in light of the Court's remand, NMFS notified the Council that the zero-possession reactive AM for Atlantic halibut was not, by itself, an adequate AM. Additionally, NMFS notified the Council that although prohibition on possession for SNE/MA winter flounder and Atlantic wolffish may act as a proactive AM, the Court found that to be inconsistent with the National Standard 1 guidelines, and reactive AMs are needed for all stocks
NMFS notified the Council that the zero-possession reactive AM for Atlantic halibut was not, by itself, an adequate AM. Additionally, NMFS notified the Council that although prohibition on possession for SNE/MA winter flounder and Atlantic wolffish may act as a proactive AM, the Court found that to be inconsistent with the National Standard 1 guidelines, and reactive AMs are needed for all stocks. Despite these concerns, NMFS approved these AMs in Framework 47 even though the prescribed AMs for these stocks were not sufficient, because approval of the framework was preferable to disapproval and because it removed a potential inequity for common pool vessels. The AM implemented through Amendment 16 only applied to common pool vessels, although common pool vessels generally take less than 10 percent of the total commercial catch for these stocks. With respect to the delayed implementation of the reactive AMs (the second year following an overage), NMFS also recommended that these AMs be implemented as soon as possible after an overage occurs, when catch data, including final discard estimates, reliably show an overage of the ACL, and not be bound by an AM that can only be implemented in the second year following an overage. If reliable data indicate an overage of the total ACL, the AM should be implemented in the fishing year
Change to AM Timing for Non-Allocated Stocks
To improve the effectiveness of AMs adopted through Framework 47 and 48 for the non-allocated stocks, this action proposes to change the timing of the AMs. As described above, the current AMs for these stocks are implemented in the second year following an overage of the total ACL. For example, if the total ACL for ocean pout is exceeded in Year 1, the AM would be implemented in Year 3 under the current regulations
ectiveness of AMs adopted through Framework 47 and 48 for the non-allocated stocks, this action proposes to change the timing of the AMs. As described above, the current AMs for these stocks are implemented in the second year following an overage of the total ACL. For example, if the total ACL for ocean pout is exceeded in Year 1, the AM would be implemented in Year 3 under the current regulations. Because this delay may not be needed in all cases, this action proposes that if reliable information is available during the fishing year that shows the total ACL has been exceeded, the respective AM for the stock would be implemented at the start of the next fishing year (Year 2). After the AM is implemented, if updated catch information shows that the total ACL was not exceeded, the AM would be rescinded consistent with the APA.
The Council has noted concerns that final catch data for the non-allocated stocks, which include catch from state waters and non-groundfish fisheries, could not be reliably available in time to trigger an AM in Year 2, or earlier. This action would modify the timing of the AMs so that should reliable information be available (e.g., the commercial groundfish fishery catches exceed the total ACL for a stock), the AM could be implemented more quickly. This increases the effectiveness of the AM and would help prevent overfishing in consecutive years. The need for greater effectiveness is balanced with the need for fishing businesses to plan for the upcoming fishing year, and therefore, any applicable AMs for the non-allocated stocks would only be implemented at the start of a fishing year. If this measure is approved, and implemented on or before May 1, 2013, and reliable information shows that the total ACL for a non-allocated stock is exceeded in FY 2012, then the respective AM would be implemented on May 1, 2013, for sector and common pool vessels
fishing year, and therefore, any applicable AMs for the non-allocated stocks would only be implemented at the start of a fishing year. If this measure is approved, and implemented on or before May 1, 2013, and reliable information shows that the total ACL for a non-allocated stock is exceeded in FY 2012, then the respective AM would be implemented on May 1, 2013, for sector and common pool vessels.
Area-Based AMs for Atlantic Halibut, Atlantic Wolffish, and SNE/MA Winter Flounder
This action proposes area-based AMs for Atlantic halibut, Atlantic wolffish, and SNE/MA winter flounder. If the total ACL is exceeded for any of these stocks by an amount greater than the management uncertainty buffer, gear restrictions would be triggered in designated areas that have been identified as hotspots for catches of these stocks. For overages of the Atlantic halibut and Atlantic wolffish ACLs, trawl vessels would be required to use approved selective gear, and sink gillnet and longline vessels would not be allowed to fish in the applicable AM area. For overages of the SNE/MA winter flounder ACL, only trawl gear would be restricted in the applicable AM area. As previously adopted in Framework 47, possession of non-allocated stocks would also be prohibited at all times, except for Atlantic halibut would be reduced from one fish to zero if the total ACL is exceeded by an amount greater than the management uncertainty buffer. Approved selective trawl gears include the separator trawl, Ruhle trawl, mini-Ruhle trawl, rope trawl, and other gear authorized by the Council in a management action or approved for use consistent with the process defined in § 648.85(b)(6).
These area-based AMs, as well as the AMs implemented for ocean pout and the windowpane stocks by Framework 47, are triggered by an overage exceeding the amount of the management uncertainty buffer between the total ACL and the ABC for a non-allocated stock (i.e., when the ABC is exceeded)
he Council in a management action or approved for use consistent with the process defined in § 648.85(b)(6).
These area-based AMs, as well as the AMs implemented for ocean pout and the windowpane stocks by Framework 47, are triggered by an overage exceeding the amount of the management uncertainty buffer between the total ACL and the ABC for a non-allocated stock (i.e., when the ABC is exceeded). This is because the area-based AMs were designed to account for only overages of approximately 5-20 percent of the ACL. The Council's Groundfish Plan Development Team (PDT) was not able to design an effective area-based AM that would account for an overage of only a few percent. Any AM that would account for such a small amount of catch, could be easily undermined by a shift in effort to another hotspot. On the other hand, triggering an area-based AM that covers overages of up to 20 percent, for an overage of only a few percent, would be punitive. Currently, the management uncertainty buffer for these stocks is 7 percent at the sub-ACL level for the commercial groundfish fishery and “other” fisheries, and 3 percent for the scallop fishery. Because management uncertainty is not deducted from the state waters and other fisheries sub-components, this results in an effective management uncertainty buffer at the overall ACL level of 3-7 percent for non-allocated stocks, depending upon the stock. The management uncertainty buffer can be changed each time groundfish specifications are set. Because these AM areas are designed to account for an ACL overage of up to 20 percent, if the total ACL is exceeded by 20 percent or more for one of these stocks, the AM would still be implemented, but the measure would be reviewed in a future management action. In addition, should a sub-ACL be allocated to other fisheries in a future action, and AMs developed for those fisheries, the AM for any fishery would be implemented only if the total ACL for the stock is exceeded, and the fishery also exceeds its sub-ACL
y 20 percent or more for one of these stocks, the AM would still be implemented, but the measure would be reviewed in a future management action. In addition, should a sub-ACL be allocated to other fisheries in a future action, and AMs developed for those fisheries, the AM for any fishery would be implemented only if the total ACL for the stock is exceeded, and the fishery also exceeds its sub-ACL.
Framework 50 is proposing to allocate SNE/MA winter flounder to sectors and allow landings. If this measure is approved in Framework 50, sector-specific inseason AMs would be implemented, coupled with a pound-for-pound payback of any overage from a sector's allocation in the next fishing year. In this case, the area-based AM would apply only to common pool vessels if the common pool exceeds its sub-ACL for the stock.
Revised AM for SNE/MA Windowpane Flounder
Currently, the AM for SNE/MA windowpane flounder only applies to commercial groundfish vessels. However, the commercial groundfish fishery has typically accounted for less than 25 percent of the total SNE/MA windowpane flounder catch in recent years. A large portion of the total SNE/MA windowpane flounder catch is caught by trawl vessels in non-groundfish fisheries fishing with mesh size of 5 inches (12.7 cm) or greater. Thus, the current AM may not effectively restrict catches of this stock if the total ACL is exceeded, which increases the likelihood of consecutive overages in future fishing years.
As a result, this action proposes to modify the AM so that it would also apply to the other sub-component (see Item 2 in this preamble). If the total ACL for this stock is exceeded by an amount greater than the management uncertainty buffer, and the “other sub-component” sub-ACL is also exceeded, then the area-based AM, described above, would apply to all trawl vessels using a codend with a mesh size of 5 inches (12.7 cm) or larger
o modify the AM so that it would also apply to the other sub-component (see Item 2 in this preamble). If the total ACL for this stock is exceeded by an amount greater than the management uncertainty buffer, and the “other sub-component” sub-ACL is also exceeded, then the area-based AM, described above, would apply to all trawl vessels using a codend with a mesh size of 5 inches (12.7 cm) or larger. This measure would only be adopted if a SNE/MA windowpane flounder sub-ACL is allocated to the other sub-component of the fishery, as described above in this preamble. This revision would help ensure that, in the event of an overage, catches would be effectively restricted to prevent overfishing. In addition, this action would remove potential inequities that could occur if only the
As implemented in Framework 47, the area-based AM for commercial groundfish vessels would be implemented only if the commercial groundfish fishery exceeds its sub-ACL and the total ACL is also exceed by an amount greater than the management uncertainty buffer. Similarly, if a sub-ACL is allocated to the scallop fishery (see Item 2 in this preamble), the scallop fishery's AM would only be implemented if the total ACL is exceeded and the scallop fishery sub-ACL is also exceeded.
Revised Handgear Permit AMs
Amendment 16 implemented AMs for the common pool fishery that divide the annual common pool sub-ACL for allocated stocks into trimester TACs. When 90 percent of the trimester TAC for a stock is projected to be caught, the area where the stock is predominately caught will be closed, for the remainder of the trimester, to gear capable of catching that stock. Currently, hook gear is subject to the trimester TAC provisions for cod, haddock, white hake, and pollock. However, hook gear very rarely catches white hake, and makes up less than 1 percent of the total common pool catch of this stock each year. Therefore, this action proposes to exempt Handgear A and Handgear B permits from the white hake trimester TAC AM
to gear capable of catching that stock. Currently, hook gear is subject to the trimester TAC provisions for cod, haddock, white hake, and pollock. However, hook gear very rarely catches white hake, and makes up less than 1 percent of the total common pool catch of this stock each year. Therefore, this action proposes to exempt Handgear A and Handgear B permits from the white hake trimester TAC AM. This exemption would remain effective unless a future action modified this AM. Handgear A and B common pool vessels would still be subject to the trimester TAC for cod, haddock, and pollock.
Framework 48 also proposes to authorize the Regional Administrator to exempt Handgear A and Handgear B common pool vessels from the trimester TAC provisions for other stocks if catch by these vessels is less than 1 percent of the total common pool catch of that species or stock. This determination would be made prior to the start of the fishing year, and would be implemented through procedures consistent with the APA. The trimester TAC AMs were designed to apply only to gear types that caught the pertinent stock. Therefore, this measure would allow modifications to the trimester TAC AMs in the future, should new information become available that shows handgear vessels rarely catch a stock or species, or the combined catch of these vessels is less than 1 percent of the total common pool catch. This would increase the effectiveness of the common pool AMs, and would prevent potential inequities that may occur by applying an AM to vessels not responsible for catching, or exceeding, a trimester TAC.
7. Commercial Fishery Minimum Fish Sizes
Framework 48 also proposes to reduce the minimum fish sizes for several groundfish stocks to reduce regulatory discards and increase revenue from catch. In the groundfish fishery, all catch, including landings and discards, are counted against ACLs
s that may occur by applying an AM to vessels not responsible for catching, or exceeding, a trimester TAC.
7. Commercial Fishery Minimum Fish Sizes
Framework 48 also proposes to reduce the minimum fish sizes for several groundfish stocks to reduce regulatory discards and increase revenue from catch. In the groundfish fishery, all catch, including landings and discards, are counted against ACLs. In the sector fishery, sector vessels are required to land all legal-sized fish of allocated stocks, but discards of sub-legal-sized fish are extrapolated from observed fishing trips and are also debited from a sector's ACEs. Similarly, regulatory discards on common pool trips are extrapolated from observed trips and counted against common pool trimester and annual catch limits. Commercial discards for most stocks are assumed to have 100-percent mortality, so 100 percent of discards for these stocks are deducted from quota allocations; thus, discards are lost revenue for groundfish vessels. Framework 48 proposes to reduce the minimum fish size for several groundfish stocks to reduce waste and allow the commercial industry to recoup some revenue from fish that would otherwise be discarded. This is intended partly as a measure to mitigate expected reductions in catch limits. The minimum size limits proposed in Table 3 are based on an analysis conducted by the Groundfish PDT of the size of discarded fish in trawl gear in recent years and the length at 50-percent maturity. The proposed changes would be expected to reduce many discards associated with the current minimum size restrictions, while allowing many fish to reach spawning age before being caught.
Table 3—Proposed Changes to Minimum Fish Sizes Limits for Groundfish Stocks Species Current size (inches) Proposed FW 48 size (inches) Cod 22 (55.9 cm) 19 (48.3 cm). Haddock 18 (45.7 cm) 16 (40.6 cm). Pollock 19 (48.3 cm) No change. Witch flounder (gray sole) 14 (35.6 cm) 13 (33 cm). Yellowtail flounder 13 (33.0 cm) 12 (30.5 cm)
while allowing many fish to reach spawning age before being caught.
Table 3—Proposed Changes to Minimum Fish Sizes Limits for Groundfish Stocks Species Current size (inches) Proposed FW 48 size (inches) Cod 22 (55.9 cm) 19 (48.3 cm). Haddock 18 (45.7 cm) 16 (40.6 cm). Pollock 19 (48.3 cm) No change. Witch flounder (gray sole) 14 (35.6 cm) 13 (33 cm). Yellowtail flounder 13 (33.0 cm) 12 (30.5 cm). American plaice (dab) 14 (35.6 cm) 12 (30.5 cm). Atlantic halibut 41 (104.1 cm) No change. Winter flounder (blackback) 12 (30.5 cm) No change. Redfish 9 (22.9 cm) 7 (17.8 cm). Biological impacts that might result from reduced minimum fish sizes depend on whether selectivity in the fishery shifts to smaller fish. If small fish become a greater proportion of total catch, yield per recruit, and Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) could decline and rebuilding progress could slow. To discourage targeting of smaller fish, this measure only reduces minimum sizes, rather than eliminating them altogether, and would not change minimum mesh size requirements. If this measure is approved, it is not clear whether state agencies would follow suit. Commercial groundfish vessels would continue to be subject to the most restrictive measure of state and federal minimum fish size requirements.
8. Sector Monitoring Programs
Framework 48 proposes to revise the monitoring program requirements for groundfish sectors. Amendment 16 included requirements for sectors to design, implement, and pay for independent third-party monitoring programs to monitor sector catch at-sea and shoreside. Sectors were required to implement a dockside monitoring program to validate dealer-reported landings, with 50-percent coverage of sector trips in FY 2010, and 20-percent coverage each year thereafter. Dockside monitoring was also set to be implemented for common pool vessels
To date, NMFS has voluntarily funded these programs for sectors
ng programs to monitor sector catch at-sea and shoreside. Sectors were required to implement a dockside monitoring program to validate dealer-reported landings, with 50-percent coverage of sector trips in FY 2010, and 20-percent coverage each year thereafter. Dockside monitoring was also set to be implemented for common pool vessels
To date, NMFS has voluntarily funded these programs for sectors. NMFS implemented its own at-sea monitoring program to monitor sectors and the common pool that has operated annually since FY 2010. In 2010, NMFS also reimbursed sectors for the costs of dockside monitoring. Shortly after the implementation of Amendment 16, the Council became concerned that the industry would not be able to support full responsibility for the costs of monitoring programs, beginning with dockside monitoring in 2011 and at-sea monitoring in 2012. Through Framework 45, the Council suspended the dockside monitoring requirements until FY 2013 and required dockside monitoring only to the extent that NMFS could fund it. In 2011, NMFS made the determination that dockside intercepts by enforcement personnel were sufficient to monitor sector landings and reprioritized financial support for dockside monitoring to alleviate general sector operating costs.
Delay Industry At-Sea Monitoring Cost Responsibility
Currently, sectors are responsible for implementing industry-funded at-sea monitoring programs to monitor their fishing activities beginning May 1, 2013. With the substantial catch reductions proposed in Framework 50, the Council is concerned that the industry will not be able to support this cost burden in FY 2013. Framework 48 proposes to delay the industry's responsibility for at-sea monitoring costs to FY 2014 to mitigate the expected negative economic impacts of lower catch limits in FY 2013. Coverage levels would instead be set at the level that NMFS can fund
ial catch reductions proposed in Framework 50, the Council is concerned that the industry will not be able to support this cost burden in FY 2013. Framework 48 proposes to delay the industry's responsibility for at-sea monitoring costs to FY 2014 to mitigate the expected negative economic impacts of lower catch limits in FY 2013. Coverage levels would instead be set at the level that NMFS can fund. This measure is being proposed for only 1 year so that the Council may further modify this requirement in the future as more information becomes available on the appropriate monitoring levels, costs of those programs, and implementation of electronic monitoring systems.
NMFS understands fishermen's concerns about their ability to endure this cost burden, in part or in full, particularly at catch levels proposed by Framework 50. NMFS is committed to assisting the industry through this difficult time to the extent that it is able and is working on a plan to cover as much of these costs as possible. NMFS cannot definitively commit to fully funding sector monitoring, because of the high degree of uncertainty around a fiscal year 2013 budget. NMFS projects that if effort levels go down next year, NMFS would be able to fund sector at-sea monitoring. If effort remains the same, NMFS would only be able to fund at-sea monitoring by using funds currently slated for research to develop electronic monitoring in the Northeast.
With respect to the proposed measure, however, NMFS has serious concerns that it does not meet the requirements of the FMP and the Magnuson-Stevens Act, as previously expressed in letters and at Council meetings. Relying on NMFS appropriations to determine an at-sea monitoring coverage rate does not ensure that coverage will be sufficient to monitor sector annual catch entitlements (ACEs) or to meet the purpose and goals for sector monitoring described in Amendment 16 and proposed by Framework 48. This same measure was proposed in Framework 45 and it was disapproved based on these same concerns
l meetings. Relying on NMFS appropriations to determine an at-sea monitoring coverage rate does not ensure that coverage will be sufficient to monitor sector annual catch entitlements (ACEs) or to meet the purpose and goals for sector monitoring described in Amendment 16 and proposed by Framework 48. This same measure was proposed in Framework 45 and it was disapproved based on these same concerns. In a letter to the Council dated April 11, 2011, the Regional Administrator cited concerns that NMFS funding alone would not be sufficient to support coverage levels needed to monitor sector ACEs. NMFS did not have a 2012 budget at that time and sufficient NMFS appropriations could not be guaranteed. Without additional appropriations to support sector monitoring specifically, NMFS remains very concerned that relying solely on the Federal Government to provide sector at-sea monitoring coverage will undermine not only sector catch monitoring but also other programs. Inadequate coverage would also potentially affect the Standard Bycatch Reporting Methodology (SBRM) coverage requirements and information used to assess Northeast fish stocks by spreading existing resources too thin. Thus, NMFS has very serious concerns about the approvability of this measure. For that reason, NMFS has analyzed the needed at-sea monitoring coverage level for FY 2013 assuming that this measure is not approved.
At-Sea Monitoring Cost-Sharing
Framework 48 also proposes a mechanism for sharing of at-sea monitoring costs between sectors and NMFS. Framework 48 proposes that the industry would only ever be responsible for paying the direct costs of at-sea monitoring, specifically the daily salary of the at-sea monitor
at-sea monitoring coverage level for FY 2013 assuming that this measure is not approved.
At-Sea Monitoring Cost-Sharing
Framework 48 also proposes a mechanism for sharing of at-sea monitoring costs between sectors and NMFS. Framework 48 proposes that the industry would only ever be responsible for paying the direct costs of at-sea monitoring, specifically the daily salary of the at-sea monitor. All other programmatic costs would be the responsibility of NMFS, including, but not limited to: Briefing, debriefing, training and certification costs (salary and non-salary); sampling design development; data storage, management and security; data quality assurance and control; administrative costs; maintenance of monitoring equipment; at-sea monitor recruitment, benefits, insurance and taxes; logistical costs associated with deployment; and at-sea monitor travel and lodging. This measure would increase profitability for sectors and sector vessels by reducing the cost burden of at-sea monitoring.
This measure raises concerns about sharing payment of government obligations with private entities. Given this, the proposed at-sea monitoring cost sharing measure may not be sufficiently developed to approve at this time. NMFS believes that this approach to cost-sharing, however, could be viable if restructured and could be pursued through a future action. NMFS is currently working with the New England and Mid-Atlantic Councils' joint Herring-Mackerel PDT/Fishery Management Action Team (FMAT) to pursue cost-sharing options such as this one for those fisheries for FY 2014. The Council may want to consider including the NE Multispecies FMP in this joint effort to develop a workable and consistent cost-sharing mechanism for the Northeast region.
Eliminate Dockside Monitoring
Framework 48 also proposes to eliminate the dockside monitoring program for both the sectors and common pool. Like at-sea monitoring, the Council is concerned about the industry's ability to support this cost burden in FY 2013 and future years
ultispecies FMP in this joint effort to develop a workable and consistent cost-sharing mechanism for the Northeast region.
Eliminate Dockside Monitoring
Framework 48 also proposes to eliminate the dockside monitoring program for both the sectors and common pool. Like at-sea monitoring, the Council is concerned about the industry's ability to support this cost burden in FY 2013 and future years. Dealer-reported fish weights are used as the principle source to monitor commercial landings. Thus, dockside monitor reports may be redundant and not needed for landings information. Dealer reporting combined with dockside intercepts by enforcement personnel are potentially sufficient to monitor landings of sector catch at this time. Eliminating the program would reduce costs and increase profitability of the commercial industry in future years.
Framework 48 proposes eliminating the dockside monitoring program, but it is not clear if this includes removing the current dockside monitoring hail requirements. NMFS believes it is important to maintain the trip-start and trip-end hail requirements for sector vessels at this time to facilitate the monitoring and enforcement of sector operations and landings. Amendment 16 required vessels to issue hails to their dockside monitoring providers at the start and end of a trip in order to facilitate the deployment of dockside monitors. Since then, however, hails have become a useful tool for both NMFS and sector managers to monitor sector vessels' activities, including the
Sector Monitoring Goals and Performance Standard
Framework 48 also proposes to clarify the goals and objectives, and performance standard, established for sector monitoring programs by Amendment 16. Amendment 16 did not lay out explicit goals for sector monitoring, but described several general purposes for the programs, including to provide accurate estimates of sector catch and to verify area and gear fished, to ensure sector allocations are not exceeded
8 also proposes to clarify the goals and objectives, and performance standard, established for sector monitoring programs by Amendment 16. Amendment 16 did not lay out explicit goals for sector monitoring, but described several general purposes for the programs, including to provide accurate estimates of sector catch and to verify area and gear fished, to ensure sector allocations are not exceeded. Framework 48 proposes to clarify and elaborate the goals and objectives for existing and future groundfish monitoring programs, to help the Council and NMFS to implement monitoring requirements consistent with the goals of the FMP and to evaluate the program in the future. Framework 48 proposes that groundfish monitoring programs improve documentation of catch, determining total catch and effort of regulated species, and achieve a coverage level sufficient to minimize effects of potential monitoring bias to the extent possible, while enhancing fleet viability. Monitoring programs should also reduce the cost of monitoring, streamlining data management and eliminating redundancy, exploring options for cost-sharing, while recognizing the opportunity costs of insufficient monitoring. Other goals and objectives include incentivizing reducing discards, providing additional data streams for stock assessments, reducing management and/or biological uncertainty, and enhancing the safety of the monitoring program. It would also be an explicit goal of such programs to periodically evaluate them for effectiveness. A detailed list of all the objectives for groundfish monitoring programs is available in Section 4.2.2.2 of Framework 48.
Amendment 16 specified a performance standard that coverage levels must be sufficient to at least meet the coefficient of variation (CV) specified in SBRM (a CV of 30 percent)
It would also be an explicit goal of such programs to periodically evaluate them for effectiveness. A detailed list of all the objectives for groundfish monitoring programs is available in Section 4.2.2.2 of Framework 48.
Amendment 16 specified a performance standard that coverage levels must be sufficient to at least meet the coefficient of variation (CV) specified in SBRM (a CV of 30 percent). Since the implementation of the much expanded sector program in FY 2010, there have been questions raised about what level the CV standard is to be applied to—discard estimates at the stock level for all sectors, or for each combination of sector and stock. The former would result in lower coverage rates than the latter. Framework 48 proposes to clarify that the CV standard is intended to apply to discard estimates at the overall stock level for all sectors combined. The Council and NMFS believe this level is sufficient as a minimum standard for monitoring ACLs, consistent with the goals of Amendment 16 and the FMP. NMFS would use this standard to help determine the minimum coverage rates for sector at-sea monitoring programs in future fishing years. Note that, although the Framework 48 document discusses the clarified standard with respect to “allocated stocks,” the proposed regulatory text would apply the CV standard to all groundfish stocks, allocated and non-allocated. This error was identified at the December 20th Council meeting, when the Council selected its preferred alternative. It was not clear at that time why the description of the CV standard was limited to allocated stocks, and the Council and NMFS have since been unable to identify a Council motion or other reason that would suggest the Council intended the CV standard not to apply to non-allocated stocks. NMFS and the Council have concluded that this was a simple oversight in the document and, thus, the Council has deemed the corrected regulatory text as consistent with its intent
d was limited to allocated stocks, and the Council and NMFS have since been unable to identify a Council motion or other reason that would suggest the Council intended the CV standard not to apply to non-allocated stocks. NMFS and the Council have concluded that this was a simple oversight in the document and, thus, the Council has deemed the corrected regulatory text as consistent with its intent.
Because Amendment 16 did not provide clear goals and objectives and a clear performance standard for sector monitoring programs, there is a lack of specific direction and specification about the appropriate level needed to “accurately monitor sector operations.” As described above, in addition to specifying the level to which the CV standard should be applied, Framework 48 proposes to clarify and specify what other factors should be taken into account in determining the appropriate level of coverage for groundfish monitoring programs. NMFS interprets these provisions as guidance based on a practicability standard for determining the level of at-sea monitoring coverage that is appropriate for monitoring sector operations to help ensure that overall catch by sector vessels does not exceed ACEs and ACLs. NMFS is proposing to revise the regulatory text with respect to sector monitoring requirements to reflect the clarified goals and performance standard for sector monitoring programs, and to take into account the National Standards and other requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. NMFS is proposing to revise the regulatory text at § 648.87(b)(1)(v)(B) to read that coverage levels must at least meet the CV standard at the overall stock level and be sufficient to monitor sector operations, to the extent practicable, in order to reliably estimate overall catch by sector vessels
and to take into account the National Standards and other requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. NMFS is proposing to revise the regulatory text at § 648.87(b)(1)(v)(B) to read that coverage levels must at least meet the CV standard at the overall stock level and be sufficient to monitor sector operations, to the extent practicable, in order to reliably estimate overall catch by sector vessels.
In addition to the revised goals and objectives in Framework 48, NMFS will specifically take into account National Standards 2, 7, and 8 in making its determination of the appropriate level of at-sea monitoring coverage for sectors on an annual basis. These National Standards specifically speak to using the best scientific information available, minimizing costs and avoiding unnecessary duplication where practicable, taking into account impacts on fishing communities, and minimizing adverse economic impacts to the extent practicable. NMFS explains how it has made its determination of the at-sea monitoring coverage for FY 2013 in the proposed rule to approve sector operations plans (78 FR 16220; March 14, 2013) and in a summary document posted at http://www.nero.noaa.gov/ro/fso/reports/Sectors/ASM/FY2013_Multispecies_Sector_ASM_Requirements_Summary.pdf.
Reduce At-Sea Monitoring for Monkfish Trips
Lastly, Framework 48 proposes to implement a lower at-sea coverage rate for sector vessels fishing on a monkfish day-at-sea (DAS) in the SNE Broad Stock Area with extra-large mesh gillnets. Currently, sector monitoring requirements are defined to apply to any trip where groundfish catch counts against a sector's ACE. Because the Skate and Monkfish FMPs require the use of a DAS, including a groundfish
At a minimum, these trips would get Northeast Fishery Observer Program (NEFOP) coverage. At this time, NMFS has determined that sampling by NEFOP observers should be sufficient to monitor this subset of sector trips in FY 2013
are defined to apply to any trip where groundfish catch counts against a sector's ACE. Because the Skate and Monkfish FMPs require the use of a DAS, including a groundfish
At a minimum, these trips would get Northeast Fishery Observer Program (NEFOP) coverage. At this time, NMFS has determined that sampling by NEFOP observers should be sufficient to monitor this subset of sector trips in FY 2013. NMFS will not be requiring any additional at-sea monitoring coverage on this sub-set of sector trips. A review of the data analyzed by the Groundfish PDT and in Framework 48 showed little to no catch of groundfish on sector trips under a monkfish DAS in the SNE Broad Stock Area and using extra-large mesh gillnets. A total of 1,209 lb (548 kg) of all groundfish species were landed, and 16,670 lb (7,561 kg) discarded, across all sector trips using extra-large mesh gillnets in SNE in FY 2010 and 2011 combined. NMFS believes that the same level of coverage provided to vessels on monkfish trips not burning a groundfish DAS, which use the same gear in the same areas at the same time with little catch of groundfish, should be sufficient to monitor this exemption. It is possible that changes in stock size or fishing behavior on these trips could change the amount of groundfish bycatch in future fishing year. However, given the type of gear used on these trips, a large change is unlikely. NMFS would use the data collected from this first year of coverage in determining the appropriate coverage level for this subset of trips for future fishing years. Because this subset of trips would have a different coverage level than other sector trips in the SNE Broad Stock Area, NMFS is intending to create separate discard strata for each stock caught on trips meeting the exemption criteria in order to ensure the different coverage levels do not bias discard estimates.
To facilitate deploying appropriate coverage levels, a sector vessel would have to notify NEFOP as to whether it intends to fish on a monkfish DAS
evel than other sector trips in the SNE Broad Stock Area, NMFS is intending to create separate discard strata for each stock caught on trips meeting the exemption criteria in order to ensure the different coverage levels do not bias discard estimates.
To facilitate deploying appropriate coverage levels, a sector vessel would have to notify NEFOP as to whether it intends to fish on a monkfish DAS. Sector vessels already declare gear type and Broad Stock Area to be fished in the Pre-Trip Notification System (PTNS) and a modification to this system may be made to allow sector vessels to declare their DAS type. At this time, NMFS is still determining how the notification for this exemption would be made. If this measure is approved, NMFS will specify the method of notification in the final rule and in a Fishery Bulletin sent to all sector vessels. NMFS will make every effort to ensure it does not create duplicative reporting burdens for individual vessels. This measure would also require that NMFS develop a method for identifying these trips in the fishery dependent datasets in order to ensure they are appropriately stratified in stock assessments. The NMFS Northeast Regional Office is working with the Northeast Fisheries Science Center to identify the appropriate method to transmit this information to assessment scientists. To assist NMFS in identifying these trips for appropriate stratification in discard estimates, NMFS is proposing to require sector vessels intending to use this exemption to submit a trip-start hail declaring their intent to NMFS before departing port. If this measure is approved, detailed instructions for submitting hails would be specified in a Fishery Bulletin distributed to sector vessels.
To minimize the possibility that this measure would be used to avoid at-sea monitoring coverage, only vessels meeting the criteria and intending to fish exclusively in the SNE Broad Stock Area would be eligible for lower coverage
S before departing port. If this measure is approved, detailed instructions for submitting hails would be specified in a Fishery Bulletin distributed to sector vessels.
To minimize the possibility that this measure would be used to avoid at-sea monitoring coverage, only vessels meeting the criteria and intending to fish exclusively in the SNE Broad Stock Area would be eligible for lower coverage. Vessels declaring multi-Broad Stock Area trips would not be eligible for the lower selection probability. In addition, a vessel is already prohibited from changing its fishing plan for a trip once a waiver from coverage has been issued. NMFS is proposing to revise the pre-trip notification regulations at § 648.11(k)(1) to make clear that a vessel's fishing plan includes the area to be fished, whether a monkfish DAS will be used, and gear type to be used.
9. GB Yellowtail Flounder Management Measures
Framework 48 proposes to change the stratification of discard estimates for sectors for GB yellowtail flounder. Both landings and discards are counted against sector ACEs, and once a sector reaches an ACE, it must cease fishing in the stock area for that particular stock until it can acquire more ACE through a transfer. Discards by sector vessels are estimated using an extrapolation from observed discards on observed trips. A discard rate is calculated for each “stratum,” or each combination of gear type and stock area for each sector. During the development of Framework 48, substantial quota reductions were being contemplated for GB yellowtail flounder and the Council became concerned that a low quota could be constraining on sectors. Even if some sector vessels were able to fish in deeper water, where little yellowtail flounder is caught, to reduce their GB yellowtail discards, GB yellowtail discards by vessels in the same sector fishing on other parts of GB would impact the discard rate for all vessels in the sector
for GB yellowtail flounder and the Council became concerned that a low quota could be constraining on sectors. Even if some sector vessels were able to fish in deeper water, where little yellowtail flounder is caught, to reduce their GB yellowtail discards, GB yellowtail discards by vessels in the same sector fishing on other parts of GB would impact the discard rate for all vessels in the sector. Framework 48 proposes to split the GB yellowtail flounder discard strata between statistical area 522 and statistical areas 525/561/562, so that sector discard rates more accurately reflect fishing effort in these areas. Sector vessels fishing in deeper water in statistical area 522 to avoid GB yellowtail flounder would get a GB yellowtail flounder discard rate generated from observed discards of GB yellowtail flounder on other vessels in their sector fishing in area 522. This could extend the fishing season for sector vessels fishing this area, and thereby increase profits. On the other hand, change to stratification could increase GB yellowtail flounder discard rates for other parts of GB (statistical areas 525/561/562), reducing revenues for vessels fishing in these areas. There is a potential for this measure to create an incentive for sector vessels fishing inside and outside area 522 to misreport GB yellowtail catch from outside area 522 as from inside area 522, potentially inflating area 522 GB yellowtail discard estimates and, thereby, negating any benefit of this measure.
This measure proposes to make this change for all groundfish gears, although this is primarily an issue for trawl vessels. Framework 48 would allow the Regional Administrator to determine whether this stratification is
10. List of Allowable Sector Exemption Requests
Amendment 16 allowed a sector to make requests to the Regional Administrator for exemption from some NE multispecies regulations as part of its annual sector operations plan
r all groundfish gears, although this is primarily an issue for trawl vessels. Framework 48 would allow the Regional Administrator to determine whether this stratification is
10. List of Allowable Sector Exemption Requests
Amendment 16 allowed a sector to make requests to the Regional Administrator for exemption from some NE multispecies regulations as part of its annual sector operations plan. Exemption requests are considered in the review and approval of sector operations plans annually through a proposed and final rule. The proposed rule proposing approval of FY 2013 sector operations plans published in the Federal Register on March 14, 2013 (78 FR 16220). The rationale for allowing this, and typically for the approval of exemption requests by the Regional Administrator, is that sectors are subject to a hard TAC that limits overall fishing mortality resulting from sector operations, making certain other mortality or effort controls redundant. Removing redundant effort controls would provide operational flexibility and efficiency for sector vessels and possibly increase profitability. Amendment 16, and later Framework 47, identified a list of FMP measures that sectors could not request exemption from, including: Year-round closure areas; permitting restrictions (e.g., vessel upgrade limits, etc.); gear restrictions designed to minimize habitat impacts (e.g., roller gear restrictions, etc.); reporting requirements; and AMs for non-allocated stocks. Sectors were prohibited from requesting these exemptions because they serve multiple purposes and not necessarily act exclusively as mortality controls. Amendment 16 allowed for this list to be modified through framework action.
Framework 48 proposes a change to the FMP that would allow sectors to submit limited requests for exemption from portions of year-round closure areas. Specifically, sectors could request exemption from the year-round groundfish mortality closures, except for where they overlap current or proposed habitat closed areas
ls. Amendment 16 allowed for this list to be modified through framework action.
Framework 48 proposes a change to the FMP that would allow sectors to submit limited requests for exemption from portions of year-round closure areas. Specifically, sectors could request exemption from the year-round groundfish mortality closures, except for where they overlap current or proposed habitat closed areas. These areas are defined as the existing habitat closed areas specified at § 648.81(h) and the Fippennies Ledge area under consideration as a potential habitat management area in the Omnibus EFH Amendment currently under development by the Council. This limitation would maintain the purpose of existing habitat areas to minimize the adverse effects of fishing on EFH, and preserve the consideration of additional habitat areas, until such time as the Council chooses to modify them through implementation of the Omnibus EFH Amendment. Sectors also would not be exempt from the Western GOM Closed Area, where it overlaps with a GOM Rolling Closure Area in effect. At this time, the GOM Rolling Closure Area III overlaps the northeast corner of the Western GOM Closed Area, so sectors would not be allowed to request access to this portion of the Western GOM Closed Area during May. The Council further limited sector exemption requests to Closed Area I and II to February 16th through April 30th to protect spawning groundfish. This measure is proposed to help mitigate the expected reductions in FY 2013 catch limits by allowing sectors to potentially increase access to healthy groundfish stocks such as GB haddock, pollock, and redfish that may be more abundant in these areas.
Council members, members of the public, the fishing industry, and environmental groups expressed a number of concerns during the development of Framework 48 with allowing additional access to groundfish closed areas
Y 2013 catch limits by allowing sectors to potentially increase access to healthy groundfish stocks such as GB haddock, pollock, and redfish that may be more abundant in these areas.
Council members, members of the public, the fishing industry, and environmental groups expressed a number of concerns during the development of Framework 48 with allowing additional access to groundfish closed areas. Some comments concerned the potential for this measure and any proposed sector exemptions to undermine measures under consideration in the Omnibus EFH Amendment. Concerns were also raised about impacts to protected species, spawning groundfish, and to other commercial species, like lobsters, from opening these areas to additional fishing effort. Some commenters also raised concerns that allowing groundfish vessels into these areas, mainly Closed Area II could increase gear conflicts between mobile and lobster gear. To address some of these issues, the Council imposed the limitations described above, excluding existing and potential habitat closed areas to preserve the process under way to evaluate these areas in the Omnibus EFH Amendment. The Council also took steps to continue protections for spawning groundfish by including seasonal restrictions on any sector exemptions.
Framework 48 does not actually approve the exemptions needed to fish in these closed areas. The impacts of any actual fishing effort, including the concerns raised in public comments during the development of Framework 48, would be evaluated through the annual review and approval of sector operations plans and exemption requests for each fishing year. The Council has already asked that the specific issues raised during public comments be evaluated by NMFS in the consideration of any specific sector exemption requests. The sector exemption review and approval process also provides better opportunity to address specific concerns with the potential impact of actual sector proposals
tor operations plans and exemption requests for each fishing year. The Council has already asked that the specific issues raised during public comments be evaluated by NMFS in the consideration of any specific sector exemption requests. The sector exemption review and approval process also provides better opportunity to address specific concerns with the potential impact of actual sector proposals. The Regional Administrator may include stipulations and constraints on specific exemptions to facilitate the monitoring and enforcement of sector operations or as mitigation measures to address specific potential impacts.
The Council's Closed Area Technical Team (CATT), which has been charged with working on permanent changes to the groundfish mortality closures to be included in the Omnibus EFH Amendment, conducted a comprehensive literature and data review of groundfish closed areas, which was used as the basis for the analysis of this administrative change in Framework 48. Due to data limitations and the fact that sector fishing effort is driven more by Catch Per Unit of Effort
In anticipation of this change being approved for FY 2013, sectors submitted requests for exemptions from portions of the groundfish mortality closures in their FY 2013 operations plans this fall. Due to the need for additional time to analyze these new exemptions adequately, NMFS would be considering sector requests for exemption from closed areas in a separate rulemaking from the general approval of sector operations plans for FY 2013, if the proposed change in Framework 48 is approved. The closed area exemption requests would be considered as amendments to the sector operations plans through a proposed and final rule that would be available for public comment with an accompanying National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis. Any closed area exemption requests, if approved, would not be in place until after the start of the 2013 fishing year.
11
n Framework 48 is approved. The closed area exemption requests would be considered as amendments to the sector operations plans through a proposed and final rule that would be available for public comment with an accompanying National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis. Any closed area exemption requests, if approved, would not be in place until after the start of the 2013 fishing year.
11. Requirement To Stow Trawl Gear While Transiting
The regulations currently specify that fishing gear must be stowed in a specific way, as described at § 648.23(b), when transiting closed areas to facilitate the enforcement of closed areas at sea. This measure proposes to remove this requirement for only trawl vessels on a groundfish trip. The Council believes that, with the use of VMS on all limited access multispecies vessels, the gear stowage requirements are no longer necessary for enforcement at sea. Groundfish vessels using non-trawl gear and vessels in other fisheries would still be required to stow their gear in accordance with § 648.23(b) when transiting closed areas. This requirement would also still apply for stowing gear smaller than the minimum mesh size when transiting the Regulated Mesh Areas.
The Groundfish Committee considered this measure after the Council's VMS/Enforcement Committee forwarded a recommendation to make modifications to the gear stowage requirements. What the Groundfish Committee put forward in Framework 48, however, was not the option that was proposed by the Council's VMS/Enforcement Committee and is in fact contrary to the VMS/Enforcement Committee's recommendations. The VMS/Enforcement Committee discussed removing gear stowage requirements entirely, among several other alternatives, at its October 20 and November 29, 2011 meetings and, with input from the U.S. Coast Guard and NMFS enforcement personnel and General Counsel for Enforcement, concluded that gear stowage requirements are still necessary to enforce closed areas at sea
t Committee's recommendations. The VMS/Enforcement Committee discussed removing gear stowage requirements entirely, among several other alternatives, at its October 20 and November 29, 2011 meetings and, with input from the U.S. Coast Guard and NMFS enforcement personnel and General Counsel for Enforcement, concluded that gear stowage requirements are still necessary to enforce closed areas at sea. Thus, the VMS/Enforcement Committee recommended only modifications to the gear stowage regulations to address safety concerns and improve their effectiveness. Furthermore, the Council recommended the VMS/Enforcement Committee's recommended modifications, and not the measure proposed here in Framework 48, to the Mid-Atlantic Council for consideration in Mid-Atlantic FMPs. If the Mid-Atlantic Council were to act on the New England Council's letter, it could also result in inconsistent gear stowage requirements across FMPs, regardless of whether the proposed measure in Framework 48 is approved or not, due to the overlapping jurisdiction of the two Councils.
NMFS has serious concerns about being able to enforce closed areas at sea without consistent and effective gear stowage provisions. Removing these requirements for only groundfish trawlers through Framework 48 would create inconsistent gear stowage requirements across FMPs, complicating enforcement and compliance. For example, it is not clear what requirements a vessel is supposed to follow when it is fishing under the regulations of multiple FMPs on the same trip, such as a joint monkfish/groundfish or scallop/groundfish DAS trip. The Coast Guard and NMFS enforcement personnel commented to the VMS/Enforcement Committee that VMS is not sufficient to enforce the prohibition on fishing in closed areas without the gear stowage provisions
what requirements a vessel is supposed to follow when it is fishing under the regulations of multiple FMPs on the same trip, such as a joint monkfish/groundfish or scallop/groundfish DAS trip. The Coast Guard and NMFS enforcement personnel commented to the VMS/Enforcement Committee that VMS is not sufficient to enforce the prohibition on fishing in closed areas without the gear stowage provisions. Abuse of this exemption by groundfish vessels or vessels participating in other fisheries could undermine the conservation objectives of closed areas, calling into question whether this measure is consistent with the FMP and the National Standards. It is also not clear why the Council exempted only groundfish vessels from the trawl gear stowage requirements and did not extend this exemption to vessels participating in its other FMPs. Applying this change to only groundfish vessels without a clear rationale for doing so raises equity concerns. NMFS specifically seeks comment on whether it should approve the proposed removal of the gear stowage requirement for trawl vessels in closed areas.
12. Correction to Eastern U.S./Canada Quota Monitoring
Through this rule, NMFS is proposing a correction to the regulations governing fishing activity in the Eastern U.S./Canada Area. This change is only a regulatory correction and is unrelated to the measures proposed by Framework 48. The regulations at § 648.85(a)(3)(ii)(A) currently state that all catch of cod, haddock, and yellowtail flounder caught on a trip that fishes both inside and outside of the Eastern U.S./CA Area shall apply to the U.S./CA TACs (in the case of cod and haddock, the Eastern U.S./CA TACs). This method for quota monitoring was implemented through Framework 42 as a conservative way to estimate catch to ensure U.S./CA TACs would not be exceeded, while allowing vessels the flexibility to fish both inside and outside the Eastern U.S./CA Area on the same trip
and outside of the Eastern U.S./CA Area shall apply to the U.S./CA TACs (in the case of cod and haddock, the Eastern U.S./CA TACs). This method for quota monitoring was implemented through Framework 42 as a conservative way to estimate catch to ensure U.S./CA TACs would not be exceeded, while allowing vessels the flexibility to fish both inside and outside the Eastern U.S./CA Area on the same trip. Since the implementation of Framework 42, NMFS refined its quota monitoring methods to apportion catch inseason consistent with Framework 42 in order to determine when the Eastern U.S./CA Area should be closed, but then to re-apportion those catches of cod, haddock, and yellowtail flounder at the end of the fishing year using VTRs and VMS catch reports, when determining whether a U.S./CA TAC had been exceeded. With the implementation of Amendment 16, each sector and the common pool received allocations of Eastern U.S./CA stocks. Although Amendment 16 did not specifically address how allocations of Eastern U.S./Canada stocks should be monitored in
13. Additional Corrections
In addition to the changes specified above, the following changes are being proposed to the regulations to correct incorrect references and to further clarify the intent of the Council.
In § 648.4(a)(1)(ii), this rule would correct a misspelling of the word “multispecies.”
In § 648.80(a)(3)(vii), this rule would clarify that rockhopper and roller gear requirements of the GOM/GB Inshore Restricted Roller Gear Area apply only to groundfish vessels on a NE multispecies DAS or sector trip. This correction is being made at the request of the Council, in response to a letter sent April 30, 2012.
In § 648.82(k)(2), language prohibiting sector vessels from leasing DAS would be removed. This language is left over from Amendment 13 and should have been removed in the final rule implementing Amendment 16, which allowed sectors vessels to lease DAS among themselves
ies DAS or sector trip. This correction is being made at the request of the Council, in response to a letter sent April 30, 2012.
In § 648.82(k)(2), language prohibiting sector vessels from leasing DAS would be removed. This language is left over from Amendment 13 and should have been removed in the final rule implementing Amendment 16, which allowed sectors vessels to lease DAS among themselves.
In § 648.82(n)(2)(i), the rule would clarify that common pool trimester TAC area closures are intended to apply to common pool vessels using gear capable of catching groundfish only when on a NE multispecies DAS, and not when participating in exempted fisheries.
In § 648.82(n)(2)(ii)(A), this rule would correct the coordinates for the GB Cod Trimester TAC Area. Amendment 16 defined the area as being composed of statistical areas 521, 522, 525, and 561. However, the coordinates used to define the GB Cod Trimester TAC Area were incorrectly transposed in the Amendment 16 final rule and included statistical area 562; this would be rectified by this action.
In § 648.82(n)(2)(ii)(B), Points 4 and 5 incorrectly list the N. Lat. as 43°20′, and this action would correct them to read 43°10′.
In § 648.82(n)(2)(ii)(H) and (I), the original coordinate AP8 was unnecessary and would be removed by this action.
In § 648.82(n)(2)(ii)(J), this rule would correct the coordinates for the GB Winter Flounder Trimester TAC Area. Amendment 16 defined the area as being composed of statistical areas 522, 525, 561, and 562. However, the coordinates used to define the GB Winter Flounder Trimester TAC Area were incorrectly transposed in the Amendment 16 final rule and did not include statistical areas 525 and 561; this would be rectified by this action.
In § 648.84(e), this rule would add a regulatory definition for the rope separator trawl. The definition for the rope separator was inadvertently removed from the regulations by the Framework 47 final rule. This rule would add the regulatory definition back into the regulations
the Amendment 16 final rule and did not include statistical areas 525 and 561; this would be rectified by this action.
In § 648.84(e), this rule would add a regulatory definition for the rope separator trawl. The definition for the rope separator was inadvertently removed from the regulations by the Framework 47 final rule. This rule would add the regulatory definition back into the regulations.
In § 648.85(a)(3)(ii)(A), the requirement to apply all catch of cod and haddock from a trip both inside and outside the Eastern US/CA area against the Eastern US/CA TACs would be removed. This method for quota monitoring was implemented through Framework 42 to ensure Eastern US/CA TACs would not be exceeded. With the implementation of Amendment 16, sectors received individual allocations of Eastern US/CA stocks and catch was to be apportioned to specific stocks using statistical areas reported on VTRs. This measure was inadvertently left in the regulations by the Amendment 16 final rule and does not reflect the intent of Amendment 16 or how NMFS is currently monitoring Eastern US/CA TACs.
In 648.85(a)(3)(iv)(E), the regulations allow for the Regional Administrator to close the Eastern U.S./Canada Area to all vessels subject to a particular TAC allocation if that particular TAC allocation is projected to be caught. This proposed rule would clarify that this is only to apply to allocations to sectors and common pool vessels, and not the scallop fishery or other ACL components. Amendment 16 and Framework 48 clarified that inseason and reactive accountability measures for sub-ACLs for non-groundfish components of ACLs are to be developed and administered by those respective FMPs.
In § 648.85(b)(7)(iv)(H) and (b)(8)(v)(F), an explicit reference to possession limits for other groundfish stocks, including stocks prohibited from being landed, in § 648.86 would be added in the description of landings limits for the Closed Area I Hook Gear Haddock SAP and Eastern U.S./Canada Haddock SAP
roundfish components of ACLs are to be developed and administered by those respective FMPs.
In § 648.85(b)(7)(iv)(H) and (b)(8)(v)(F), an explicit reference to possession limits for other groundfish stocks, including stocks prohibited from being landed, in § 648.86 would be added in the description of landings limits for the Closed Area I Hook Gear Haddock SAP and Eastern U.S./Canada Haddock SAP.
In § 648.85(b)(8)(v)(C), the timing of the pre-trip notification to the observer program for a US/CA trip would be revised from 72 hr to 48 hr. Prior to Amendment 16, vessels taking trips into the U.S./Canada were required to notify the observer program of their intent to take a trip 72 hr prior to departure. With the implementation of Amendment 16, NMFS established a standardized call-in requirement to the observer program that reduced this lead time to 48 hr.
In § 648.85(d), a period that was incorrectly inserted after “NE” would be removed.
In § 648.86(a)(3)(ii), periods that were incorrectly inserted after “NE” would be removed.
In § 648.86(a)(3)(ii)(A)(3), the table title for the GB Herring Haddock AM Area was incorrectly published as the GOM area. This rule would correct the table title.
In § 648.87(b)(1)(ii), sector stock area coordinates that were to be implemented by Framework 44 but were inadvertently left out of the regulations would added through this rule as paragraphs (A) through (F).
In § 648.90(a)(5)(iii), a period that was incorrectly inserted after “NE” would be removed.
In § 648.201(a)(2), the prohibition on landing of haddock is clarified to apply only to the haddock stock area for which the AM has been triggered. An explicit reference was added to the haddock possession restrictions in the NE multispecies regulations at § 648.86(a)(3)(ii)(A)
ragraphs (A) through (F).
In § 648.90(a)(5)(iii), a period that was incorrectly inserted after “NE” would be removed.
In § 648.201(a)(2), the prohibition on landing of haddock is clarified to apply only to the haddock stock area for which the AM has been triggered. An explicit reference was added to the haddock possession restrictions in the NE multispecies regulations at § 648.86(a)(3)(ii)(A).
Classification
Except for those measures identified as being problematic, NMFS has made a preliminary determination that the measures this proposed rule would implement are consistent with the NE Multispecies FMP, Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws. In making the final determination, NMFS will take into account the data, views, and comments received during the comment period.
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866.
This proposed rule does not contain policies with Federalism or “takings” implications as those terms are defined in E.O. 13132 and E.O. 12630, respectively.
An Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was prepared, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The IRFA, which includes this section of the preamble to this rule and analyses contained in FW 48 and its accompanying EA/RIR/IRFA, describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained at the beginning of this section in the preamble and in the SUMMARY section of the preamble
s this section of the preamble to this rule and analyses contained in FW 48 and its accompanying EA/RIR/IRFA, describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained at the beginning of this section in the preamble and in the SUMMARY section of the preamble.
Description and Estimate of Number of Small Entities to Which the Rule Will Apply
The Small Business Administration (SBA) defines a small business as one that is: independently owned and operated; not dominant in its field of operation; has annual receipts not in excess of $4.0 million in the case of commercial harvesting entities, or $7.0 million in the case of for-hire fishing entities; or if it has fewer than 500 employees in the case of fish processors, or 100 employees in the case of fish dealers. This framework action impacts mainly commercial harvesting entities engaged in the limited access groundfish, as well as both the limited access general category and limited access scallop fisheries. Ownership data are available for the four primary sub-fisheries potentially impacted by the proposed action from 2010 onward. These are the sector and common pool segments in the groundfish fishery and the limited access general category and limited access scallop fisheries. However, current data do not support a common ownership entity data field across years. For this reason, only 1 year's gross receipts are reported, and calendar year 2011 serves as the baseline year for this analysis. Calendar year 2012 data are not yet available in a fully audited form.
In 2011 there were 1,370 distinct ownership entities identified. Of these, 1,312 are categorized as small and 58 are large entities as per SBA guidelines. These totals may mask some diversity among the entities
on, only 1 year's gross receipts are reported, and calendar year 2011 serves as the baseline year for this analysis. Calendar year 2012 data are not yet available in a fully audited form.
In 2011 there were 1,370 distinct ownership entities identified. Of these, 1,312 are categorized as small and 58 are large entities as per SBA guidelines. These totals may mask some diversity among the entities. Many, if not most, of these ownership entities maintain diversified harvest portfolios, obtaining gross sales from many fisheries, and are not dependent on any one fishery. However, not all are equally diversified. Those that depend most heavily on sales from harvesting species impacted directly by the proposed action are most likely to be affected. A definition of dependence as deriving greater than 50 percent of gross sales from sales of either regulated groundfish or from scallops was used to identify those ownership groups most likely to be impacted by the proposed regulations. Using this threshold, 135 entities are groundfish-dependent, with 131 small and 4 large. Forty-seven entities are scallop-dependent, with 39 small and 8 large.
Measures Proposed To Mitigate Adverse Economic Impacts of the Proposed Action and Economic Impacts of Alternatives to the Proposed Action
The measures proposed by Framework 48 include revision of status determination criteria, modification of management measures for GB yellowtail flounder, modification of management measures for at-sea monitoring, allowance of exemption requests from sectors to year-round closures, changes to minimum size restrictions for allocated fish, and modifications to AMs. Assuming all impacts to vessels are also applicable to ownership entities, all of the alternatives have the potential to impact a large number of small entities, and while some of the options may significantly alter profitability, none of them would have a disproportionate impact on small entities
ar-round closures, changes to minimum size restrictions for allocated fish, and modifications to AMs. Assuming all impacts to vessels are also applicable to ownership entities, all of the alternatives have the potential to impact a large number of small entities, and while some of the options may significantly alter profitability, none of them would have a disproportionate impact on small entities.
The alternative to adopt new status determination criteria would impact the catch limits set for each species. If the revised status determination criteria result in much lower catch limits than under the no action alternative, then this alternative would likely significantly reduce fishing revenues. In order to be consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, however, it is necessary to incorporate the best available scientific information. The no action alternative would be inconsistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act because it would continue to use outdated stock assessment data; therefore, it is not the preferred alternative.
Establishing sub-ACLs for SNE/MA windowpane flounder and for GB yellowtail flounder would impact both the groundfish and scallop fisheries by shifting accountability for overages or changing the method of sub-ACL calculation. SNE/MA windowpane sub-ACLs for the scallop and other sub-components fisheries would reduce the likelihood of an overage and overfishing, leading to lower operating costs and higher future revenues. The specific economic impacts to each respective fishery are dependent on the allocation received and details of the associated AMs, which have not been determined for the scallop fishery. If sub-ACLs are set below average yearly landings for a given fishery, and if AMs are severely restrictive, the impacted vessels could experience a substantial reduction in their profitability
r future revenues. The specific economic impacts to each respective fishery are dependent on the allocation received and details of the associated AMs, which have not been determined for the scallop fishery. If sub-ACLs are set below average yearly landings for a given fishery, and if AMs are severely restrictive, the impacted vessels could experience a substantial reduction in their profitability.
The proposed modifications to the scallop fishery GB yellowtail flounder sub-ACL would use a fixed percentage to determine the scallop fishery allocation of the GB yellowtail—40 percent in FY 2013 and 16 percent in each subsequent year. The economic impacts to fishing businesses would depend on the overall GB yellowtail flounder ABC and the probability of an overage, both of which are currently unquantifiable. The 16-percent fixed rate may be prohibitive to maximizing the value from scallop landings. In the worst-case scenario, if an overage occurred that closed a valuable access area to the scallop fishery, the scallop industry could suffer a $16.9 million dollar loss in economic benefits. An alternative to the proposed action would use a set 90 percent of estimated scallop catch as the determinant of the scallop sub-ACL. Since the allocation method of the alternative does not adjust for changes in the ABC, it could lead to a very low groundfish fishery sub-ACL for GB yellowtail flounder.
The proposed measure to establish a small-mesh fishery sub-ACL for GB yellowtail flounder would use a fixed percentage, based on previous catch history, to set the allocation. This measure is expected to have similar impacts and unknowns as the other sub-ACLs, but with respect to the small-mesh groundfish vessels.
Modifying the groundfish sector monitoring requirements would impact all sector vessels
roposed measure to establish a small-mesh fishery sub-ACL for GB yellowtail flounder would use a fixed percentage, based on previous catch history, to set the allocation. This measure is expected to have similar impacts and unknowns as the other sub-ACLs, but with respect to the small-mesh groundfish vessels.
Modifying the groundfish sector monitoring requirements would impact all sector vessels. The no action alternative would have a significant impact on sector vessels because they would be responsible for the full costs of operating at-sea and dockside monitoring programs in FY 2013, absent any additional funding assistance from NMFS. As discussed in Section 7.4.3.2 of the Framework 48 EA, had sector vessels been responsible for full monitoring costs in FY 2011, they would have seen aggregate vessel owners' shares of net revenue decrease by a range of 2 to 12 percent, and average net revenue per vessel decrease by a range of 1 to 12 percent. The highest percent reductions in net revenue were expected to occur in the 30 to 50 ft (9.1-15.2 m) vessel category. Since profitability of individual vessels is unknown, the effects of this option on participation levels could not be estimated, but it is likely that vessels
Modifying the minimum size limits for commercially allocated groundfish species would be expected to significantly impact sector vessels. The preferred alternative will lower the minimum size restrictions allowing a portion of previously wasted regulated discards to become landings. This alternative would be expected to a positive economic impact on net trip revenues, as more fish will be landed for the same amount of expended quota as under the no action alternative. The proposed action is preferred because it allows for increased revenues from slightly smaller fish, while minimizing the likelihood that vessels will target smaller fish when compared to the full retention option
s alternative would be expected to a positive economic impact on net trip revenues, as more fish will be landed for the same amount of expended quota as under the no action alternative. The proposed action is preferred because it allows for increased revenues from slightly smaller fish, while minimizing the likelihood that vessels will target smaller fish when compared to the full retention option. Under either the reduced minimum sizes or full-retention alternative, there could potentially be unforeseen consequences from targeting smaller fish that could have long-term negative impacts on future landings and revenue. Maintaining minimum mesh sizes may help to mitigate some of this effect. Modifying sector discard strata for GB yellowtail flounder in Federal statistical area 522 has potential positive impacts on revenue for large trawl vessels that predominantly fish this area. Conversely, vessels that fish in the remaining areas of GB may experience reduced profitability because of higher discard rates.
The proposed measure that would modify the timing of AMs for stocks not allocated to sectors would help to prevent overfishing, which could create long-term positive impacts. Under this option, AMs would not be implemented mid-season, which would be beneficial to business planning. There is, however, the potential for short-term decreases in revenue based on faster implementation of AMs. The proposed action would also create area-based AMs for Atlantic halibut, Atlantic wolffish, and SNE/MA winter flounder. In the event these AMs are triggered, trawl vessels would be forced to use selective gears within designated closure areas and fixed-gear vessels would be forced to cease fishing entirely inside designated closure areas. There is a detailed analysis provided in Section 7.5.3.7 of the draft Framework 48 EA
so create area-based AMs for Atlantic halibut, Atlantic wolffish, and SNE/MA winter flounder. In the event these AMs are triggered, trawl vessels would be forced to use selective gears within designated closure areas and fixed-gear vessels would be forced to cease fishing entirely inside designated closure areas. There is a detailed analysis provided in Section 7.5.3.7 of the draft Framework 48 EA. To summarize, the closed areas for halibut and wolffish generated estimated revenues in the range of $4 million to $5 million dollars in FY 2010 for trawl vessels, and around $1 million for fixed-gear vessels. However, given the uncertainty of VTR data used to conduct this analysis and the number of factors that affect effort re-distribution, it is not possible to quantify the net economic impact of this option currently. The proposed action would also exempt common pool vessels using handgear or tub trawls from inseason trimester closures for white hake, allowing them to continue fishing in closed areas. Depending on catch rates in the closed areas, the cost of fishing elsewhere, and the likelihood of AMs being triggered, this could increase revenues for these common pool vessels over the no action alternative.
The proposed action and alternatives are described in detail in Framework 48, which includes an EA, RIR, and IRFA (See ADDRESSES ).
Description of the Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements
The proposed action contains a collection-of-information requirement subject to review and approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This requirement will be submitted to OMB for approval. The proposed action does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules.
This action proposes to adjust the sector at-sea monitoring pre-trip notification and NEFOP notification implemented through Amendment 16. This rule would add a question to allow fishermen to indicate what fishery they intend to participate in
(PRA). This requirement will be submitted to OMB for approval. The proposed action does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules.
This action proposes to adjust the sector at-sea monitoring pre-trip notification and NEFOP notification implemented through Amendment 16. This rule would add a question to allow fishermen to indicate what fishery they intend to participate in. This change is necessary to identify monkfish trips in Southern New England that may qualify for the exemption from sector at-sea monitoring coverage, in order to deploy at-sea monitors appropriately to achieve the coverage levels required by the FMP. Currently, all groundfish vessels make these notifications to the NEFOP through the PTNS or via an online form, a telephone call, or email to NEFOP. When sector at-sea monitoring programs become established, the pre-trip notification may be made to NEFOP or other at-sea monitoring provider, via a telephone call or email or through a secure database. The proposed change would only add a question to these notifications and would not affect the number of entities required to comply with these notification. Therefore, the proposed change would not be expected to increase the time or cost burden associated with either requirement.
Public reporting burden for these requirements includes the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648
Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: March 20, 2013. Alan D. Risenhoover, Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, performing the functions and duties of the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 648—FISHERIES OF THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES

1
ping requirements.

Dated: March 20, 2013. Alan D. R

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

## Nearby sections

- [78 FR 212 Paper and Paper-Based Packaging Promotion, Research and Information Order; Referendum Procedures](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2012-30915.md)
- [78 FR 275 Airworthiness Directives; REIMS Aviation S.A. Airplanes](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2012-31602.md)
- [78 FR 909 Further Proposed Guidance Regarding Compliance With Certain Swap Regulations](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2012-31734.md)
- [78 FR 1193 Retrospective Analysis of Existing Rules; Notification](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2012-31623.md)
- [78 FR 1536 Fall 2012 Semiannual Agenda of Regulations](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2012-31489.md)
- [78 FR 1598 Semiannual Agenda of Regulations](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2012-31499.md)
- [78 FR 1624 Fall 2012 Regulatory Agenda](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2012-31502.md)
- [78 FR 1632 Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2012-31504.md)
- [78 FR 1646 Semiannual Regulatory Agenda](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2012-31510.md)
- [78 FR 1652 Semiannual Regulatory Agenda](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2012-31512.md)
- [78 FR 1798 Receipt of a Pesticide Petition Filed for Residues of Pesticide Chemicals in or on Various Commodities](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2013-00272.md)
- [78 FR 2225 Special Local Regulation; 2013 Lauderdale Air Show, Atlantic Ocean; Fort Lauderdale, FL](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2013-00275.md)
- [78 FR 2249 Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northeast Multispecies Fishery; Proposed Rule To Implement a Targeted Acadian Redfish Fishery for Sector Vessels; Reopening of Comment Period](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2013-00345.md)
- [78 FR 2340 Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Residential Water Heaters and Commercial Water Heaters](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2013-00483.md)

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2013-06774. Check the current official text before relying on it. Not legal advice.