Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Fisheries Off West Coast States; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan; Amendment 32; Modifications to Non-Trawl Sector Area Management Measures, 83830-83860 [2023-25905]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 230 (Friday, December 1, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 83830-83860]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-25905]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Parts 300 and 660

[Docket No. 231117-0273]
RIN 0648-BM28


Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Fisheries Off West Coast States; 
Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery 
Management Plan; Amendment 32; Modifications to Non-Trawl Sector Area 
Management Measures

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule implements regulations for Amendment 32 to the 
Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan. The regulations 
include a suite of changes to non-trawl sector area management measures 
seaward of California and Oregon. The purpose of Amendment 32 is to 
provide fishing access to healthy groundfish stocks for non-trawl 
groundfish fisheries and the directed commercial Pacific halibut 
fishery while still meeting the conservation objectives of the Pacific 
Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan. In addition, this final rule 
implements minor administrative revisions to the regulations to correct 
the name of the Cordell Bank Groundfish Conservation Area, amend the 
description of the Cordell Bank Groundfish Conservation Area, add new 
regulatory definitions for different types

[[Page 83831]]

of fishing bait, and add new exemptions to Vessel Monitoring System 
reporting requirements.

DATES: Effective January 1, 2024.

ADDRESSES: 

Electronic Access

    Information relevant to Amendment 32, which includes an 
Environmental Assessment (EA), a Regulatory Impact Review, a Regulatory 
Flexibility Act analysis and a Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation 
and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act or MSA) analysis (collectively 
referred to hereafter as Analysis), are accessible via the internet at 
the NMFS West Coast Region website at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/west-coast/laws-and-policies/west-coast-region-national-environmental-policy-act-documents.
    Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other 
aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this 
final rule may be submitted to NMFS and to https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular information collection by 
selecting ``Currently under 30-day Review--Open for Public Comments'' 
or by using the search function.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lynn Massey, phone: 562-900-2060, or 
email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Pacific Coast Groundfish fishery in the 
U.S. exclusive economic zone (EEZ, defined at 50 CFR 660.10) seaward of 
Washington, Oregon, and California is managed under the Pacific Coast 
Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP). The Pacific Fishery 
Management Council (Council) developed the Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP 
pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.). The 
Secretary of Commerce approved the Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP and 
implemented the provisions of the plan through Federal regulations at 
50 CFR part 660, subparts C through G. Species managed under the 
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP include more than 90 species of roundfish, 
flatfish, rockfish, sharks, and skates.
    This final rule implements regulations for Amendment 32 to the 
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP (also referred to interchangeably as 
``this action''). Consistent with MSA Section 303(c)(1), the Council 
deemed the proposed regulations consistent with and necessary to 
implement Amendment 32 in a July 21, 2023 letter from Council Chairman 
Merrick Burden to Regional Administrator Jennifer Quan. The Notice of 
Availability for Amendment 32, which describes the specific changes 
being made to the FMP, was published on August 2, 2023 (88 FR 50830) 
and was open for public comment through October 1, 2023. The proposed 
rule for Amendment 32, which includes the regulations necessary for 
implementing Amendment 32, was published on August 30, 2023 (88 FR 
59838), and was open for public comment through September 29, 2023.
    In addition to implementing changes to the regulations at 50 CFR 
parts 300 and 660 to implement Amendment 32, this final rule also 
implements minor, clarifying and administrative revisions to the 
regulations in part 660. These administrative changes correct the name 
of the Cordell Bank Groundfish Conservation Area (Cordell Bank GCA), 
amend the description of the Cordell Bank GCA, add new regulatory 
definitions for different types of fishing bait, and add new exemptions 
to Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) reporting requirements.

Background

    In the early 2000s, several types of groundfish conservation areas 
(GCAs), defined at Sec.  660.11, were implemented (as part of FMP 
Amendment 16-3) to protect overfished groundfish species off the U.S. 
West Coast; this includes the coastwide Non-Trawl Rockfish Conservation 
Area (Non-Trawl RCA) (68 FR 908, January 7, 2003), and the Cowcod 
Conservation Areas (CCAs) (66 FR 2338, January 11, 2001) in the 
Southern California Bight. With the rebuilt status of almost all of 
these groundfish species (the exception being yelloweye rockfish, which 
is projected to rebuild by 2029), the Council has been prioritizing 
increased fishing access to these areas for groundfish non-trawl 
fisheries (i.e., the directed open access sector, the California 
recreational sector, the limited entry fixed gear (LEFG) sector, and 
vessels that use non-trawl gear under the Trawl Individual Fishing 
Quota (IFQ) Program). Amendment 32 and its implementing regulations 
included in this final rule provide additional fishing opportunity in 
these closures through a suite of modifications to GCA boundaries, gear 
specifications, and catch restrictions, while continuing to rebuild 
yelloweye rockfish and mitigate fishing impacts to sensitive habitats.

Revisions to Non-Trawl Rockfish Conservation Area Management Measures

Boundary Modifications

    The Non-Trawl RCA is a coastwide, contiguous area bounded by the 
EEZ or specific latitude and longitude coordinates that approximate 
depth contours along the West Coast continental shelf and around select 
islands off Southern California. Non-Trawl RCA boundaries are not 
consistent along the coast; they vary by management area (i.e., the 
shoreward and seaward boundaries are shallower or deeper, depending on 
latitude). The Non-Trawl RCA prohibits almost all commercial non-tribal 
directed groundfish fishing with non-trawl gear, and also applies to 
the non-tribal directed commercial Pacific halibut fishery (see 50 CFR 
300.63(e)(1)).
    The seaward boundary of the Non-Trawl RCA approximates the 100 
fathom (fm, 183 meters (m)) depth contour seaward of Oregon and the 100 
(183 m) or 125 fm (229 m) depth contour seaward of California, 
depending on latitude (see Tables 2 North and South of subpart E and 
Tables 3 North and South to subpart F). The implementing regulations 
for Amendment 32, as included in this final rule, move the seaward 
boundary of the Non-Trawl RCA shoreward to the depth contour that 
approximates 75 fm (137 m) seaward of both Oregon and California, which 
opens up approximately 2,411 square miles (sq mi, 6,244 square 
kilometers (sq km)) to all non-trawl commercial groundfish sectors and 
the non-tribal directed commercial Pacific halibut fishery. Adjusting 
the Non-Trawl RCA boundary for both the commercial non-tribal directed 
groundfish and Pacific halibut fisheries reduces enforcement complexity 
and provides additional fishing opportunity. The Non-Trawl RCA 
boundaries in the Southern California Bight (south of 34[deg]27' N 
lat.) will not change, as the 75-100 fm (137-183 m) depth range is 
already open in this area.

Catch Restriction Modifications

    The final rule for the 2023-24 Groundfish Harvest Specification and 
Management Measures action (87 FR 77007, December 16, 2022) authorized 
the use of two new hook-and-line gear configurations for use inside the 
Non-Trawl RCA by the directed open access sector as defined at Sec.  
660.11. These two new gear configurations included stationary vertical 
jig gear (see Sec.  660.330(b)(3)(i)) and groundfish troll gear (see 
Sec.  660.330(b)(3)(ii)). The implementing regulations for Amendment 
32, as included in this final rule, allow vessels participating in the 
LEFG sector and vessels that use non-trawl gear under the Trawl IFQ 
program (i.e., ``IFQ gear switchers'') to fish with these gear types 
under their respective

[[Page 83832]]

catch limits rather than under open access trip limits. In other words, 
LEFG vessels can fish inside the Non-Trawl RCA pursuant to their 
respective trip limits listed in subpart E Tables 1 North and South, 
and IFQ gear switchers can fish inside the Non-Trawl RCA under their 
quota pounds. Vessels will be required to make an appropriate 
declaration (specified at Sec.  660.13(d)) that corresponds to their 
respective sector and the chosen gear type (i.e., either stationary 
vertical jig gear or groundfish troll gear); only one declaration may 
be made on these fishing trips. On a fishing trip where any fishing 
occurs inside the Non-Trawl RCA, only one type of non-bottom contact 
gear is permitted to be carried on board, and no other fishing gear of 
any type can be carried on board or stowed during that trip. The vessel 
will be allowed to fish inside and outside the Non-Trawl RCA on the 
same fishing trip, provided a valid declaration report as required at 
Sec.  660.13(d) is filed with NMFS' Office of Law Enforcement (OLE). 
Crossover provisions at Sec.  660.60(h)(7)(ii) will not apply for the 
two Non-Trawl RCA gear types (i.e., non-bottom contact stationary 
vertical jig gear and groundfish troll gear). Access to these higher 
trip limits will increase fishing opportunity and provide operational 
flexibility for these vessels.

Gear Modifications

    The two new hook-and-line gear configurations authorized as part of 
the 2023-24 Groundfish Harvest Specification and Management Measures 
action (87 FR 77007, December 16, 2022) were implemented along with a 
suite of gear specifications intended to minimize yelloweye rockfish 
bycatch and seabird interactions. For the stationary vertical jig gear, 
fishermen were required to have a minimum of 50 feet (15 m) between the 
bottom weight and the lowest fishing hook to ensure that fishing 
activity occured off the bottom (see Sec.  660.330(b)(3)(i)(A)). In 
addition, only artificial bait was permitted; natural bait was 
prohibited (see Sec.  660.330(b)(3)(i)(D)). This final rule modifies 
these gear restrictions to instead allow a minimum of 30 feet (9 m) 
between the bottom weight and the lowest fishing hook, and allow the 
use of natural bait. These changes are expected to increase catch of 
underutilized stocks, while continuing to mitigate catch of rebuilding 
yelloweye rockfish. No changes in gear restrictions are being made for 
the groundfish troll gear configuration. Fishermen must continue to 
have a minimum of 50 feet (15 m) between the bottom weight and the 
lowest fishing hook, and are still required to use artificial bait with 
groundfish troll gear.

Revisions to Cowcod Conservation Area Management Measures

    The CCA was implemented in 2001 to reduce the bycatch of overfished 
cowcod (66 FR 2338, January 11, 2001), which was declared rebuilt in 
2019. Within the CCA, which is comprised of the Western and Eastern 
CCAs, groundfish fishing by all commercial and recreational groundfish 
fisheries, including those that use both trawl and non-trawl gear, is 
prohibited. This final rule removes the CCA restrictions for all 
groundfish non-trawl fisheries, which opens up approximately 4,663 sq 
mi (12,077 sq km) to all non-trawl commercial and recreational 
groundfish sectors. The CCA is remaining in place for groundfish trawl 
fisheries, as the scope of the Council's action only considered non-
trawl sectors. The purpose of this change is to provide fishing 
opportunity in this area given that cowcod has been declared rebuilt. 
Prior to the effective date of this final rule, non-trawl fishing was 
allowed shoreward of the 40 fm (73 m) lines around the islands and 
banks within the current boundaries of the CCA. With this final rule's 
removal of non-trawl CCA restrictions, the 40 fm (73 m) restriction is 
no longer in place (i.e., vessels can operate anywhere in the area, 
subject to pre-existing area closures). Eight new closures are 
established in the former boundaries of the CCA for non-trawl 
groundfish commercial and recreational fisheries (see the next section 
on Groundfish Exclusion Areas).
    The Council recommended defining new fathom lines around islands 
and banks that reside inside the current CCA. Specifically, the Council 
recommended that coordinates be defined in the regulations for the 50, 
60, 75, 100, 125, and 150 fm (91 m, 110 m, 137 m, 183 m, 229 m, and 274 
m respectively) lines around Santa Barbara Island, San Nicolas Island, 
Cortes Bank, and Tanner Bank, and the 150 fm (274 m) line around Osborn 
Bank and the Eastern CCA. The purpose of defining these fathom lines 
around the islands and banks is to provide flexible management tools to 
restrict fishing seaward or shoreward of the new lines as needed, which 
would prevent interactions with certain nearshore species and control 
catch of groundfish. This final rule defines these boundaries in the 
regulations and they will be available for use in the future should the 
Council wish to recommend activating depth-based closures. The Council 
may also recommend modifying the status of these closures via an 
inseason action consistent with Sec.  660.60(c) or via a rulemaking 
action for groundfish fisheries management.

New Conservation Areas

Groundfish Exclusion Areas (GEAs)

    Amendment 32 and its implementing regulations included in this 
final rule create a new type of GCA called a GEA, which is intended to 
mitigate potential impacts to sensitive environments from certain 
groundfish fishing activity. Specifically, eight GEAs are being 
established in this action: (1) Hidden Reef; (2) West of Santa Barbara 
Island; (3) Potato Bank; (4) 107/118 Bank; (5) Cherry Bank; (6) 
Seamount 109; (7) Northeast Bank; and (8) The 43-Fathom Spot. All of 
these GEAs are located in the Southern California Bight in the area 
where non-trawl CCA restrictions are removed. These GEAs keep 
approximately 428 sq mi (1,100 sq km) closed to non-trawl fishing 
effort. The purpose of this change is to create a type of GCA that can 
be used to protect sensitive areas that are separate and distinct from 
groundfish essential fish habitat (EFH). These GEAs prohibit all 
commercial and recreational groundfish fishing. Commercial fishing 
vessels are allowed to continually transit through GEAs provided that 
all gear is stowed. Recreational vessels are allowed to continually 
transit through GEAs provided that no gear is deployed. If fishing for 
non-groundfish species within the GEAs, no groundfish is allowed on 
board the vessel.

Yelloweye Rockfish Conservation Areas (YRCAs)

    A YRCA is a type of GCA used to mitigate bycatch of yelloweye 
rockfish in groundfish fisheries. Given that yelloweye rockfish is 
still rebuilding, the Council considered establishing new YRCAs in the 
event that yelloweye rockfish bycatch increases with increased fishing 
access to the Non-Trawl RCA. Amendment 32 and this final rule 
establishes four new YRCAs seaward of Oregon: (1) Tillamook YRCA; (2) 
Newport YRCA; (3) Florence YRCA; and (4) Heceta Bank YRCA. Within the 
YRCAs, restrictions apply to both commercial groundfish non-trawl 
fisheries and the non-tribal directed commercial Pacific halibut 
fishery. In recommending Amendment 32, the Council proposed that only 
one of the YCRAs would be ``active'' at the time of implementation. The 
other three closures would be ``inactive'' until the Council 
recommends, and NMFS

[[Page 83833]]

implements, those closures. Thus, in this final rule, only the Heceta 
Bank YRCA is active. The Tillamook, Newport, and Florence YRCAs are 
defined and established in Federal regulations at Sec.  660.11, but 
will remain inactive until the Council recommends modifying their 
inactive status and NMFS implements such changes via an inseason action 
consistent with Sec.  660.60(c) or a future rulemaking action on 
groundfish fisheries. NMFS would need to modify the status of these 
YRCAs for the non-tribal directed commercial Pacific halibut fishery 
via a standard rulemaking process (i.e., not an inseason action), as 
the current regulations on the non-tribal directed commercial halibut 
fishery do not include a regulatory mechanism for modifying closed 
areas inseason.

Essential Fish Habitat Conservation Areas (EFHCAs)

    The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that FMPs describe and identify 
EFH and minimize to the extent practicable, adverse effects on EFH 
caused by fishing. The Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP authorizes the use 
of EFHCAs to protect groundfish EFH from specific types of fishing 
activity. Federal regulations at Sec. Sec.  660.75 through 660.79 
provide the coordinates for all current EFHCAs off the U.S. West Coast. 
Prior to this final rule, there were two types of EFHCAs: bottom trawl 
and bottom contact. Both bottom trawl and bottom contact EFHCAs apply 
to all fisheries and are not limited in application to groundfish 
fisheries. Amendment 32 creates a new type of EFHCA that prohibits 
using non-trawl bottom contact gear (e.g., pot/longline) for all non-
tribal groundfish fisheries and the non-tribal directed commercial 
Pacific halibut fishery. The purpose of this new type of EFHCA is to 
protect groundfish EFH that will be newly exposed to non-trawl bottom 
contact gear from moving the seaward boundary of the Non-Trawl RCA to 
75 fm (137 m) seaward of Oregon. Specifically, this final rule 
establishes five new EFHCAs: (1) Nehalem Bank East; (2) Bandon High 
Spot East; (3) Arago Reef West; (4) Garibaldi Reef North; and (5) 
Garibaldi Reef South. All of these new EFHCAs overlap partially or 
entirely with existing bottom trawl EFHCAs (i.e., bottom trawl gear is 
already prohibited in these areas), which is why the specified gear 
prohibition only includes non-trawl bottom contact gear. Taking, 
retaining, or possessing (except for the purpose of continuous transit) 
groundfish or Pacific halibut in these new EFCHAs is prohibited.

Block Area Closures (BACs)

    The Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP and its implementing regulations 
authorize the use of BACs as a routine management measure to control 
bycatch of groundfish in trawl fisheries. BACs, defined at Sec.  
660.11, are size variable spatial closures in the EEZ bounded by 
latitude lines or the EEZ, with depth contour approximations defined at 
Sec. Sec.  660.71 through 660.74 ((10 fm (18 m) through 250 fm (457 
m)), and Sec.  660.76 (700 fm (1280 m)). Amendment 28 to the FMP (84 FR 
63966, November 19, 2019) first established BACs as a management tool 
to control bycatch of groundfish. The salmon bycatch minimization 
measures final rule (86 FR 10857, February 23, 2021) expanded BACs as a 
tool to minimize salmon bycatch. Amendment 32 and its implementing 
regulations included in this final rule expand the use of BACs for 
groundfish non-trawl fisheries. The purpose of this change is to create 
a mechanism to control bycatch of groundfish and bycatch of protected 
or prohibited species from non-trawl fisheries given the new 
flexibilities (e.g., newly opened fishing grounds). Thus, under this 
final rule, BACs can be implemented in the EEZ coastwide. BACs also 
could be implemented within tribal Usual and Accustomed (U&A) fishing 
areas but would only apply to non-tribal vessels.
    This final rule does not implement specific individual BACs. This 
final rule allows NMFS to close or reopen BACs preseason or inseason. 
This approach is consistent with existing routine management measures 
in framework amendments to the FMP that have already been implemented 
and incorporated into the regulations. Most trip, bag, and size limits, 
and some GCA closures in the groundfish fishery, including Bycatch 
Reduction Areas and BACs, have been designated routine management 
measures in the Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP and in Sec.  660.60(c). 
The Council can recommend to NMFS implementation or modification of 
these routine management measures through an expedited process 
involving a single Council meeting. Inseason changes are announced in 
the Federal Register pursuant to the requirements of the Administrative 
Procedure Act. If good cause exists under the Administrative Procedure 
Act to waive notice and comment, a single Federal Register notification 
will announce routine inseason BACs recommended by the Council and 
implemented by NMFS.
    When deciding whether to recommend BACs for NMFS to implement, 
consistent with the Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP, the Council considers 
environmental impacts, economic impacts, and public comments that are 
received via the Council process. Depending on the circumstances, NMFS 
may close areas for a defined period of time, for example, a few months 
or the remainder of the fishing year, or NMFS may maintain a closure 
for an indefinite period of time, for example, until reopened by a 
subsequent action. NMFS may close one or more BACs and the size of the 
BACs can vary. A Federal Register notification will announce the 
geographic boundaries of one or more BACs, the effective dates, 
applicable gear/fishery restrictions, as well as the purpose and 
rationale. NMFS would also disseminate this information on BACs through 
public notices and by posting on the West Coast Region website (see 
ADDRESSES for electronic access information).

Expected Effects of This Action

    The Council prepared a detailed Analysis (see Electronic Access 
section of ADDRESSES) that analyzed the effects of Amendment 32 on 
various resources. A brief summary of expected effects from the 
Analysis was provided in the proposed rule (88 FR 59838, August 30, 
2023) and is not repeated here.

Administrative Regulatory Changes

    In addition to the actions described above, NMFS is also 
implementing three minor regulatory changes in this final rule. These 
changes, which are necessary to improve clarity of existing 
regulations, are administrative in nature.

Groundfish Conservation Area Nomenclature Corrections

    NMFS is universally correcting all instances of ``Cordell Banks'' 
to its correct name of ``Cordell Bank.'' NMFS is modifying the 
description of the Cordell Bank GCA at Sec.  660.70(q) to clarify that 
fishing is not permitted ``within'' its boundaries as opposed to 
``around'' its boundaries, as currently specified in the regulations. 
The purpose of this change is to clarify the intended meaning of these 
regulations for fishermen and to support enforcement efforts, but this 
change does not constitute a material change to the GCA.

Bait Definitions

    NMFS is adding regulatory definitions for artificial lure, bait 
(both natural and artificial), and weighted gear under Sec.  660.11. As 
amended by this final rule, the regulations allow for the use of

[[Page 83834]]

natural bait on non-bottom contact stationary vertical jig gear in the 
Non-Trawl RCA, and continue to prohibit its use on groundfish troll 
gear in the Non-Trawl RCA. However, natural bait is not defined in the 
regulations. The purpose of adding these definitions (which are based 
on common usage) is to clarify the types of bait that are permitted for 
use within the Non-Trawl RCA. This will aid fishermen and support 
enforcement efforts.

Vessel Monitoring System Exemptions

    Vessels participating in the limited entry groundfish fishery, open 
access vessels using non-groundfish trawl gear (vessels fishing for 
ridgeback prawn, California halibut, and sea cucumber trawl), and any 
vessels that use open access gear targeting groundfish or that have 
groundfish bycatch (salmon troll, prawn trap, Dungeness crab, halibut 
longline, California halibut line gear, and sheephead trap), are 
required to install a NMFS OLE type-approved mobile transceiver unit 
and to arrange for a NMFS OLE type-approved communications service 
provider to receive and relay transmissions to NMFS OLE prior to 
fishing. These units automatically record a vessel's position (i.e., 
the vessel's geographic location in latitude and longitude 
coordinates), and transmit those coordinates to a communications 
service provider.
    Exemptions from the VMS requirement for specific reasons are 
allowed (50 CFR 660.14(d)(4)). VMS users must follow the requirements 
at Sec.  660.14(d)(4)(vi) to submit exemption reports. Existing 
exemptions include a haul out exemption, an outside areas exemption, a 
permit exemption, and a long-term departure exemption. This final rule 
is creating two new exemptions: one for maintenance that does not 
require a haul out, and one for sale of a vessel. Like the existing 
haul out exemption, the new maintenance exemption allows VMS units to 
temporarily be inoperable and allows transmissions to be discontinued 
while work is being done on the vessel. However, the new maintenance 
exemption is not limited to maintenance that is conducted while a 
vessel is hauled out.
    The new exemption for sale of a vessel would be an extension of the 
existing long-term departure exemption. This new exemption for sale of 
a vessel is being implemented as a response to situations in which new 
owners purchase vessels and discontinue use of VMS units used by the 
previous owners. If the previous owners do not submit a long-term 
departure exemption prior to the sale, the requirement for the VMS 
units to operate continues to exist on the sold vessels, even when the 
new owners do not participate in an activity requiring VMS.
    Both of these new exemptions will create flexibilities in the 
vessel owners' VMS requirements when vessels are not participating in 
an activity requiring VMS. If these new exemptions were not added to 
the regulations, fishermen would continue to be in violation of VMS 
requirements while their vessels undergo long-term maintenance or when 
prior owners of newly purchased vessels did not submit a long-term 
departure exemption prior to selling the vessel.

Public Comments

    The notice of availability for Amendment 32 was published on August 
2, 2023 (88 FR 50830), and was open for comment until October 1, 2023. 
NMFS received a total of four public comments on the notice of 
availability. The proposed rule for Amendment 32 was published on 
August 30, 2023 (88 FR 59838), and was open for public comment until 
September 29, 2023. NMFS received a total of five public comments on 
the proposed rule. Two commenters provided the same comments for both 
the notice of availability and for the proposed rule. A summary of 
public comments submitted for both the notice of availability and the 
proposed rule and NMFS' responses to all of those comments are provided 
below.
    Comment 1: An anonymous individual submitted a comment on the 
notice of availability requesting that NMFS ensure that the new GEAs 
being implemented in the Southern California Bight allow fishing for 
non-groundfish species.
    Response: The new GEAs will only prohibit groundfish fishing. If a 
vessel is fishing for non-groundfish species within the GEAs, no 
groundfish is allowed on board the vessel. This information is in the 
preamble to the proposed rule (88 FR 59838), the Analysis (see 
ADDRESSES), and the preamble to this final rule.
    Comment 2: A private individual submitted a comment on the proposed 
rule, questioning why boundary changes to the Non-Trawl RCA are only 
being made seaward of Oregon and California, and not off Washington.
    Response: During the development of this action, the Council 
contemplated changes to the Non-Trawl RCA boundary seaward of 
Washington (see Agenda Item E.6.a Supplemental WDFW Report 1 of the 
November 2021 briefing book at https://www.pcouncil.org). However, the 
alternative that included changes off Washington was withdrawn for 
possible future consideration due to anticipated overlap and resulting 
conflicts between tribal, recreational, and commercial fisheries, as 
well as concern over increased yelloweye bycatch and habitat impacts 
(see Agenda Item G.6.a WDFW Report 1 in the September 2022 briefing 
book at https://www.pcouncil.org). Therefore, changes to the Non-Trawl 
RCA off Washington were not included in the recommendation by the 
Council for this action and are not being included in this final rule.
    Comment 3: A private individual submitted a comment on the proposed 
rule, expressing concern over the potential of increased drift 
gillnetting in the newly opened fishing areas.
    Response: This action opens up fishing areas for groundfish non-
trawl fisheries and the non-tribal directed commercial Pacific halibut 
fishery only. Neither of these fisheries utilize drift gillnets. This 
rule does not open any fishing area to drift gillnetting.
    Comment 4: A professional mariner/private citizen from Oregon 
submitted a comment on the proposed rule expressing concern that this 
action is not placing enough emphasis on protection of fish species. 
This same commenter also expressed concern that the VMS haul out 
exemption will yield enforcement and accountability challenges.
    Response: The Magnuson-Stevens Act dictates that conservation and 
management measures shall prevent overfishing while achieving, on a 
continuing basis, the optimum yield from each U.S. fishery. Yelloweye 
rockfish is the only fish species currently under a rebuilding plan. To 
mitigate potential yelloweye rockfish impacts off Oregon, the Council 
recommended, and NMFS is implementing, three new YRCAs for potential 
future use if yelloweye rockfish bycatch becomes an issue, and one new 
YRCA that will be active at the time of implementation (i.e., the 
Heceta Bank YRCA).
    With regard to the concern over the VMS haul out exemption, NOAA's 
OLE supports the additional clarification of exemptions to allow 
fishery participants to have flexibility when needed to conduct non-
haul out maintenance on a vessel involving a disruption to power, thus 
impacting VMS transmissions. Sufficient documentation of maintenance 
activities is required in the submission of the maintenance exemption 
report. In addition, adequate safeguards are in place to ensure vessels 
with a maintenance exemption do not

[[Page 83835]]

resume fishing before VMS transmissions resume.
    Comment 5: A fisherman from Crescent City, California, submitted a 
comment on the notice of availability, expressing concern over the 
closing of the nearshore rockfish fishery in Northern California due to 
quillback rockfish and its negative impact to the local economy.
    Response: This comment is outside the scope of this action, as this 
action does not implement any changes to quillback rockfish catch 
limits or closures.
    Comment 6: The environmental nongovernmental organization (NGO) 
Oceana submitted a comment letter on both the notice of availability 
and proposed rule requesting that NMFS disapprove the proposed 
modifications to Non-Trawl RCA management measures seaward of 
California. Oceana expressed concern over adverse effects of moving 
this boundary to: (1) EFH, namely coral and sponges; (2) yelloweye 
rockfish because it is still rebuilding; and (3) canary rockfish, based 
on a claim that new science indicates that canary rockfish has not 
rebuilt. Oceana supports moving the Non-Trawl RCA boundary to 75 fm 
(137 m) off Oregon because the implementing regulations for Amendment 
32 provide additional EFH and yelloweye rockfish fishery closures in 
the area being opened to fishing. Based on the fact that these measures 
are being implemented for Oregon and not for California, Oceana claims 
that Amendment 32 fails to minimize potential fishing impacts to EFH 
and rebuilding rockfish stocks off California. Oceana supports all 
other aspects of Amendment 32.
    Response: NMFS thanks Oceana for its expressed support for aspects 
of Amendment 32. Below is the NMFS response to the Oceana concerns.
    By moving the seaward boundary of the Non-Trawl RCA to 75 fm (137 
m) seaward of Oregon and California, small portions of 23 EFHCAs (17 
for California, 6 for Oregon) that currently prohibit bottom trawling 
will be newly exposed to bottom contact non-trawl gear, such as pot and 
longline gear. Although the Non-Trawl RCA was implemented to protect 
overfished groundfish stocks, these 23 bottom trawl EFCHAs have 
received ancillary protection from non-trawl gear due to their overlap 
with the Non-Trawl RCA. This final rule minimizes, to the extent 
practicable, adverse effects to EFH from fishing, as described below.
    During the development of this action, the Council extensively 
reviewed all 23 EFCHAs and whether or not the small portions that would 
be exposed from moving the Non-Trawl RCA boundary warranted immediate 
protection in advance of the Council's next EFH review process. For 
example, the Nehalem Bank EFCHA includes area that has been a long-term 
study site for the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) since 
2007 for evaluating the before and after effects of bottom trawling on 
macroinvertebrates. Similarly, the Bandon High Spot EFHCA includes 
Coquille Bank, which is also an active research site. Disturbance to 
these areas by new bottom contact gear activity inside the EFHCAs could 
compromise the research being conducted and therefore warranted a 
closure to bottom contact gear ahead of the upcoming routine EFH 
review, which is set to begin in 2025. For the remaining EFHCAs off of 
Oregon, including Garibaldi Reef North, Garibaldi Reef South, and Arago 
Reef, the Council chose to add additional EFH protections due to a 
review of recent 2019 ODFW data indicating a high amount of rocky reef 
habitat.
    Similar reasons were not identified for the EFHCAs seaward of 
California. Of the 17 bottom trawl EFHCAs off California, only 4 have 
portions greater than 5 sq mi (13 sq km) that will be exposed by this 
action. This final rule converts 113.5 sq mi (294 sq mi) of the almost 
200 sq mi (518 sq km) of area currently closed to all bottom trawl 
EFHCAs, to be closed to all groundfish bottom contact gear. The 
Analysis describes the current understanding of potential pot gear and 
longline gear impacts on hard substrates. Generally, fishermen avoid 
high relief areas due to concerns of gear loss or gear damage, however, 
when there are interactions, the best available information suggests 
that impacts are minor and recovery time is less than 6 months (see 
Chapter 7 of the EA). While the Analysis acknowledges that adverse 
impacts to EFH may occur, the Analysis concluded there would be no 
significant adverse impacts from Amendment 32 on habitat. Ultimately, 
the Council decided to consider whether additional protections are 
needed for the exposed bottom trawl EFHCAs seaward of California during 
the next routine groundfish EFH review, which is set to begin in 2025 
(see Council transcript, page 108-109 from the September 2022 meeting 
at https://www.pcouncil.org) when updated habitat data is available to 
fully inform what protections are needed. In the interim and prior to 
any future EFH protections that may result from the Council's next EFH 
review, the individual areas being exposed are small and comprise a 
total of 77.9 sq mi (202 sq km); the Analysis concluded that 
significant impacts for the purpose of NEPA are not anticipated in 
these areas. Therefore, NMFS has determined that opening of the Non-
Trawl RCA off California does minimize adverse impacts on habitat and 
opening of this area to non-trawl fishing is supported by the best 
available information.
    With regard to yelloweye rockfish, the Council is opening the Non-
Trawl RCA via a step-wise approach, with one of the primary reasons 
being to continue adequate protection for yelloweye rockfish, which is 
rebuilding ahead of the time frame anticipated in the rebuilding plan. 
As Oceana points out, one new YRCA (Heceta Bank) is being implemented 
to protect important yelloweye rockfish habitat off Oregon. In 
addition, three new YRCAs are being defined in regulation because the 
Council identified them as flexible inseason tools that could be 
activated if yelloweye bycatch becomes a concern; these new YRCAs were 
selected based on a review of the Yelloweye Habitat Suitability Model. 
The Council did not identify any areas of California that appear 
necessary for a YRCA, and therefore none were recommended to NMFS.
    With regard to canary rockfish, Oceana cites a recent Scientific 
and Statistical Committee (SSC) report (see Agenda Item G.2.a 
Supplemental SSC Report 1 September 2023 at https://www.pcouncil.org) 
that includes a review of the current 2023 stock assessment. The new 
model's hindcast estimates that the stock may have still been below the 
management target when it was declared rebuilt in 2015. However, the 
stock was declared rebuilt at the time based on the best scientific 
information available. The new 2023 stock assessment indicates that the 
stock is currently at 35.1 percent of unfished biomass, which is in the 
precautionary zone and still above the minimum stock size threshold of 
25 percent unfished biomass (i.e., not overfished). The SSC adopted the 
2023 stock assessment as the best scientific information available for 
informing management. The Council and NMFS will continue to track the 
status of canary rockfish, and NMFS can take a diversity of actions to 
reduce catch of canary rockfish if necessary.
    With regard to impacts to coral and sponge habitats, Oceana 
expressed concern over the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries' 
(ONMS) request of the Council to implement fishery closures for coral 
research and restoration sites that require long-term closure from 
bottom contact gear types, and how the implementing regulations for 
Amendment 32 will expose areas

[[Page 83836]]

that may be used for these purposes. At the June 2023 Council meeting, 
ONMS requested that the Council consider a process starting in 
September 2023 to meet the sanctuaries needs for deep-sea coral 
research and restoration (see Agenda Item C.8.a, Supplemental ONMS 
report 1, June 2023). The Council began formal consideration of this 
issue at its September 2023 meeting (see Agenda Item H.2, September 
2023) and has scheduled consideration of closing areas suitable for 
coral research and restoration (see Agenda Item H.10, Supplemental 
Attachment 4: Draft Proposed Council Meeting Agenda, September 2023 at 
https://www.pcouncil.org). At their September 2023 meeting, the Council 
identified three areas that will be analyzed for coral restoration and 
research. The Council is expected to select a preliminary preferred 
alternative for sites to close for coral research and restoration at 
their March 2024 meeting.
    Comment 7: The environmental NGO the Center for Biological 
Diversity (CBD) submitted a comment letter on both the notice of 
availability and proposed rule opposing the implementing regulations 
for Amendment 32 and the analysis in the EA. As described below, CBD 
expressed concern over fishing impacts from pot gear to humpback whales 
listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), fishing impacts from 
fixed gear on ESA-listed leatherback sea turtles, and fishing impacts 
from hook-and-line gear on ESA-listed short-tailed albatross. CBD also 
expressed concern over adverse impacts from pot and longline gear on 
deep-sea coral and sponge habitats.
    Response: In its letter, CBD asserts that NMFS should not open the 
Non-Trawl RCA as proposed because NMFS has failed to assess the impacts 
on corals and sponges. CBD asserts that the impacts from opening this 
area will cause a significant impact on corals and sponges and 
therefore an Environmental Impact Statement is needed. However, in 
support of this assertion, CBD relies on general information about 
coral and sponge life history and the impact of fishing on those 
species and does not provide any basis for why Amendment 32 
specifically causes a significant impact on corals and sponges. As 
indicated in the Purpose and Need for Amendment 32 (described in the 
Analysis), habitat protection was part of the consideration of the 
Council (``The purpose of the proposed actions are to provide 
additional access in some areas that are currently closed to groundfish 
fishing inside the Non-Trawl Rockfish Conservation Area (RCA) and 
Cowcod Conservation Area (CCA). In doing so, measures were developed to 
address adverse effects on designated Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) and 
sensitive benthic habitats exposed to fishing activity under the 
proposed actions and mitigate bycatch of groundfish and protected and 
prohibited species.''). In the development of the action, the Council 
and NMFS considered impacts on habitat from opening the Non-Trawl RCA, 
including EFH, corals and sponges, including as documented in the EA 
for this action. In addition, CBD has failed to acknowledge that the 
Council recommended, and NMFS is implementing, tools specifically 
designed to minimize the impact of the action on habitat, including 
corals. This includes implementing GEAs off California and EFHCAs that 
prohibit non-trawl bottom contact gear (e.g., pot/longline) off Oregon, 
efforts that were developed with significant public input including 
from environmental NGOs. Further, as stated above, the Council 
announced its intent to evaluate exposed EFH off California during the 
Council's routine EFH review process, which starts in 2025.
    CBD incorrectly asserts that NMFS has an obligation under the 
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to quantify the impacts on 
coral habitat through ``seabed mapping at a meter's spatial 
resolution''. However, consistent with its NEPA obligations, NMFS used 
the best available information to determine if there is a significant 
impact of an action--seabed mapping at a meter's spatial resolution 
across the Non-Trawl RCA, spanning waters off California and Oregon, 
does not currently exist. NMFS and the Council conducted extensive 
analysis, through a rigorous public process, on the habitat impacts of 
opening parts of the Non-Trawl RCA, including the additional habitat 
mitigation measures mentioned above (i.e., GEAs and EFCHAs). The 
Analysis discloses the potential for impacts of the proposed action on 
habitat, including identifying those areas that are proposed to be open 
to fishing where there are higher densities of corals and sponges and 
identifying the potential adverse impacts of fishing gear on that 
habitat. In addition to the maps presented in the Analysis, this 
information was available via a Public Map Viewer, which allowed users 
to zoom in on any specific area being opened to fishing. The Public Map 
Viewer includes a layer that shows deep-sea coral and sponge 
observations, a layer that shows a variety of seafloor substrate types 
(i.e., hard bottom, soft bottom, or mixed), and a layer that shows 
habitat areas of particular concern. The Analysis identified that there 
was no expected significant impact of the action on habitat. NMFS used 
the best available information to make a Finding of No Significant 
Impact and thereby satisfied its NEPA obligations.
    In its letter, CBD alleges that the proposed rule would remove a 
seabird mitigation measure for two gear types which ``may affect'' ESA-
listed short-tailed albatross, and therefore NMFS must consult with the 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Regarding ESA consultation, the 
USFWS issued a Biological Opinion in 2017 concluding that the continued 
operation of the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery was not likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of short-tailed albatross (FWS 
reference: 01EOFW00-2017-F-0316) as well as other ESA-listed species. 
Regarding the removal of seabird mitigation measures, CBD misunderstood 
the proposed action. Currently, there is a prohibition on the use of 
natural bait on both stationary vertical jig gear and groundfish troll 
gear (i.e., the only two gear types currently allowed for use inside 
the Non-Trawl RCA). CBD has asserted that the proposed rule would 
remove this prohibition for both gear types. This is incorrect; the 
implementing regulations for Amendment 32 will only allow natural bait 
on stationary vertical jig gear. As stated in the Analysis, vertical 
lines on stationary vertical jig gear are closely tended to the vessel 
and do not float at the surface and thus significant impacts to 
seabirds are not expected. NMFS discussed allowing natural bait on this 
gear type with the USFWS during the development of Amendment 32, and 
the USFWS concurred that allowing natural bait on the stationary 
vertical jig gear does not necessitate re-initiation under the ESA. The 
prohibition on using natural bait on groundfish troll gear inside the 
Non-trawl RCA will remain in place. NMFS notes that non-bottom contact 
stationary vertical jig gear has been tested inside the Non-Trawl RCA 
since 2013 under an exempted fishing permit (EFP) project; artificial 
bait was required in the EFP because the nature and performance of the 
gear was not initially known. After 9 years of EFP testing with 100 
percent observer coverage, there have been zero documented seabird 
interactions. Because of the way in which the gear is fished and the 
reduced exposure of baited hooks and proximity to humans, NMFS does not 
anticipate risk to seabirds from the use of natural bait on stationary 
vertical jig gear. Therefore, NMFS determined that there was no

[[Page 83837]]

significant impact of the proposed action on seabirds. NMFS has also 
determined that re-initiation of ESA consultation is not warranted, as 
Amendment 32 and its implementing regulations will not affect 
endangered and threatened species or critical habitat in any manner or 
to an extent not considered in the 2017 Biological Opinion.
    CBD asserts that NMFS should re-initiate ESA consultation for the 
impact of this action on ESA-listed leatherback sea turtles and their 
critical habitat because the proposed rule would pose a risk of gear 
entanglement not contemplated in the 2012 Biological Opinion (NWR-2012-
876). CBD supports this claim by pointing out that NMFS has implemented 
a fishery closure to protect leatherback sea turtles in the drift 
gillnet fishery. NMFS notes that the drift gillnet fishery is a 
different fishery managed under the Highly Migratory Species FMP, and 
that the Analysis prepared for this action contemplates potential 
impacts from groundfish non-trawl fisheries under the Pacific Coast 
Groundfish FMP. As described in the Analysis and the 2012 Biological 
Opinion, there has not been a documented interaction with a leatherback 
sea turtle in the groundfish fishery since 2008. Additionally, there is 
no evidence to suggest that a geographic expansion of fishery effort 
(not an increase in fishing effort) into the area being opened 
significantly increases the risk of entanglement to leatherback sea 
turtles. As a result of this action, the density of non-trawl gear in 
the EEZ both shoreward and seaward of the Non-Trawl RCA will likely 
lessen, as some vessels will likely shift some of their effort to the 
newly opened depth bin. This will increase the spatial distribution of 
fixed gear, but will not change the overall amount of effort nor will 
it concentrate effort in a particular area. In addition, there is no 
evidence to suggest that vessels fishing in 75-100 fm or 75-125 fm 
(137-183 m or 137-229 m) would create more potential for sea turtle 
interactions compared to fishing in 100-125 fm (183-229 m) or greater, 
depths at which fishing is already open. NMFS is not aware of any 
information, and CBD has failed to provide any supporting information, 
that indicates that the action presents a notable increase in potential 
exposure to sea turtles. Therefore, in the Finding of No Significant 
Impact, NMFS concluded that Amendment 32 will not significantly impact 
ESA-listed sea turtles. NMFS also has determined there are no 
anticipated impacts on ESA-listed leatherback sea turtles beyond those 
impacts already considered in the 2012 Biological Opinion and therefore 
re-initiation is not warranted.
    CBD asserts that NMFS should re-initiate ESA consultation for the 
impact of this action on ESA-listed humpback whales and their critical 
habitat in part because the proposed rule would pose a risk of 
entanglement not contemplated under the 2020 Biological Opinion. As 
stated in the preamble to the proposed rule, NMFS evaluated the effects 
of the groundfish fishery on ESA-listed humpback whales and their 
critical habitat in the 2020 Biological Opinion for the Pacific Coast 
Groundfish Fishery (WCRO-2018-01378). Although there will likely be a 
geographic effort shift from the sablefish pot fishery as well as other 
non-trawl fisheries into the newly opened area, the Council and NMFS do 
not anticipate an overall increase in the number of participants in any 
non-trawl fishery sector. As explained in the Analysis, it is the 
amount of gear in the water rather than the amount of area or habitat 
designation that affects potential entanglement risk for whales. This 
action does not change the overall amount of sablefish that can be 
caught by the fishery, which was analyzed as part of the 2023-2024 
Biennial Harvest Specifications and Management Measures EA (available 
at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/west-coast/laws-and-policies/groundfish-actions-nepa-documents). That EA describes the anticipated 
impacts and potential for adverse impacts of fixed gear in the 
groundfish fishery on ESA-listed humpback whales from the harvest 
levels implemented in the 2023-2024 harvest specifications. Similarly, 
the 2020 Biological Opinion evaluates the effects of the fixed gear 
fishery on ESA-listed humpback whales and acknowledges that there is 
risk from entanglements, but not at a level which jeopardizes the ESA-
listed species or adversely modifies critical habitat. In the Analysis 
for this action, and in the determination of whether re-initiation of 
the 2020 Biological Opinion was required, NMFS evaluated the 
anticipated changes from moving the boundary of the Non-Trawl RCA. As a 
result of this action, the density of pot gear and other non-trawl gear 
in the EEZ both shoreward and seaward of the Non-Trawl RCA will likely 
lessen, as some vessels will likely shift some of their effort to the 
newly opened depth bin. This will increase the spatial distribution of 
pot gear, but will not change the overall amount of effort nor will it 
concentrate effort in a particular area. In addition, there is no 
evidence to suggest that vessels fishing in 75-100 fm or 75-125 fm 
(137-183 m or 137-229 m) would create more potential for whale 
interactions compared to fishing in 100-125 fm (183-229 m) or greater, 
depths at which fishing is already open. NMFS is not aware of any 
information, and CBD has failed to provide any supporting information 
beyond generalizations about humpback whale critical habitat, that 
indicates that the action presents a notable increase in potential 
exposure to migrating humpback whales nor that the area includes known 
or significant foraging or breeding area.
    Therefore, in the Finding of No Significant Impact, NMFS concluded 
that Amendment 32 will not significantly impact ESA-listed humpback 
whales. NMFS also concluded there are no anticipated impacts to the 
Mexican Distinct Population Segment (DPS) or the Central American DPS 
of humpback whales from Amendment 32 beyond those impacts already 
considered in the 2020 Biological Opinion and therefore re-initiation 
is not warranted.
    NMFS acknowledges CBD's comment that the draft Analysis does not 
mention the Central American DPS of humpback whale. The Analysis 
intentionally discusses potential impacts to humpback whales in a 
generic sense without discussion of the separate subpopulations, 
however Figure 27 and Figure 28 mistakenly omit the Central American 
DPS in the legends. NMFS has corrected this in the Final Analysis.
    CBD has alleged that NMFS cannot rely on the 2021 Marine Mammal 
Protection Act (MMPA) 101(a)(5)(E) permit that was issued for the 
sablefish pot gear fishery. However, this assertion incorrectly states 
the status of that permit. On July 26, 2023, Judge James Donato in the 
Northern District of California signed an order approving a stipulated 
settlement agreement between NMFS and CBD resolving claims in the 
matter of Center for Biological Diversity v. Raimondo, et al., 3:22-cv-
117 (N.D. Cal.). Under that agreement, the parties agreed that ``The 
National Marine Fisheries Service's Marine Mammal Protection Act permit 
regarding the sablefish pot gear fishery is hereby remanded to the 
agency for further consideration without vacatur.'' Therefore, the 
permit is still operable while NMFS addresses other stipulations in the 
settlement agreement.
    Finally, CBD claims that NMFS failed to acknowledge a 2021 humpback 
whale entanglement in the hook-and-line fishery and that this 
entanglement triggers re-initiation of the 2020 Biological Opinion. The 
Council's ESA

[[Page 83838]]

Workgroup Report from the June 2023 Council meeting included 
information on the 2021 entanglement (see Agenda Item H.6.a GESW Report 
1 June 2023 at https://www.pcouncil.org); this report was referenced in 
the Analysis. Because this is new information, NMFS' investigation on 
this entanglement is ongoing. The 2020 Biological Opinion evaluates the 
ongoing operation of the entire Pacific Coast groundfish fishery, all 
gear types and sectors. NMFS expects this entanglement will be 
incorporated into a future stock assessment report for humpback whales 
and will continue to be evaluated relative to whether this information 
would lead to a re-initiation of the 2020 Biological Opinion.

Changes From the Proposed Rule

    NMFS has identified minor technical changes that must be made to 
the proposed rule's regulatory text amending the regulations to 
implement Amendment 32. These technical changes reflect inadvertent 
omissions in the proposed rule's regulatory text. This final rule 
includes the following technical changes in the regulatory text, as 
described below.
    First, this final rule adds a generic definition for GEAs at Sec.  
660.11, as opposed to only describing GEAs in the regulatory sections 
that describe sector-specific management measures. The purpose of 
adding this generic definition is to clarify the scope of options for 
using GEAs. For example, GEAs do not always need to prohibit all 
groundfish sectors from fishing in a certain area or prohibit the use 
of all gear types from a certain area; they can prohibit specific 
fishing sectors or specific gear types. This is consistent with the 
existing regulations for how BACs may be implemented to control bycatch 
of groundfish.
    Second, this final rule modifies the regulations at Sec.  
300.63(f)(1), Sec.  660.11, Sec.  660.60(c)(3)(i), Sec.  660.230(d)(14) 
and Sec.  660.330(d)(15) to clarify that the shoreward boundary of the 
EEZ (i.e., the State/Federal 3-nautical mile line) can be used as a 
boundary for the Non-Trawl RCA. NMFS inadvertently omitted this change 
in the proposed rule. Adding this change will make the use of the Non-
Trawl RCA consistent with the use of BACs, whose east and west 
boundaries may also be defined by EEZ boundaries, and are not 
necessarily restricted to boundary lines that approximate depth 
contours.
    Third, this final rule includes changes that provide additional 
clarification on the requirements for using the non-bottom contact gear 
types described at Sec.  660.330(b)(3). These requirements are 
necessary for adequate enforcement of proper usage of these gear types. 
Therefore, this final rule amends Sec.  660.13(d)(4)(iv) to clarify 
that only one declaration for legal non-bottom contact hook-and-line 
gear may be made per fishing trip (i.e., either gear code 36 at Sec.  
660.(d)(4)(iv)(A)(28) or code 37 at Sec.  660.(d)(4)(iv)(A)(29)). This 
change is consistent with the requirement in current regulations at 
Sec.  660.330(b)(3) specifying that only one legal non-bottom contact 
gear type may be carried on board at a time. Therefore, to avoid 
potential confusion among fishermen, this final rule corrects the 
inadvertent omission in the proposed rule of an amendment to Sec.  
660.13(d)(4)(iv) to similarly specify that only one declaration can be 
made. Adding this change is consistent with the Council and NMFS's 
intent for these gear provisions.
    Fourth, this final rule corrects an inaccurate citation (for a 
table) in the regulations at Sec.  660.330(d)(14), which describes the 
regulations for open access fisheries around the Farallon Islands. The 
proposed rule's reference to Table 2 South should, instead, be a 
reference Table 3 South, as this provision is in the open access 
portion of the regulations, whereas Table 2 South is in the LEFG 
portion of the regulations.
    No changes were made to the final rule in response to public 
comments on the proposed rule.

Classification

    Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) and 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens 
Act and Section 5 of the Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982 (Halibut 
Act, 16 U.S.C. 773c), the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined 
that this final rule to implement Amendment 32 is consistent with the 
FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable 
law. For rulemaking efficiency, NMFS is also implementing minor 
administrative regulatory changes. These changes include corrections to 
all references to ``Cordell Bank,'' and, in the description of the 
Cordell Bank GCA at Sec.  660.70(q), clarifying that fishing is not 
permitted ``within'' its boundaries as opposed to ``around'' its 
boundaries; adding new regulatory definitions for different types of 
fishing bait, and adding new exemptions to the Vessel Monitoring System 
reporting requirements.
    This final rule has been determined to be not significant for 
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
    There are no relevant Federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or 
conflict with this action.

Certification Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Chief Counsel for Regulation, Department of Commerce, certified 
to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration 
during the proposed rule stage that this action will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
The factual basis for this certification was published in the proposed 
rule and is not repeated here. No comments were received regarding this 
certification. As a result, a final regulatory flexibility analysis was 
not required and none was prepared.

Information Collection Requirements

    This final rule contains a collection-of-information requirement 
subject to review and approval by the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This rule will revise 
the existing requirements under OMB control # 0648-0573, ``VMS and 
Declarations,'' by adding and modifying declaration codes for the 
purpose of monitoring and enforcing the new provisions in the Non-Trawl 
RCA for limited fixed gear vessels and IFQ gear switchers. These new 
declaration codes are not anticipated to alter the number of 
respondents, anticipated responses, burden hours, or burden costs, as 
the affected vessels are already required to declare their fishing 
activities. The new declaration codes will allow NOAA's OLE to track 
those vessels that are declaring to fish inside the Non-Trawl RCA and 
identify what catch limits they should adhere to. Public reporting 
burden for submitting a declaration report is estimated to average 4 
minutes per individual report, including the time for reviewing 
instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and 
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the 
collection of information.
    Public comment is sought regarding: whether this proposed 
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of 
the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall 
have practical utility; the accuracy of the burden estimate; ways to 
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be 
collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of 
information, including through the use of automated collection 
techniques or other forms of information technology. Submit comments on 
these or any other aspects of the collection of information at 
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.

[[Page 83839]]

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is 
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty 
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the 
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays 
a currently valid OMB Control Number.

List of Subjects

50 CFR Part 300

    Fish, Fisheries, Fishing, Fishing vessels.

50 CFR Part 660

    Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: November 17, 2023.
Samuel D. Rauch, III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS amends 50 CFR parts 
300 and 660 as follows:

PART 300--INTERNATIONAL FISHERIES REGULATIONS

Subpart E--Pacific Halibut Fisheries

0
1. The Authority citation for part 300 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 773-773k.


0
2. Amend Sec.  300.63 by revising paragraph (f) to read as follows:


Sec.  300.63  Catch sharing plan and domestic management measures in 
Area 2A.

* * * * *
    (f) Area 2A Non-Treaty Commercial Fishery Closed Areas--(1) 
Nontrawl Rockfish Conservation Area (RCA). Non-tribal commercial 
vessels operating in the directed commercial fishery for halibut in 
Area 2A are prohibited from fishing within a groundfish closed area 
known as the nontrawl RCA. Nontrawl RCA boundaries are defined by 
specific latitude and longitude coordinates that approximate depth 
contours, or the boundaries of the EEZ. Between the U.S./Canada border 
and 46[deg]16' N lat., the shoreward boundary of the nontrawl RCA is 
the EEZ. Between 46[deg]16' N lat. and 40[deg]10' N lat., the shoreward 
boundary of the nontrawl RCA is a line approximating the 30-fm (55-m) 
depth contour, or the shoreward boundary of the EEZ, whichever is more 
seaward. Coordinates for the 30-fm (55-m) boundary are listed at 50 CFR 
660.71(e). Between the U.S./Canada border and 46[deg]16' N lat., the 
seaward boundary of the nontrawl RCA is a line approximating the 100-fm 
(183-m) depth contour. Coordinates for the 100-fm (183-m) boundary are 
listed at 50 CFR 660.73(a). Between 46[deg]16' N lat. and 40[deg]10' N 
lat., the seaward boundary of the nontrawl RCA is a line approximating 
the 75-fm (137-m) depth contour. Coordinates for the 75-fm (137-m) 
boundary are listed at 50 CFR 660.72(j).
    (2) North Coast Commercial Yelloweye Rockfish Conservation Area 
(YRCA). YRCAs are defined in the groundfish regulations at 50 CFR 
660.70. Vessels that incidentally catch halibut while fishing in the 
sablefish primary fishery are required to follow area closures and gear 
restrictions defined in the groundfish regulations. It is unlawful to 
take and retain, possess (except for the purpose of continuous transit) 
or land halibut with limited entry longline gear within the North Coast 
Commercial Yelloweye Rockfish Conservation Area. All fishing gear for 
targeting halibut must be stowed while transiting thr