Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; General Provisions for Domestic Fisheries; Application for Fishing Year 2014 Sector Exemption, 12349-12351 [2015-05366]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 45 (Monday, March 9, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 12349-12351]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-05366]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 648

RIN 0648-XD775


Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; General Provisions for Domestic 
Fisheries; Application for Fishing Year 2014 Sector Exemption

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

ACTION: Final grant of regulatory exemptions.

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

SUMMARY: The Regional Administrator, Greater Atlantic Region, NMFS, has 
approved a request for exemptions from two recently implemented Gulf of 
Maine cod interim management measures.

DATES: The effective dates of these regulatory exemptions are from 
March 4, 2015 through April 30, 2015. The regulatory exemptions were 
applicable on March 3, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Whitmore, Fisheries Policy 
Analyst, 978-281-9182.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    On March 3, 2015, we granted several groundfish sectors their 
request for exemptions from two management measures implemented in a 
temporary rule intended to enhance protections for Gulf of Maine (GOM) 
cod (79 FR 67362; November 13, 2014). The GOM cod interim rule 
implemented several management restrictions including: (1) A GOM cod 
trip limit of 200 lb (90.7 kg) for groundfish sector vessels and; (2) a 
restriction limiting commercial limited access groundfish vessels to 
fishing only in the GOM broad stock area (BSA) for the duration of the 
declared trip. The interim rule also established a series of time and 
area closures to protect GOM cod but we are not relieving or granting 
any exemptions from those closures.
    On February 9, 2015, we received an exemption request from several 
sectors. These sectors worked together to assemble 30 mt of GOM cod 
annual catch entitlement (ACE), which was traded to Northeast Fishery 
Sector IV, a lease-only sector with no active fishing effort. That 
sector proposed to withhold and render unusable that 30 mt of GOM cod 
ACE, including preventing its use for potential carryover to the next 
fishing year, if sectors are granted regulatory exemptions from the GOM 
cod trip limit and GOM BSA restriction.
    As explained in our February 23, 2015, notice (80 FR 9438), the 
sectors proposed to implement a management measure we did not include 
in our November 13, 2014, GOM cod interim rule: A reduction to the ACE 
available to those sectors that have opted to fish under these 
regulatory exemptions for the remainder of the fishing year. Because 
the fishing industry will continue to fish through the end of the 
fishing year, and will continue to encounter GOM cod, the sector 
exemptions would establish a firm 30-mt reduction in the limit on total 
cod catch that is expected to be greater than the mortality reduction 
that would otherwise be achieved through the interim trip-limit 
measure. In addition to an actual reduction in the total potential cod 
catch, these sector exemptions should reduce regulatory discards, 
reduce management uncertainty affiliated with catch and mortality, and 
improve catch yield, while providing greater operational flexibility. 
For these reasons, we have determined that these exemptions are 
consistent with the goals and objectives of the interim measures and 
the fishery management plan.
    Also in our February 23, 2015, notice, we proposed a daily catch 
reporting requirement in place of the BSA exemption. This requirement 
was intended to address our concerns about the accurate apportionment 
of catch between the BSAs and the incentive to misreport catch on 
unobserved trips to avoid potentially constraining catch limits. We 
noted these same concerns in our 2014 interim action for GOM cod. 
Additionally, this issue was discussed during the development of 
Framework Adjustment 53 to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery 
Management Plan, and is noted in various analyses prepared by the 
Council in support of Framework 53. We are continuing to consider the 
possibility of additional reporting requirements (e.g., daily Vessel 
Monitoring System catch reports) for commercial groundfish vessels that 
could improve attribution of catch and help reduce the incentive to 
misreport. We are not specifically requiring these additional 
requirements in this action, however, to provide time for further 
deliberation. We intend to further consult with the Council on this 
issue to explore whether additional reporting requirements implemented 
through a future rule-making could help address the noted concerns.
    We received a total of 24 comments in response to our February 23 
notice soliciting public comment on the sector exemption request: 16 
comments in support of the exemption requests; 3 partially supporting 
the requests; 4 opposed to the requests; and 1 comment that was not 
applicable to the exemptions. Comments were submitted by 17 members of 
the fishing industry, Maine Division of Marine Resources (ME DMR), 
Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries (MA DMF), and four 
environmental non-governmental organizations. Most of the commenters 
simply favored or opposed granting the exemption requests and did not 
otherwise substantively address the details of the exemptions. ME DMR 
supports the exemptions and the additional flexibility they would 
provide to fishermen, but expressed some concern about GOM cod catch 
reporting. In addition to supporting our granting the exemption 
request, MA DMF submitted lengthy comments, including several questions 
and requests for clarifications, which we respond to further below.
    Several commenters opposed removing the GOM BSA restriction due to 
concern that vessels could misreport GOM cod catch as Georges Bank cod. 
While we understand this concern, this is a larger issue that should be 
addressed through a more long-term solution developed by the New 
England Fishery Management Council. We intend to further consult with 
the Council on this issue.
    Some commenters claimed that the exemptions provided benefits to 
larger vessels that could fish offshore but did relatively little to 
help inshore fishing vessels. Most of the GOM cod stock is located 
inshore in the western Gulf of Maine. Therefore, in order to protect 
the most concentrated stocks of GOM cod, we need to reduce fishing 
efforts inshore. This is why the majority of the seasonal interim 
closure areas are inshore and the inshore/dayboat fleet is affected the 
most by the GOM cod seasonal interim closure areas. We considered these 
exemption requests as they were presented to us. Our analyses showed a 
more certain benefit to the fishery overall than the likely potential 
benefit from maintaining trip limits or the single GOM BSA restriction. 
Based on this, we have determined that these exemptions fairly and 
reasonably promote overall conservation consistent with the goals and 
objectives of the groundfish fishery management plan.
    The Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) and the Center for Biological 
Diversity (CBD) opposed the exemption requests because they do not 
adequately

[[Page 12350]]

address the overfishing of GOM cod or efforts to rebuild the overfished 
stocks. We evaluated the impacts of these exemptions compared to the 
status quo under the current GOM cod interim measures. The analyses in 
our supplemental information report indicates that granting these 
exemptions will likely result in conservation positive biological 
impacts as well as positive economic impacts relative to not granting 
the exemptions. We understand that additional measures may need to be 
developed to protect and rebuild GOM cod over the long term. The 
comments provided by CLF and CBD that focused on general GOM cod 
management measures, however, are beyond the scope of these exemption 
requests and are impracticable to address in this document, especially 
given the limited time available, as well as the GOM cod interim 
action. We have concluded that the benefits from approving this 
exemption outweigh the concerns expressed by those that do not support 
the exemption request, particularly because these exemptions are 
effective only from March 4, 2015 through April 30, 2015.
    MA DMF requested that we provide a more thorough explanation of why 
we elected to remove the 200-lb (90.7-kg) trip limit. During the GOM 
cod interim rule public comment period, several sectors proposed a 
similar offer to remove the trip limit in favor of an overall ACE 
reduction; however, we could not develop a means to reduce sector ACE 
through the interim action in a sufficiently timely manner. Re-
allocating a reduced quota amongst all the sectors was too complex and 
potentially disruptive. For example, reducing the allocation of all 
permits enrolled in sectors would create complex logistical challenges 
for sector managers who would then need to reallocate ACE mid-way 
through the fishing year. We were also unsure how to enforce the 
sectors' voluntary proposal not to utilize the ACE through the interim 
action. Also, as explained below, fishing practices changed after the 
GOM cod interim action was put in place. Taking into account these 
changes, our comparison of the potential conservation benefits of the 
trip limits to the firm reduction in the GOM cod ACE weighed in favor 
of removing the trip limit. Further, the sectors submission of a 
regulatory exemption request to voluntarily reduce their ACE provided a 
more feasible and timely process than the interim action process.
    MA DMF questioned how we can claim that removing trip limits (and 
potentially allowing vessels to target cod) reduces regulatory 
discarding. We expect that removing the 200 lb. trip limit should 
reduce regulatory discarding because vessels will no longer be required 
to discard legal sized fish that are caught after the 200-lb limit is 
attained. With trip limits under the interim rule, any undersized fish 
and GOM cod caught after 200 lb (90.7 kg) was on board the vessel was 
legally required to be discarded. Data analyzed after the trip limits 
were implemented (see Figure 2, pg. 8 in the GOM cod Supplemental 
Information Report) indicates that groundfish vessels appeared to 
target GOM cod even with a 200-lb (90.7-kg) trip limit in place. 
Because vessels are required to discard all cod over the 200-lb. limit, 
we were concerned with the potential for increased discards that would 
accompany this increased effort. Removing the trip limit allows vessels 
to discard only fish that are undersized. We stated in our notice that 
with trip limits, there was uncertainty in the amount of reduction in 
cod mortality, in large part due to the uncertainty in the rate of 
discards, but also in the total amount of catch that sectors might 
achieve. Removing the trip limits is expected to reduce discards 
because it allows discarding only of undersized fish and substantially 
reduce the uncertainty in the rate of discards. The 30-mt reduction in 
ACE also provides a firm limit on the total amount of catch.
    MA DMF expressed concern over our proposal to approve minor sector 
exemption modifications without additional notice because they felt 
that we did not adequately define ``minor.'' As explained in the 
notice, our intent is to modify sector exemptions in this manner only 
if a modification is deemed essential to facilitate the exemption and 
has minimal impacts that would not change the scope or impact of the 
initially approved sector exemption request. We interpret this to mean 
that any small change that is necessary for the exemption to be 
implemented properly could be done so without additional notice. We 
expect such changes to be administrative in nature. For instance, there 
may be a monitoring or reporting detail that is inadvertently 
overlooked that could be enacted to improve the effectiveness of the 
exemption. We believe any such change would not alter the intent, 
affect, or impacts of the exemption.
    Several commenters, including MA DMF, suggested that we should have 
further considered the additional 30-mt set-aside offered by the 
sectors in exchange for access to the March GOM cod seasonal interim 
closure areas. These commenters argue that the inshore fleet would 
greatly benefit from fishing in the March closure areas. The primary 
tool in the GOM cod interim rule to reduce GOM cod mortality and 
protect spawning GOM cod was area closures. We spent considerable time 
and effort determining the correct seasons and times and received many 
comments in support of the GOM cod interim seasonal closure areas. 
Also, the commenters have not proposed any comparable protection 
measures for spawning cod that would support modifying these area 
closures. For these reasons, we are unwilling to modify the March 
closure areas.
    MA DMF asked which sectors contributed to the 30-mt set-aside and 
inquired whether the allocation reductions were commensurate with how 
much ACE was set aside (or contributed by each sector). Sector ACE 
trade information is available online at https://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/aps/monitoring/nemultispecies.html. We regard the relative amount of ACE contributed 
by each sector to be irrelevant to the total reduction in ACE because 
the sectors requesting the exemptions specifically requested to offer 
the exemption to every sector, regardless of whether or not it 
contributed GOM cod ACE to the set-aside. Also, which sector provided 
the ACE is irrelevant to the certainty of the conservation benefit 
provided by the ACE reduction this fishing year.
    We are not putting in place a 30-day delay in effectiveness for 
this action because this document grants exemptions that relieve two 
regulatory restrictions. By recognizing an exemption and eliminating 
the 200-lb GOM cod trip limit and allowing vessels to fish inside and 
outside of the GOM on the same trip, this action is excepted from the 
30-day delayed effectiveness provision of the APA pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 
553(d)(1). This action will allow fishing vessels enrolled in sectors 
greater operational flexibility, which should improve efficiency while 
providing a certain limit on GOM cod mortality. Furthermore, there is 
good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to implement these exemptions 
immediately because a delay in implementation of these measures would 
reduce the positive economic impacts and potential conservation 
benefits that are intended by these measures. These exemptions are 
effective only from March 4, 2015 through April 30, 2015. Any delay in 
effectiveness would be contrary to the public interest because it would 
significantly reduce the benefits of these measures to groundfish 
sector

[[Page 12351]]

participants, associated fishing communities, and the GOM cod stock.
    These exemptions apply only for the remainder of the 2014 fishing 
year and are available to all sectors who request them. Sector vessels 
that wish to fish under these exemptions must have the appropriate 
Letter of Authorization on board their vessel prior to harvesting more 
than 200 lb (90.7 kg) of GOM cod or fishing inside and outside of the 
GOM BSA on the same trip. The following sectors have received revised 
Letters of Authorization allowing them to fish under these exemptions: 
Maine Coastal Communities Sector; Northeast Fishery Sectors II, III, 
VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XI; and Sustainable Harvest Sector 1.

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

    Dated: March 4, 2015.
Alan D. Risenhoover,
Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries 
Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-05366 Filed 3-4-15; 4:15 pm]
 BILLING CODE 3510-22-P