Fisheries of the United States; Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act; National Standard 4, 8, and 9 Guidelines, 30934-30938 [2023-10294]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
30934
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 93 / Monday, May 15, 2023 / Proposed Rules
search, if the title or abstract (if
provided) of the VCS described
technical sampling and analytical
procedures that are similar to the EPA’s
reference method, the EPA ordered a
copy of the standard and reviewed it as
a potential equivalent method. We
reviewed all potential standards to
determine the practicality of the VCS for
this proposed rule. This review requires
significant method validation data that
meet the requirements of EPA Method
301 for accepting alternative methods or
scientific, engineering, and policy
equivalence to procedures in the EPA
referenced methods. The EPA may
reconsider determinations of
impracticality when additional
information is available for any
particular VCS.
No voluntary consensus standards
were identified for EPA Methods 1, 1A,
2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, 2G, 3, 3A, 4, 5, 5D,
17 or 26A. Two voluntary consensus
standards were identified as acceptable
alternatives to EPA Methods 3B and 29.
The EPA proposes to allow use of the
VCS ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–1981 Part
10 (2010), ‘‘Flue and Exhaust Gas
Analyses’’ as an acceptable alternative
to EPA Method 3B for the manual
procedures only and not the
instrumental procedures. The ANSI/
ASME PTC 19.10–1981 Part 10 method
incorporates both manual and
instrumental methodologies for the
determination of oxygen content. The
manual method segment of the oxygen
determination is performed through the
absorption of oxygen. This method is
available at the American National
Standards Institute (ANSI), 1899 L
Street NW, 11th Floor, Washington, DC
20036 and the American Society of
Mechanical Engineers (ASME), Three
Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016–
5990. See https://www.ansi.org and
https://www.asme.org. The standard is
available to everyone at a cost
determined by ANSI/ASME ($96). The
cost of obtaining this method is not a
significant financial burden, making the
methods reasonably available.
The EPA proposes to allow use of the
VCS ASTM D6784–16, ‘‘Standard Test
Method for Elemental, Oxidized,
Particle-Bound and Total Mercury in
Flue Gas Generated from Coal-Fired
Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro
Method)’’ as an acceptable alternative to
EPA Method 29 (mercury portion only)
as a method for measuring mercury
concentrations ranging from
approximately 0.5 to 100 micrograms
per normal cubic meter (mg/Nm3). This
test method describes equipment and
procedures for obtaining samples from
effluent ducts and stacks, equipment
and procedures for laboratory analysis,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:46 May 12, 2023
Jkt 259001
and procedures for calculating results.
VCS ASTM D6784–16 allows for
additional flexibility in the sampling
and analytical procedures from the
earlier version of the same standard VCS
ASTM D6784–02 (Reapproved 2008).
VCS ASTM D6784–16 allows for the use
of either an EPA Method 17 sampling
configuration with a fixed (single) point
where the flue gas is not stratified, or an
EPA Method 5 sampling configuration
with a multi-point traverse. For this
action, only the EPA Method 5 sampling
configuration with a multi-point
traverse can be used. This method is
available at ASTM International, 1850
M Street NW, Suite 1030, Washington,
DC 20036. See https://www.astm.org/.
The standard is available to everyone at
a cost determined by ASTM ($82). The
cost of obtaining this method is not a
significant financial burden, making the
method reasonably available.
Additional detailed information on
the VCS search and determination can
be found in the memorandum,
Voluntary Consensus Standard Results
for National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants: Taconite Iron
Ore Processing, which is available in the
docket for this action (Docket ID No.
EPA–HQ–OAR–2017–0664). The EPA
welcomes comments on this aspect of
the proposed rulemaking and,
specifically, invites the public to
identify potentially applicable VCS and
to explain why such standards should
be used in this regulation.
The EPA is incorporating by reference
the VCS ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–1981
Part 10 (2010), ‘‘Flue and Exhaust Gas
Analyses’’ as an acceptable alternative
to EPA Method 3B for the determination
of oxygen content (manual procedures
only) and the VCS ASTM D6784–16,
‘‘Standard Test Method for Elemental,
Oxidized, Particle-Bound and Total
Mercury in Flue Gas Generated from
Coal-Fired Stationary Sources (Ontario
Hydro Method),’’ as an acceptable
alternative to EPA Method 29 (mercury
portion only) as a method for measuring
elemental, oxidized, particle-bound, and
total mercury.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629;
February 16, 1994) directs Federal
agencies, to the greatest extent
practicable and permitted by law, to
make environmental justice part of their
mission by identifying and addressing,
as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or
environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
populations (people of color and/or
indigenous peoples) and low-income
populations.
The EPA anticipates that the human
health or environmental conditions that
exist prior to this action result in or
have the potential to result in
disproportionate and adverse human
health or environmental effects on lowincome populations and/or indigenous
peoples. The assessment of populations
in close proximity of taconite iron ore
processing plants shows Native
American and low-income populations
are higher than the national average (see
section V.F. of this preamble). The
higher percentages are driven by two of
the eight facilities in the source
category. The EPA anticipates that this
action is likely to reduce existing
disproportionate and adverse effects on
low-income populations and/or
indigenous peoples. The EPA is
proposing new MACT standards for
mercury and revised standards for HCl
and HF. The EPA expects that five
facilities would have to implement
control measures to reduce emissions to
comply with the new and revised
MACT standards and that HAP
exposures for indigenous peoples and
low-income individuals living near
these five facilities would decrease. The
information supporting this Executive
order review is contained in section V.E
of this preamble.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Incorporation by reference,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Michael S. Regan,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2023–10068 Filed 5–12–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 600
[Docket No. 230509–0128]
RIN 0648–BM17
Fisheries of the United States;
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act;
National Standard 4, 8, and 9
Guidelines
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\15MYP1.SGM
15MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 93 / Monday, May 15, 2023 / Proposed Rules
Advance notice of proposed
rulemaking (ANPR); request for
comments.
ACTION:
NMFS is publishing this
ANPR to alert the public of potential
future adjustments the agency may
make to the implementing guidelines for
National Standards 4, 8, or 9, of the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act
(MSA). Several ongoing fishing
management challenges, including
changes in environmental conditions,
shifting distributions of fish stocks, and
equity and environmental justice
considerations that affect fishing
communities that are currently or have
been historically dependent on the
resource, suggest a need to revisit the
guidelines to ensure they remain
appropriate for current U.S. fisheries
management. The intent of this notice is
to provide the public with background
on some of the specific issues under
consideration, seek specific input, and
provide a general opportunity for
comment. NMFS will take public
comment into consideration when it
decides whether or not to propose
changes to the guidelines for National
Standards 4, 8, or 9.
DATES: Comments must be received by
5 p.m., local time, on September 12,
2023.
SUMMARY:
You may submit comments
on this document, identified by
‘‘NOAA–HQ–2023–0060’’, by any one of
the following methods:
• Electronic Submissions: Submit all
electronic public comments via the
Federal eRulemaking Portal:
www.regulations.gov. To submit
comments via the e-Rulemaking Portal,
first click the ‘‘submit a comment’’ icon,
then enter ‘‘NOAA–HQ–2023–0060’’ in
the keyword search. Locate the
document you wish to comment on
from the resulting list and click on the
‘‘Submit a Comment’’ icon on the right
of that line.
• Mail: Wendy Morrison; National
Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA; 1315
East-West Highway, Room 13436; Silver
Spring, MD 20910.
Instructions: Comments must be
submitted by one of the above methods
to ensure that the comments are
received, documented, and considered
by NMFS. Comments sent by any other
method, to another address or
individual, or received after the end of
the comment period, may not be
considered. All comments received are
part of the public record and will
generally be posted for public viewing
on www.regulations.gov without change.
All personal identifying information
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
ADDRESSES:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:46 May 12, 2023
Jkt 259001
(e.g., name, address, etc.) submitted
voluntarily by the sender will be
publicly accessible. Do not submit
confidential business information or
otherwise sensitive or protected
information. NMFS will accept
anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/A’’ in
the required fields if you wish to remain
anonymous).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Wendy Morrison, Fisheries Policy
Analyst, National Marine Fisheries
Service, 301–427–8564.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 301(a) of the MSA contains 10
national standards for fishery
conservation and management. Any
fishery management plan (FMP)
prepared under the MSA, and any
regulation adopted under the MSA to
implement any such plan, must be
consistent with these national
standards.
• National Standard 4 (NS4) of the
MSA states that conservation and
management measures shall not
discriminate between residents of
different states. If it becomes necessary
to allocate or assign fishing privileges
among various United States fishermen,
such allocation shall be (a) fair and
equitable to all such fishermen; (b)
reasonably calculated to promote
conservation; and (c) carried out in such
manner that no particular individual,
corporation, or other entity acquires an
excessive share of such privilege.
• National Standard 8 (NS8) states
that conservation and management
measures shall, consistent with the
conservation requirements of the MSA
(including the prevention of overfishing
and rebuilding of overfished stocks),
take into account the importance of
fishery resources to fishing communities
by utilizing economic and social data
that are consistent with the best
scientific information available, in order
to (a) provide for the sustained
participation of such communities, and
(b) to the extent practicable, minimize
adverse economic impacts on such
communities.
• National Standard 9 (NS9) states
that conservation and management
measures shall, to the extent practicable,
(a) minimize bycatch and (b) to the
extent bycatch cannot be avoided,
minimize the mortality of such bycatch.
Section 301(b) of the MSA requires
that the Secretary of Commerce
establish advisory guidelines, based on
the national standards, to assist in the
development of FMPs. These guidelines
do not have the force and effect of law;
however, the courts often give deference
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
30935
to the agency’s interpretations in the
guidelines. Guidelines for National
Standards 4, 8, and 9 are codified at 50
CFR 600.325 (NS4), 600.345 (NS8), and
600.350 (NS9). NMFS last revised the
NS4 Guidelines on May 1, 1998 (63 FR
24212), NS8 Guidelines on November
17, 2008 (73 FR 67809), and NS9
Guidelines on November 17, 2008 (73
FR 67809).
Since these guidelines were last
revised, a number of fishery
management challenges, including
changes in environmental conditions
and shifting distributions of fish stocks,
suggest a need to revisit the guidelines
to ensure they remain appropriate for
current U.S. fisheries management.
Recent Executive Orders (E.O.s), such as
E.O. 14008 on Tackling the Climate
Crisis at Home and Abroad, and E.O.
13985 on Advancing Racial Equity and
Support for Underserved Communities
Through the Federal Government, as
well as relevant policy documents (e.g.,
NOAA fiscal year 2022–2026 Strategic
Plan) highlight NMFS’ commitment to
plan for climate change impacts and to
serve stakeholders equitably by
engaging underserved communities in
the science, conservation, and
management of the nation’s fisheries,
consistent with existing law. NMFS
strongly supports the need to further
improve adaptability of our
management processes in the context of
changing environmental conditions and
ensure equity and environmental justice
(that is, equity applied to environmental
laws, policies, and practices) within the
fishery management process. As such,
NMFS is soliciting input on potential
future revisions to the National
Standards 4, 8, and 9 Guidelines that
would address recent fishery
management challenges, bolster climate
adaptability, and encourage equity and
environmental justice within the fishery
management process under the existing
provisions of the MSA.
Background on the National Standards
National Standard 4
Allocation of fishing privileges under
NS4 guidelines refers to the direct and
deliberate distribution of the
opportunity to participate in a fishery
among user groups or individuals. See
50 CFR 600.325(c)(1). Decisions
regarding the allocation of fishery
resources are often controversial and
challenging. In general, increases to one
group result in decreases to another,
leading to allocation decisions being
perceived as a ‘‘win’’ for some
fishermen or fisheries and a ‘‘loss’’ for
others. A 2012 report based on
interviews with fishery stakeholders
E:\FR\FM\15MYP1.SGM
15MYP1
30936
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 93 / Monday, May 15, 2023 / Proposed Rules
regarding allocation found that the
concepts of fairness and equity are
complicated and often vary depending
on individual circumstances (Lapointe
2012 at https://media.fisheries.noaa
.gov/dam-migration/lapointe-allocationreport.pdf). This report concluded that
many stakeholders will continue to
view allocations as unbalanced or unfair
unless the outcomes are close to the
positions they seek.
In addition to the existing NS4
guidelines, NMFS created an Allocation
Policy (available at https://
media.fisheries.noaa.gov/dammigration/01-119.pdf) in 2016 that
requires the eight Regional Fishery
Management Councils (Councils), and
NMFS for Atlantic Highly Migratory
Species (HMS), to identify a trigger for
all fisheries that contain an allocation.
The trigger could be based on time,
public input, or an indicator. When a
specified trigger is met, the Council or
NMFS must assess if a revision to the
allocation is needed. However, the
Allocation Policy does not require
Councils or NMFS to implement any
changes to the allocation.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
National Standard 8
National Standard 8 requires that an
FMP take into account the importance
of fishery resources to fishing
communities in order to provide for the
sustained participation of—and
minimize adverse economic impacts
on—such communities. However, both
NMFS guidance and court precedent
establish that minimizing adverse
impacts on communities must be
considered secondary to the
conservation requirements of the MSA.
In short, actions meant to address the
importance of fishery resources to
affected fishing communities must not
compromise the achievement of
conservation requirements and goals of
the FMP. As the current NS8 guidelines
clarify: ‘‘All other things being equal,
where two alternatives achieve similar
conservation goals, the alternative that
provides the greater potential for
sustained participation of such
communities and minimizes the adverse
economic impacts on such communities
would be the preferred alternative.’’
National Standard 9
Fishermen sometimes catch, and may
discard, species they do not want,
cannot sell, or are not allowed to keep,
creating what we know as bycatch.
Bycatch is a complex, global issue. The
MSA defines bycatch as ‘‘fish which are
harvested in a fishery, but which are not
sold or kept for personal use, and
includes economic discards and
regulatory discards. This term does not
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:46 May 12, 2023
Jkt 259001
include fish released alive under a
recreational catch and release fishery
management program.’’ 16 U.S.C.
1802(2). It also does not include
incidental catch, or non-target catch,
that is sold or kept for personal use. The
MSA definition of ‘‘fish’’ does not
include marine mammals and birds,
thus bycatch of these animals is not
included under this standard. NS9
requires that bycatch and bycatch
mortality (e.g., unobserved mortality
due to a direct encounter with fishing
vessels and gear) shall be minimized to
the extent practicable.
In considering potential revisions to
the guidance for these three national
standards, NMFS is seeking comment
on the following issues, in particular (in
no specific order).
Tackling the Climate Crisis
The changing climate and oceans
have significant impacts on the nation’s
valuable marine life and ecosystems,
and the many communities and
economies that depend on them.
Scientists expect environmental changes
such as warming oceans, rising sea
levels, frequency and intensity of floods
and droughts, and ocean acidification to
increase with continued shifts in the
planet’s climate system. Changing ocean
conditions are affecting the location and
productivity of fish stocks and the
fishing industry’s interactions with
bycatch, protected species, and other
ocean users. Some fish stocks are
becoming less productive and/or are
moving out of range of the fishermen
who catch them. These shifts can cause
social, economic, and other impacts on
fisheries and fishing-dependent
communities. As a result, fishing
industries and coastal businesses can
face significant challenges in preparing
for and adapting to these changing
conditions. NMFS understands the
importance of updating fisheries
management to address current and
anticipated needs and conditions,
including dynamic stock conditions and
changing ocean conditions. The issues
associated with changing climate
conditions that NMFS is requesting
comment on in relation to National
Standards 4, 8, and 9 are outlined
below.
1. National Standard 4:
Environmental changes are affecting,
and will continue to affect, stock
distributions and abundances, and have
the potential to change the applicability
of historical information and current
regulations. Most allocations established
by the Councils and NMFS are highly
complex and supported by extensive
analyses. Determinations of many, but
not all, of the existing allocations have
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
relied heavily on documented catch or
landings during specific time periods.
Considering documented catch in the
development of allocations is important
to help participants maintain access to
resources they have been dependent
upon, and to document compliance
with statutory requirements. However, it
is also important to consider the needs
of other users, such as new fishermen
who would like to enter a fishery,
fishermen displaced from other
fisheries, and/or existing fishermen who
are catching new species in their
historical fishing grounds.
NMFS is considering whether updates
to the NS4 guidelines would help
encourage allocation decisions that
balance the needs of different user
groups when creating and updating
allocations, including for stocks that are
shifting, or have shifted, their
distribution. NMFS welcomes specific
input on:
(a) Approaches, consistent with other
statutory requirements, for balancing
consideration of anticipated or realized
changes in stock distributions and/or
overall fishery access for historical
users, marginalized individuals who
may have been inequitably excluded
from historical allocations, and new
users in such allocation decisions;
(b) Whether revisions to the NS4
guidelines are needed to reinforce
NMFS’ Allocation Policy’s requirement
to complete periodic reviews of
allocations; and
(c) The types of documentation,
analyses, and alternative approaches
(e.g., spatial allocations between sectors
or gears, mixes of historic use and
dynamic allocation schemes) that
should be considered when making
such allocation decisions.
2. National Standard 8:
Environmental changes are affecting,
and will continue to affect, stock
distributions and abundances, creating
challenges for communities dependent
on those resources. NMFS is requesting
comments on options for updating the
guidelines to NS8 to better account for
these changes and to improve the ability
of communities to adapt to these
changing conditions.
3. National Standard 9:
Environmental changes are affecting,
and will continue to affect, the
distributions of many marine resources,
including target fish stocks, bycatch fish
stocks and protected resources. This has
and will continue to create challenges to
maintaining economic viability of
fisheries while also ensuring sustainable
management of all marine resources.
NMFS is requesting comments on
options for updating the guidelines to
E:\FR\FM\15MYP1.SGM
15MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 93 / Monday, May 15, 2023 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
NS9 to better account for and adapt to
these changes.
Equity and Environmental Justice
NMFS is committed to advancing
equity and environmental justice,
including equal treatment,
opportunities, and environmental
benefits for all people and communities,
while building on continuing efforts and
partnerships with underserved and
underrepresented communities. For
purposes of this document, consistent
with E.O. 13985, ‘‘underserved
communities’’ refers to ‘‘populations
sharing a particular characteristic, as
well as geographic communities, that
have been systematically denied a full
opportunity to participate in aspects of
economic, social, and civil life.’’ The
issues associated with equity and
environmental justice that NMFS is
requesting comment on are outlined
below.
1. National Standard 4: The existing
NS4 guidelines provide limited
guidance on what is meant by ‘‘fair’’ and
‘‘equitable’’, in order to allow Councils
and NMFS the flexibility to interpret
these terms as needed within their
circumstances given the variability in
fisheries across the country. NMFS
asserts it would be difficult to provide
additional guidance on these terms that
will be appropriate across the variety of
social, economic, and ecological
conditions of the eight Councils and
Atlantic HMS.
NMFS requests specific input on:
(a) Approaches to improve
consideration of underserved
communities, previously excluded
entrants, and new entrants in allocation
decisions; and
(b) The types of documentation and
analyses that should be considered to
ensure such allocation decisions are fair
and equitable. Commenters on this issue
should bear in mind the requirements of
MSA sections 303(b)(6) and
303A(c)(3)(B), (c)(4)(C), and (c)(5) that
require consideration of current and
past participation as well as other
considerations when developing limited
entry programs, Limited Access
Privilege Programs (LAPPs), and initial
allocations for LAPPs.
2. National Standard 8: NMFS is
committed to serving stakeholders
equitably by engaging underserved
communities in the science,
conservation, and management of the
nation’s fisheries. NMFS does not
believe that the existing NS8 guidelines
limit NMFS’ or the Councils’ ability to
implement regulations and policies that
address inequities or barriers to access
for underserved communities. However,
NMFS is considering removing language
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:46 May 12, 2023
Jkt 259001
in the NS8 guidelines that states that
NS8 ‘‘does not constitute a basis for
allocating resources to a specific fishing
community nor for providing
preferential treatment based on
residence in a fishing community.’’ This
text may be unnecessary and confusing,
given that NS8 does not specifically
authorize, or prohibit, allocations to
fishing communities. NMFS recognizes
that allocations to a specific fishing
community may be beneficial in some
situations, if supported with appropriate
rationale, and if NS8 is not the sole
basis for making such allocations.
NMFS is also considering revising the
definition of fishing community within
the guidelines. The MSA defines a
fishing community as ‘‘a community
which is substantially dependent on or
substantially engaged in the harvest or
processing of fishery resources to meet
social and economic needs, and
includes fishing vessel owners,
operators, and crew and United States
fish processors that are based in such
communities.’’ 16 U.S.C. 1802(17). The
current NS8 guidelines add to the
statutory definition by stating a fishing
community is ‘‘a social or economic
group whose members reside in a
specific location and share a common
dependency on commercial,
recreational, or subsistence fishing or on
directly related fisheries-dependent
services and industries (for example,
boatyards, ice suppliers, tackle shops).’’
50 CFR 600.345(b)(3). Given the wide
range of fishing community structures
(including locations of fishing
infrastructure and fishing-related
economic activity) associated across the
U.S. and its territories, NMFS is
considering removing or revisiting the
requirement for members to reside in a
specific location. In addition, NMFS is
also considering adjusting how the
‘‘fishing community’’ definition under
the NS8 guidelines balances between
dependency and engagement. As stocks
decrease in abundance or shift
distributions, communities will likely
need to adapt. One option could be for
a community to increase their resilience
by decreasing their dependence on one
or more particular stocks or fisheries
(i.e., diversifying the fisheries that can
be accessed). Thus, NMFS is
considering revising the definition to
shift from focusing on ‘‘dependence’’ to
focusing on ‘‘engagement,’’ as both are
included within the MSA definition.
Shifting the focus of the definition of
‘‘fishing community’’ towards
‘‘engagement’’ could help provide that
those communities that undertake
engagement efforts that build up the
community’s economic resilience, while
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
30937
still being engaged with fisheries, could
continue to be considered a ‘‘fishing
community’’ under the NS8 guidelines.
NMFS requests input on the definition
of ‘‘fishing community’’ within the NS8
guidelines, including the use of ‘‘current
and historical engagement’’ instead of or
in addition to ‘‘dependence’’.
Finally, NMFS welcomes suggestions
on how to appropriately balance the
requirement under NS8 for ‘‘sustained
participation’’ of fishing communities
and the need to improve consideration
of (1) underserved communities
currently or historically engaged with
fisheries, (2) previously excluded
entrants, (3) new entrants, and (4)
communities with high levels of social
or climate vulnerability. NMFS also
welcomes input on appropriate
measures of social and climate
vulnerability for fishing communities.
3. National Standard 9: Conflict
between fisheries and gears is common
in fisheries management, via overlap in
geographic areas fished or species
caught. Relevant to NS9 is the situation
where bycatch in one fishery has
negative impacts on another fishery,
usually via a restricting limit on total
fishing mortality for a shared stock. For
example, bycatch of one species in a
fishery may reduce the amount of that
species available to harvest in a target
commercial fishery, recreational fishery,
or subsistence fishery. The issue can be
further complicated when one or more
fisheries in conflict are important for
underserved communities. NMFS
welcomes input on how the NS9
guidelines could be modified to
minimize bycatch mortality in a manner
that is equitable across different
fisheries and gear types. NMFS also
welcomes comments on ways to better
balance the needs of bycatch and target
fisheries in a manner that is equitable
across different fisheries and gear types,
especially when one or more fisheries
are important for underserved
communities.
Other Relevant Management Challenges
There are other fisheries and
management issues relevant to National
Standards 4, 8 and 9 that are not
covered above. NMFS is requesting
comment on two of these issues in
particular, as described below.
1. Practicability Standard: NS9
requires bycatch and bycatch mortality
be minimized ‘‘to the extent
practicable’’. NMFS asserts the
discussion of practicability within the
existing NS9 guidelines appropriately
balances the various complexities of
federal fisheries management. NMFS
welcomes input on how the NS9
guidelines could be modified to further
E:\FR\FM\15MYP1.SGM
15MYP1
30938
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 93 / Monday, May 15, 2023 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
decrease bycatch or bycatch mortality of
stocks. NMFS also welcomes input on
other ways to improve the guidelines.
For example, NMFS welcomes input on
whether the agency should consider: (1)
adding provisions to address bycatch on
an ecosystem level (as opposed to single
species metrics), (2) implementing
provisions for alternative performancebased standards, or (3) increasing
provisions to document bycatch
avoidance.
2. Reducing Waste: Some FMPs
include management measures that
prohibit retention of certain fish species
or sizes to ensure fishermen are disincentivized from incidentally catching
these fish. When these regulatory
discards are required, they can lead to
significant waste as fishermen are forced
to discard (waste) usable catch. NMFS
seeks input on revisions to the NS9
guidelines that could encourage
provisions to incentivize reduction of
waste, including use of innovations that
decrease bycatch (e.g., gear innovations
or adjustable area closures that avoid
certain species or sizes of fish), decrease
bycatch mortality (e.g., gear innovations
that improve the health and survival of
discards), or increase use while disincentivizing catch of overfished or low
productivity stocks (e.g., allowing a
fishery to retain and sell what would
otherwise be required to be discarded
either through purchasing quota share
or other types of compensation; or
allowing bycatch to be donated to food
shelters so that it is not wasted but also
does not lead to economic gains).
NMFS also acknowledges that other
relevant management issues have arisen
in litigation over the past years in
addition to those discussed above. The
agency will consider these issues when
deciding whether to propose revisions
to the NS4, 8, or 9 guidelines, but is not
soliciting comment on them here.
Public Comment
NMFS is soliciting comments on the
issues and concepts outlined in this
ANPR. NMFS invites comments to help
determine the scope of issues to
potentially be addressed in a subsequent
revision to the National Standard
guidelines for NS 4, 8, or 9 and to
identify significant issues related to
these national standards. NMFS is also
seeking additional ideas to ensure that
the National Standard 4, 8, and 9
guidelines remain relevant given current
and emerging issues facing U.S.
fisheries management. All written
comments received by the due date will
be considered in evaluating whether
revisions to the guidelines or related
policy documents are warranted.
Additionally, NMFS has requested to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:46 May 12, 2023
Jkt 259001
present this ANPR to the various
Regional Fishery Management Councils
and the Atlantic HMS Advisory Panel
during the public comment period.
Please see the appropriate meeting
notices on the Councils’ and Atlantic
HMS Advisory Panel’s website for
specific date and times. General meeting
information is available below.
Atlantic HMS Advisory Panel May 9–
11, 2023, https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/event/may2023-hms-advisory-panel-meeting.
Caribbean Fishery Management
Council August 15–16, 2023, https://
www.caribbeanfmc.com/meetingdocuments/2-uncategorised/426-august15-16-2023.
Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management
Council June 5–8, 2023, https://
gulfcouncil.org/meetings/council/.
Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management
Council June 6–8, 2023, https://
www.mafmc.org/council-events/2023/
june-council-meeting.
New England Fishery Management
Council June 27–29, https://
www.nefmc.org/calendar/june-2023council-meeting.
North Pacific Fishery Management
Council June 8–11, 2023, https://
meetings.npfmc.org/Meeting/Details/
2993.
Pacific Fishery Management Council
June 20–27, 2023,https://
www.pcouncil.org/council_meeting/
june-2023-council-meeting/.
South Atlantic Fishery Management
Council June 12–16, https://safmc.net/
events/june-2023-council-meeting/.
Western Pacific Fishery Management
Council June 26–30, 2023, https://
www.wpcouncil.org/public-meetings/.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
Dated: May 9, 2023.
Samuel D. Rauch, III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2023–10294 Filed 5–12–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 648
[Docket No. 230508–0125]
RIN 0648–BL45
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act
Provisions; Fisheries of the
Northeastern United States;
Amendment 23 to the Summer
Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass
Fishery Management Plan
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for
comments.
AGENCY:
The Mid-Atlantic Fishery
Management Council has submitted the
Black Sea Bass Commercial State
Allocation Amendment (Amendment
23) to the Summer Flounder, Scup, and
Black Sea Bass Fishery Management
Plan (FMP). Amendment 23 proposes to
establish commercial state-by-state
black sea bass allocations in the Federal
fishery management plan and
regulations, to change the trigger for the
in-season closure accountability
measures, and change the state-overage
payback. Amendment 23 is intended to
address the allocation-related impacts of
the significant changes in the
distribution of black sea bass that have
occurred since the original allocations
were implemented.
DATES: Comments must be received by
June 14, 2023.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
on this document, identified by NOAA–
NMFS–2023–0041, by the following
method:
Electronic Submission: Submit all
electronic public comments via the
Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and enter
NOAA–NMFS–2023–0041 in the Search
box. Click on the ‘‘Comment’’ icon,
complete the required fields, and enter
or attach your comments.
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 personally
identifying information (e.g., name,
address, etc.), confidential business
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\15MYP1.SGM
15MYP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 93 (Monday, May 15, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30934-30938]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-10294]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 600
[Docket No. 230509-0128]
RIN 0648-BM17
Fisheries of the United States; Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act; National Standard 4, 8, and 9
Guidelines
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
[[Page 30935]]
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR); request for
comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS is publishing this ANPR to alert the public of potential
future adjustments the agency may make to the implementing guidelines
for National Standards 4, 8, or 9, of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act (MSA). Several ongoing fishing
management challenges, including changes in environmental conditions,
shifting distributions of fish stocks, and equity and environmental
justice considerations that affect fishing communities that are
currently or have been historically dependent on the resource, suggest
a need to revisit the guidelines to ensure they remain appropriate for
current U.S. fisheries management. The intent of this notice is to
provide the public with background on some of the specific issues under
consideration, seek specific input, and provide a general opportunity
for comment. NMFS will take public comment into consideration when it
decides whether or not to propose changes to the guidelines for
National Standards 4, 8, or 9.
DATES: Comments must be received by 5 p.m., local time, on September
12, 2023.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on this document, identified by
``NOAA-HQ-2023-0060'', by any one of the following methods:
Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public
comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. To
submit comments via the e-Rulemaking Portal, first click the ``submit a
comment'' icon, then enter ``NOAA-HQ-2023-0060'' in the keyword search.
Locate the document you wish to comment on from the resulting list and
click on the ``Submit a Comment'' icon on the right of that line.
Mail: Wendy Morrison; National Marine Fisheries Service,
NOAA; 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13436; Silver Spring, MD 20910.
Instructions: Comments must be submitted by one of the above
methods to ensure that the comments are received, documented, and
considered by NMFS. Comments sent by any other method, to another
address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period,
may not be considered. All comments received are 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.) submitted voluntarily by the
sender will be publicly accessible. Do not submit confidential business
information or otherwise sensitive or protected information. NMFS will
accept anonymous comments (enter ``N/A'' in the required fields if you
wish to remain anonymous).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wendy Morrison, Fisheries Policy
Analyst, National Marine Fisheries Service, 301-427-8564.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 301(a) of the MSA contains 10 national standards for
fishery conservation and management. Any fishery management plan (FMP)
prepared under the MSA, and any regulation adopted under the MSA to
implement any such plan, must be consistent with these national
standards.
National Standard 4 (NS4) of the MSA states that
conservation and management measures shall not discriminate between
residents of different states. If it becomes necessary to allocate or
assign fishing privileges among various United States fishermen, such
allocation shall be (a) fair and equitable to all such fishermen; (b)
reasonably calculated to promote conservation; and (c) carried out in
such manner that no particular individual, corporation, or other entity
acquires an excessive share of such privilege.
National Standard 8 (NS8) states that conservation and
management measures shall, consistent with the conservation
requirements of the MSA (including the prevention of overfishing and
rebuilding of overfished stocks), take into account the importance of
fishery resources to fishing communities by utilizing economic and
social data that are consistent with the best scientific information
available, in order to (a) provide for the sustained participation of
such communities, and (b) to the extent practicable, minimize adverse
economic impacts on such communities.
National Standard 9 (NS9) states that conservation and
management measures shall, to the extent practicable, (a) minimize
bycatch and (b) to the extent bycatch cannot be avoided, minimize the
mortality of such bycatch.
Section 301(b) of the MSA requires that the Secretary of Commerce
establish advisory guidelines, based on the national standards, to
assist in the development of FMPs. These guidelines do not have the
force and effect of law; however, the courts often give deference to
the agency's interpretations in the guidelines. Guidelines for National
Standards 4, 8, and 9 are codified at 50 CFR 600.325 (NS4), 600.345
(NS8), and 600.350 (NS9). NMFS last revised the NS4 Guidelines on May
1, 1998 (63 FR 24212), NS8 Guidelines on November 17, 2008 (73 FR
67809), and NS9 Guidelines on November 17, 2008 (73 FR 67809).
Since these guidelines were last revised, a number of fishery
management challenges, including changes in environmental conditions
and shifting distributions of fish stocks, suggest a need to revisit
the guidelines to ensure they remain appropriate for current U.S.
fisheries management. Recent Executive Orders (E.O.s), such as E.O.
14008 on Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad, and E.O. 13985
on Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities
Through the Federal Government, as well as relevant policy documents
(e.g., NOAA fiscal year 2022-2026 Strategic Plan) highlight NMFS'
commitment to plan for climate change impacts and to serve stakeholders
equitably by engaging underserved communities in the science,
conservation, and management of the nation's fisheries, consistent with
existing law. NMFS strongly supports the need to further improve
adaptability of our management processes in the context of changing
environmental conditions and ensure equity and environmental justice
(that is, equity applied to environmental laws, policies, and
practices) within the fishery management process. As such, NMFS is
soliciting input on potential future revisions to the National
Standards 4, 8, and 9 Guidelines that would address recent fishery
management challenges, bolster climate adaptability, and encourage
equity and environmental justice within the fishery management process
under the existing provisions of the MSA.
Background on the National Standards
National Standard 4
Allocation of fishing privileges under NS4 guidelines refers to the
direct and deliberate distribution of the opportunity to participate in
a fishery among user groups or individuals. See 50 CFR 600.325(c)(1).
Decisions regarding the allocation of fishery resources are often
controversial and challenging. In general, increases to one group
result in decreases to another, leading to allocation decisions being
perceived as a ``win'' for some fishermen or fisheries and a ``loss''
for others. A 2012 report based on interviews with fishery stakeholders
[[Page 30936]]
regarding allocation found that the concepts of fairness and equity are
complicated and often vary depending on individual circumstances
(Lapointe 2012 at https://media.fisheries.noaa.gov/dam-migration/lapointe-allocation-report.pdf). This report concluded that many
stakeholders will continue to view allocations as unbalanced or unfair
unless the outcomes are close to the positions they seek.
In addition to the existing NS4 guidelines, NMFS created an
Allocation Policy (available at https://media.fisheries.noaa.gov/dam-migration/01-119.pdf) in 2016 that requires the eight Regional Fishery
Management Councils (Councils), and NMFS for Atlantic Highly Migratory
Species (HMS), to identify a trigger for all fisheries that contain an
allocation. The trigger could be based on time, public input, or an
indicator. When a specified trigger is met, the Council or NMFS must
assess if a revision to the allocation is needed. However, the
Allocation Policy does not require Councils or NMFS to implement any
changes to the allocation.
National Standard 8
National Standard 8 requires that an FMP take into account the
importance of fishery resources to fishing communities in order to
provide for the sustained participation of--and minimize adverse
economic impacts on--such communities. However, both NMFS guidance and
court precedent establish that minimizing adverse impacts on
communities must be considered secondary to the conservation
requirements of the MSA. In short, actions meant to address the
importance of fishery resources to affected fishing communities must
not compromise the achievement of conservation requirements and goals
of the FMP. As the current NS8 guidelines clarify: ``All other things
being equal, where two alternatives achieve similar conservation goals,
the alternative that provides the greater potential for sustained
participation of such communities and minimizes the adverse economic
impacts on such communities would be the preferred alternative.''
National Standard 9
Fishermen sometimes catch, and may discard, species they do not
want, cannot sell, or are not allowed to keep, creating what we know as
bycatch. Bycatch is a complex, global issue. The MSA defines bycatch as
``fish which are harvested in a fishery, but which are not sold or kept
for personal use, and includes economic discards and regulatory
discards. This term does not include fish released alive under a
recreational catch and release fishery management program.'' 16 U.S.C.
1802(2). It also does not include incidental catch, or non-target
catch, that is sold or kept for personal use. The MSA definition of
``fish'' does not include marine mammals and birds, thus bycatch of
these animals is not included under this standard. NS9 requires that
bycatch and bycatch mortality (e.g., unobserved mortality due to a
direct encounter with fishing vessels and gear) shall be minimized to
the extent practicable.
In considering potential revisions to the guidance for these three
national standards, NMFS is seeking comment on the following issues, in
particular (in no specific order).
Tackling the Climate Crisis
The changing climate and oceans have significant impacts on the
nation's valuable marine life and ecosystems, and the many communities
and economies that depend on them. Scientists expect environmental
changes such as warming oceans, rising sea levels, frequency and
intensity of floods and droughts, and ocean acidification to increase
with continued shifts in the planet's climate system. Changing ocean
conditions are affecting the location and productivity of fish stocks
and the fishing industry's interactions with bycatch, protected
species, and other ocean users. Some fish stocks are becoming less
productive and/or are moving out of range of the fishermen who catch
them. These shifts can cause social, economic, and other impacts on
fisheries and fishing-dependent communities. As a result, fishing
industries and coastal businesses can face significant challenges in
preparing for and adapting to these changing conditions. NMFS
understands the importance of updating fisheries management to address
current and anticipated needs and conditions, including dynamic stock
conditions and changing ocean conditions. The issues associated with
changing climate conditions that NMFS is requesting comment on in
relation to National Standards 4, 8, and 9 are outlined below.
1. National Standard 4: Environmental changes are affecting, and
will continue to affect, stock distributions and abundances, and have
the potential to change the applicability of historical information and
current regulations. Most allocations established by the Councils and
NMFS are highly complex and supported by extensive analyses.
Determinations of many, but not all, of the existing allocations have
relied heavily on documented catch or landings during specific time
periods. Considering documented catch in the development of allocations
is important to help participants maintain access to resources they
have been dependent upon, and to document compliance with statutory
requirements. However, it is also important to consider the needs of
other users, such as new fishermen who would like to enter a fishery,
fishermen displaced from other fisheries, and/or existing fishermen who
are catching new species in their historical fishing grounds.
NMFS is considering whether updates to the NS4 guidelines would
help encourage allocation decisions that balance the needs of different
user groups when creating and updating allocations, including for
stocks that are shifting, or have shifted, their distribution. NMFS
welcomes specific input on:
(a) Approaches, consistent with other statutory requirements, for
balancing consideration of anticipated or realized changes in stock
distributions and/or overall fishery access for historical users,
marginalized individuals who may have been inequitably excluded from
historical allocations, and new users in such allocation decisions;
(b) Whether revisions to the NS4 guidelines are needed to reinforce
NMFS' Allocation Policy's requirement to complete periodic reviews of
allocations; and
(c) The types of documentation, analyses, and alternative
approaches (e.g., spatial allocations between sectors or gears, mixes
of historic use and dynamic allocation schemes) that should be
considered when making such allocation decisions.
2. National Standard 8: Environmental changes are affecting, and
will continue to affect, stock distributions and abundances, creating
challenges for communities dependent on those resources. NMFS is
requesting comments on options for updating the guidelines to NS8 to
better account for these changes and to improve the ability of
communities to adapt to these changing conditions.
3. National Standard 9: Environmental changes are affecting, and
will continue to affect, the distributions of many marine resources,
including target fish stocks, bycatch fish stocks and protected
resources. This has and will continue to create challenges to
maintaining economic viability of fisheries while also ensuring
sustainable management of all marine resources. NMFS is requesting
comments on options for updating the guidelines to
[[Page 30937]]
NS9 to better account for and adapt to these changes.
Equity and Environmental Justice
NMFS is committed to advancing equity and environmental justice,
including equal treatment, opportunities, and environmental benefits
for all people and communities, while building on continuing efforts
and partnerships with underserved and underrepresented communities. For
purposes of this document, consistent with E.O. 13985, ``underserved
communities'' refers to ``populations sharing a particular
characteristic, as well as geographic communities, that have been
systematically denied a full opportunity to participate in aspects of
economic, social, and civil life.'' The issues associated with equity
and environmental justice that NMFS is requesting comment on are
outlined below.
1. National Standard 4: The existing NS4 guidelines provide limited
guidance on what is meant by ``fair'' and ``equitable'', in order to
allow Councils and NMFS the flexibility to interpret these terms as
needed within their circumstances given the variability in fisheries
across the country. NMFS asserts it would be difficult to provide
additional guidance on these terms that will be appropriate across the
variety of social, economic, and ecological conditions of the eight
Councils and Atlantic HMS.
NMFS requests specific input on:
(a) Approaches to improve consideration of underserved communities,
previously excluded entrants, and new entrants in allocation decisions;
and
(b) The types of documentation and analyses that should be
considered to ensure such allocation decisions are fair and equitable.
Commenters on this issue should bear in mind the requirements of MSA
sections 303(b)(6) and 303A(c)(3)(B), (c)(4)(C), and (c)(5) that
require consideration of current and past participation as well as
other considerations when developing limited entry programs, Limited
Access Privilege Programs (LAPPs), and initial allocations for LAPPs.
2. National Standard 8: NMFS is committed to serving stakeholders
equitably by engaging underserved communities in the science,
conservation, and management of the nation's fisheries. NMFS does not
believe that the existing NS8 guidelines limit NMFS' or the Councils'
ability to implement regulations and policies that address inequities
or barriers to access for underserved communities. However, NMFS is
considering removing language in the NS8 guidelines that states that
NS8 ``does not constitute a basis for allocating resources to a
specific fishing community nor for providing preferential treatment
based on residence in a fishing community.'' This text may be
unnecessary and confusing, given that NS8 does not specifically
authorize, or prohibit, allocations to fishing communities. NMFS
recognizes that allocations to a specific fishing community may be
beneficial in some situations, if supported with appropriate rationale,
and if NS8 is not the sole basis for making such allocations.
NMFS is also considering revising the definition of fishing
community within the guidelines. The MSA defines a fishing community as
``a community which is substantially dependent on or substantially
engaged in the harvest or processing of fishery resources to meet
social and economic needs, and includes fishing vessel owners,
operators, and crew and United States fish processors that are based in
such communities.'' 16 U.S.C. 1802(17). The current NS8 guidelines add
to the statutory definition by stating a fishing community is ``a
social or economic group whose members reside in a specific location
and share a common dependency on commercial, recreational, or
subsistence fishing or on directly related fisheries-dependent services
and industries (for example, boatyards, ice suppliers, tackle shops).''
50 CFR 600.345(b)(3). Given the wide range of fishing community
structures (including locations of fishing infrastructure and fishing-
related economic activity) associated across the U.S. and its
territories, NMFS is considering removing or revisiting the requirement
for members to reside in a specific location. In addition, NMFS is also
considering adjusting how the ``fishing community'' definition under
the NS8 guidelines balances between dependency and engagement. As
stocks decrease in abundance or shift distributions, communities will
likely need to adapt. One option could be for a community to increase
their resilience by decreasing their dependence on one or more
particular stocks or fisheries (i.e., diversifying the fisheries that
can be accessed). Thus, NMFS is considering revising the definition to
shift from focusing on ``dependence'' to focusing on ``engagement,'' as
both are included within the MSA definition. Shifting the focus of the
definition of ``fishing community'' towards ``engagement'' could help
provide that those communities that undertake engagement efforts that
build up the community's economic resilience, while still being engaged
with fisheries, could continue to be considered a ``fishing community''
under the NS8 guidelines. NMFS requests input on the definition of
``fishing community'' within the NS8 guidelines, including the use of
``current and historical engagement'' instead of or in addition to
``dependence''.
Finally, NMFS welcomes suggestions on how to appropriately balance
the requirement under NS8 for ``sustained participation'' of fishing
communities and the need to improve consideration of (1) underserved
communities currently or historically engaged with fisheries, (2)
previously excluded entrants, (3) new entrants, and (4) communities
with high levels of social or climate vulnerability. NMFS also welcomes
input on appropriate measures of social and climate vulnerability for
fishing communities.
3. National Standard 9: Conflict between fisheries and gears is
common in fisheries management, via overlap in geographic areas fished
or species caught. Relevant to NS9 is the situation where bycatch in
one fishery has negative impacts on another fishery, usually via a
restricting limit on total fishing mortality for a shared stock. For
example, bycatch of one species in a fishery may reduce the amount of
that species available to harvest in a target commercial fishery,
recreational fishery, or subsistence fishery. The issue can be further
complicated when one or more fisheries in conflict are important for
underserved communities. NMFS welcomes input on how the NS9 guidelines
could be modified to minimize bycatch mortality in a manner that is
equitable across different fisheries and gear types. NMFS also welcomes
comments on ways to better balance the needs of bycatch and target
fisheries in a manner that is equitable across different fisheries and
gear types, especially when one or more fisheries are important for
underserved communities.
Other Relevant Management Challenges
There are other fisheries and management issues relevant to
National Standards 4, 8 and 9 that are not covered above. NMFS is
requesting comment on two of these issues in particular, as described
below.
1. Practicability Standard: NS9 requires bycatch and bycatch
mortality be minimized ``to the extent practicable''. NMFS asserts the
discussion of practicability within the existing NS9 guidelines
appropriately balances the various complexities of federal fisheries
management. NMFS welcomes input on how the NS9 guidelines could be
modified to further
[[Page 30938]]
decrease bycatch or bycatch mortality of stocks. NMFS also welcomes
input on other ways to improve the guidelines. For example, NMFS
welcomes input on whether the agency should consider: (1) adding
provisions to address bycatch on an ecosystem level (as opposed to
single species metrics), (2) implementing provisions for alternative
performance-based standards, or (3) increasing provisions to document
bycatch avoidance.
2. Reducing Waste: Some FMPs include management measures that
prohibit retention of certain fish species or sizes to ensure fishermen
are dis-incentivized from incidentally catching these fish. When these
regulatory discards are required, they can lead to significant waste as
fishermen are forced to discard (waste) usable catch. NMFS seeks input
on revisions to the NS9 guidelines that could encourage provisions to
incentivize reduction of waste, including use of innovations that
decrease bycatch (e.g., gear innovations or adjustable area closures
that avoid certain species or sizes of fish), decrease bycatch
mortality (e.g., gear innovations that improve the health and survival
of discards), or increase use while dis-incentivizing catch of
overfished or low productivity stocks (e.g., allowing a fishery to
retain and sell what would otherwise be required to be discarded either
through purchasing quota share or other types of compensation; or
allowing bycatch to be donated to food shelters so that it is not
wasted but also does not lead to economic gains).
NMFS also acknowledges that other relevant management issues have
arisen in litigation over the past years in addition to those discussed
above. The agency will consider these issues when deciding whether to
propose revisions to the NS4, 8, or 9 guidelines, but is not soliciting
comment on them here.
Public Comment
NMFS is soliciting comments on the issues and concepts outlined in
this ANPR. NMFS invites comments to help determine the scope of issues
to potentially be addressed in a subsequent revision to the National
Standard guidelines for NS 4, 8, or 9 and to identify significant
issues related to these national standards. NMFS is also seeking
additional ideas to ensure that the National Standard 4, 8, and 9
guidelines remain relevant given current and emerging issues facing
U.S. fisheries management. All written comments received by the due
date will be considered in evaluating whether revisions to the
guidelines or related policy documents are warranted. Additionally,
NMFS has requested to present this ANPR to the various Regional Fishery
Management Councils and the Atlantic HMS Advisory Panel during the
public comment period. Please see the appropriate meeting notices on
the Councils' and Atlantic HMS Advisory Panel's website for specific
date and times. General meeting information is available below.
Atlantic HMS Advisory Panel May 9-11, 2023, https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/event/may-2023-hms-advisory-panel-meeting.
Caribbean Fishery Management Council August 15-16, 2023, https://www.caribbeanfmc.com/meeting-documents/2-uncategorised/426-august-15-16-2023.
Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council June 5-8, 2023, https://gulfcouncil.org/meetings/council/.
Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council June 6-8, 2023, https://www.mafmc.org/council-events/2023/june-council-meeting.
New England Fishery Management Council June 27-29, https://www.nefmc.org/calendar/june-2023-council-meeting.
North Pacific Fishery Management Council June 8-11, 2023, https://meetings.npfmc.org/Meeting/Details/2993.
Pacific Fishery Management Council June 20-27, 2023,https://www.pcouncil.org/council_meeting/june-2023-council-meeting/.
South Atlantic Fishery Management Council June 12-16, https://safmc.net/events/june-2023-council-meeting/.
Western Pacific Fishery Management Council June 26-30, 2023,
https://www.wpcouncil.org/public-meetings/.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
Dated: May 9, 2023.
Samuel D. Rauch, III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-10294 Filed 5-12-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
