Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 45 / Monday, March 9, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 12345 

EPA-APPROVED NORTH CAROLINA NON-REGULATORY PROVISIONS

Provision State 

effective date 

EPA 

approval date Federal Register citation Explanation 

*******

110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements 

for the 2008 Lead National Ambient Air Quality Standards.

6/15/2012 3/9/2015 [Insert Federal Register 

citation].

With the exception of PSD permitting requirements 

for major sources of sections 110(a)(2)(C), prong 

3 of D(i), and (J) and the state board requirements 

of 110(E)(ii). 

[FR Doc. 2015–05242 Filed 3–6–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2014–0903; FRL–9924–02– 

Region 3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; West 

Virginia; State Boards Requirements; 

Infrastructure Requirements for the 

2008 Ozone, 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide, 

and 2010 Sulfur Dioxide National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking direct final 

action to approve revisions to the West 

Virginia State Implementation Plan 

(SIP). The SIP revision addresses the 

State Boards requirements for all criteria 

pollutants of the National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS). EPA is 

also approving a related infrastructure 

element from the West Virginia 

February 21, 2012 SIP submittal for the 

2008 ozone (O3) NAAQS, the December 

13, 2012 SIP submittal for the 2010 

nitrogen dioxide (NO2) NAAQS, and the 

July 1, 2013 SIP submittal for the 2010 

sulfur dioxide (SO2) NAAQS. EPA is 

approving this SIP revision in 

accordance with the requirements of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA). 

DATES: This rule is effective on May 8, 

2015 without further notice, unless EPA 

receives adverse written comment by 

April 8, 2015. If EPA receives such 

comments, it will publish a timely 

withdrawal of the direct final rule in the 

Federal Register and inform the public 

that the rule will not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R03–OAR–2014–0903 by one of the 

following methods: 

A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

B. Email: powers.marilyn@epa.gov. 

C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2014–0903, 

Marilyn Powers, Acting Associate 

Director, Office of Air Program 

Planning, Air Protection Division, 

Mailcode 3AP30, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 

Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

19103. 

D. Hand Delivery: At the previouslylisted EPA Region III address. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R03–OAR–2014– 

0903. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change, and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov, your 

email address will be automatically 

captured and included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the public 

docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy during normal business 

hours at the Air Protection Division, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 

Copies of the State submittal are 

available at the West Virginia 

Department of Environmental 

Protection, Division of Air Quality, 601 

57th Street SE., Charleston, WV 25304. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Ellen Schmitt, (215) 814–5787, or by 

email at schmitt.ellen@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

Section 128 of the CAA requires SIPs 

to include certain requirements 

regarding State Boards; section 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii) of the CAA also 

references these requirements. Section 

128(a) requires SIPs to contain 

provisions that: (1) Any board or body 

which approves permits or enforcement 

orders under the CAA shall have at least 

a majority of its members represent the 

public interest and not derive any 

significant portion of their income from 

persons subject to permits or 

enforcement orders under the CAA; and 

(2) any potential conflict of interest by 

members of such board or body or the 

head of an executive agency with 

similar powers be adequately disclosed. 

The requirements of section 128(a)(1) 

are not applicable to West Virginia 

because it does not have any board or 

body which approves air quality permits 

or enforcement orders. The 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
12346 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 45 / Monday, March 9, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

requirements of section 128(a)(2), 

however, are applicable because the 

head of the West Virginia Department of 

Environmental Protection (WVDEP), or 

his/her designees, approve permits or 

enforcement orders within West 

Virginia. 

On July 24, 2014, the State of West 

Virginia, through WVDEP, submitted a 

SIP revision to address the requirements 

of section 128 for all criteria pollutants 

of the NAAQS in relation to State 

Boards. The SIP revision consists of 

relevant portions of West Virginia Code 

6B of the West Virginia Governmental 

Ethics Act for inclusion into the West 

Virginia SIP. 

In addition, this rulemaking action 

approves the section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) 

infrastructure element from the 

following West Virginia infrastructure 

SIP submittals for each identified 

NAAQS: February 21, 2012 for the 2008 

O3 NAAQS, December 13, 2012 for the 

2010 NO2 NAAQS, and July 1, 2013 for 

the 2010 SO2 NAAQS (collectively, the 

Three Submittals). For the Three 

Submittals, EPA had previously 

approved those submittals as addressing 

certain requirements in section 

110(a)(2), and specifically stated EPA 

would take later separate action, for 

each of the NAAQS addressed, on 

section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) which requires a 

state’s SIP to meet the requirements of 

CAA section 128. See 79 FR 3504 

(January 22, 2014), 79 FR 19001 (April 

7, 2014), and 79 FR 62022 (October 16, 

2014). 

II. Summary of SIP Revision 

This rulemaking action approves 

certain statutory provisions for the West 

Virginia SIP submitted by WVDEP to 

meet the requirements of section 128 of 

the CAA. Upon meeting the 

requirements of section 128, West 

Virginia will also meet the requirements 

of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) of the CAA for 

all criteria pollutants of the NAAQS in 

relation to State Boards. 

WVDEP submitted these statutory 

provisions for inclusion in the West 

Virginia SIP to meet requirements of 

section 128. These West Virginia 

statutory provisions are in the West 

Virginia Governmental Ethics Act set 

forth in West Virginia Code 6B, 

specifically in W.V. Code section 

6B–1–3 (Definitions), section 6B–2–6 

(Financial disclosure statement; filing 

requirements), and section 6B–2–7 

(Financial disclosure statement; 

contents). In the July 24, 2014 SIP 

submittal, WVDEP states that any 

potential conflicts of interest by the 

head of an executive agency that 

approves permits or enforcement orders 

must be disclosed pursuant to the West 

Virginia Governmental Ethics Act found 

in W.V. Code sections 6B–1–3, 6B–2–6, 

and 6B–2–7. In order to meet the 

requirements of CAA sections 128 and 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii), West Virginia is seeking 

to incorporate into the SIP these 

relevant provisions of the West Virginia 

Code. 

III. The State Boards Requirements and 

EPA’s Analysis of West Virginia’s 

Submittal 

As previously stated, section 128 of 

the CAA requires that SIPs include 

provisions which provide: (1) Any 

board or body which approves permits 

or enforcement orders under the CAA 

have at least a majority of its members 

represent the public interest and not 

derive any significant portion of their 

income from persons subject to permits 

or enforcement orders under the CAA; 

and (2) any potential conflict of interest 

by members of such board or body or 

the head of an executive agency with 

similar powers be adequately disclosed. 

The requirements of section 128(a)(1) 

are not applicable to West Virginia 

because it does not have any board or 

body which approves air quality permits 

or enforcement orders. To address 

requirements in section 128(a)(2), West 

Virginia submitted for incorporation 

into its SIP the relevant portions of the 

West Virginia Code 6B, specifically 

W.V. Code sections 6B–1–3 

(Definitions), 6B–2–6 (Financial 

disclosure statement; filing 

requirements), and 6B–2–7 (Financial 

disclosure statement; contents). 

According to WVDEP, the Secretary of 

WVDEP, or his/her designees, approve 

all CAA permits and enforcement orders 

in West Virginia. West Virginia Code 6B 

at W.V. Code section 6B–2–6 and 

section 6B–2–7 require secretaries of 

departments, commissioners, deputy 

commissioners, assistant 

commissioners, directors, deputy 

directors, assistant directors, 

department heads, deputy department 

heads and assistant department heads to 

disclose annually relevant information 

including certain direct and indirect 

financial interests, employment, 

business interests, income and sources 

of income, financial liabilities, 

participation on boards of directors, and 

gifts. The West Virginia Code at W.V. 

Code section 6B–1–3 also contains 

relevant definitions for terms used in 

W.V. Code sections 6B–2–6 and 6B–2– 

7. EPA finds these West Virginia 

statutory provisions provide for 

adequate disclosure of potential 

conflicts of interest. This SIP revision 

will incorporate existing West Virginia 

law into the SIP and demonstrates that 

West Virginia complies with the 

requirements of sections 128 for all 

NAAQS pollutants through the relevant 

sections of West Virginia Code 6B. 

Thus, EPA finds the July 24, 2014 SIP 

submittal addresses the relevant State 

Boards requirements in section 128 for 

West Virginia. 

IV. Infrastructure Requirements and 

EPA’s Analysis of West Virginia’s 

Submittals 

Whenever new or revised NAAQS are 

promulgated, the CAA requires states to 

submit a plan for the implementation, 

maintenance, and enforcement of such 

NAAQS. The plan is required to address 

basic program elements including, but 

not limited to, regulatory structure, 

monitoring, modeling, legal authority, 

and adequate resources necessary to 

assure attainment and maintenance of 

the standards. These elements are 

referred to as infrastructure 

requirements. In particular, the 

infrastructure requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii) require that each state’s 

SIP meet the requirements of section 

128. 

On the following dates, and for the 

applicable NAAQS, West Virginia 

submitted infrastructure SIP submittals 

to meet the requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2): February 21, 2012 for the 2008 

O3 NAAQS, December 13, 2012 for the 

2010 NO2 NAAQS, and July 1, 2013 for 

the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

EPA has approved these submittals as 

meeting certain requirements or 

elements in section 110(a)(2) for the 

applicable NAAQS but has stated in 

each of these approvals that EPA would 

take later, separate action for 

requirements in section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii). 

For a discussion of EPA’s approach to 

reviewing infrastructure SIPs, including 

our longstanding interpretation of 

requirements for section 110(a)(1) and 

(2), our interpretation that the CAA 

allows states to make multiple SIP 

submissions separately addressing 

infrastructure SIP elements in section 

110(a)(2) for a specific NAAQS, and our 

interpretation that EPA has the ability to 

act on separate elements of 110(a)(2) for 

a NAAQS in separate rulemaking 

actions, see our proposed approvals of 

West Virginia’s infrastructure SIPs for 

the 2008 O3 NAAQS and the 2010 NO2

and SO2 NAAQS. See 78 FR 39650 (July 

2, 2013) (2008 O3 NAAQS), 78 FR 65593 

(November 1, 2013) (2010 NO2 NAAQS), 

and 79 FR 27524 (May 14, 2014) (2010 

SO2 NAAQS). 

With the July 24, 2014 SIP submittal 

from West Virginia, EPA finds that the 

West Virginia SIP adequately addresses 

all requirements in CAA section 128 

and section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii). Thus, EPA 

is now approving the section 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 45 / Monday, March 9, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 12347 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii) infrastructure element 

for the Three Submittals for the 2008 O3, 

2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

V. Final Action 

EPA is approving the July 24, 2014 

West Virginia SIP revision that 

addresses the requirements of sections 

128 and 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) of the CAA for 

all criteria pollutants of the NAAQS. 

EPA is also specifically approving West 

Virginia’s February 21, 2012 SIP 

revision for the 2008 O3 NAAQS, the 

December 13, 2012 SIP revision for the 

2010 NO2 NAAQS, and the July 1, 2013 

SIP revision for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS 

as addressing the requirements in 

section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) of the CAA. EPA 

is publishing this rule without prior 

proposal because EPA views this as a 

noncontroversial amendment and 

anticipates no adverse comment. 

However, in the ‘‘Proposed Rules’’ 

section of today’s Federal Register, EPA 

is publishing a separate document that 

will serve as the proposal to approve the 

SIP revision if adverse comments are 

filed. This rule will be effective on May 

8, 2015 without further notice unless 

EPA receives adverse comment by April 

8, 2015. If EPA receives adverse 

comment, EPA will publish a timely 

withdrawal in the Federal Register 

informing the public that the rule will 

not take effect. EPA will address all 

public comments in a subsequent final 

rule based on the proposed rule. EPA 

will not institute a second comment 

period on this action. Any parties 

interested in commenting must do so at 

this time. Please note that if EPA 

receives adverse comment on an 

amendment, paragraph, or section of 

this rule and if that provision may be 

severed from the remainder of the rule, 

EPA may adopt as final those provisions 

of the rule that are not the subject of an 

adverse comment. 

VI. Incorporation by Reference 

In this rule, the EPA is proposing to 

include in a final EPA rule regulatory 

text that includes incorporation by 

reference. In accordance with 

requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is 

proposing to incorporate by reference 

the West Virginia Code sections 

described in the proposed amendments 

to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. The 

EPA has made, and will continue to 

make, these documents generally 

available electronically through 

www.regulations.gov and/or in hard 

copy at the appropriate EPA office (see 

the ADDRESSES section of this preamble 

for more information). 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. General Requirements 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

B. Submission to Congress and the 

Comptroller General 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

C. Petitions for Judicial Review 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by May 8, 2015. Filing a petition 

for reconsideration by the Administrator 

of this final rule does not affect the 

finality of this action for the purposes of 

judicial review nor does it extend the 

time within which a petition for judicial 

review may be filed, and shall not 

postpone the effectiveness of such rule 

or action. Parties with objections to this 

direct final rule are encouraged to file a 

comment in response to the parallel 

notice of proposed rulemaking for this 

action published in the proposed rules 

section of today’s Federal Register, 

rather than file an immediate petition 

for judicial review of this direct final 

rule, so that EPA can withdraw this 

direct final rule and address the 

comment in the proposed rulemaking 

action. This action, approving West 

Virginia submissions meeting section 

128 and approving the infrastructure 

element E(ii) for three NAAQS 

submittals, may not be challenged later 

in proceedings to enforce its 

requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides. 

Dated: February 12, 2015. 

William C. Early, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
12348 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 45 / Monday, March 9, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Subpart XX—West Virginia 

■ 2. In § 52.2520: 

■ a. Paragraph (c) is amended by adding 

a table entitled ‘‘EPA-Approved 

Regulations and Statutes’’ after the 

existing table; and 

■ b. The table in paragraph (e) is 

amended by revising the entries for: 

■ i. Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure 

Requirements for the 2008 8-Hour 

Ozone NAAQS, 

■ ii. Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure 

Requirements for the 2010 nitrogen 

dioxide NAAQS, and Section 110(a)(2) 

Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 

1-Hour Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS. 

The addition and revisions read as 

follows: 

§ 52.2520 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED REGULATIONS AND STATUTES

State citation Title/subject 

State 

effective 

date 

EPA approval date Explanation [former SIP citation] 

West Virginia Code 6B—Ethics Standards and Financial Disclosure 

6B–1–3 ......... Definitions ....................................... 10/1/2014 3/9/2015 [Insert Federal Register 

citation].

Addresses CAA section 128. 

6B–2–6 ......... Financial disclosure statement; filing requirements.10/1/2014 3/9/2015 [Insert Federal Register 

citation].

Addresses CAA section 128. 

6B–2–7 ......... Financial disclosure statement; 

contents.

10/1/2014 3/9/2015 [Insert Federal Register 

citation].

Addresses CAA section 128. 

* * * * * (e) * * * 

Name of non-regulatory 

SIP revision 

Applicable geographic area State submittal 

date EPA approval date Additional explanation 

*******

Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements 

for the 2008 8-Hour 

Ozone NAAQS.

Statewide .......... 8/31/11, 2/17/12 10/17/12, 77 FR 63736 .. Approval of the following PSD-related elements or 

portions thereof: 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J), 

except taking no action on the definition of 

‘‘regulated NSR pollutant’’ found at 45CSR14 

section 2.66 only as it relates to the requirement 

to include condensable emissions of particulate 

matter in that definition. See § 52.2522(i). 

2/17/12 ............. 4/7/2014, 79 FR 19001 .. This action addresses the following CAA elements, or portions thereof: 110(a)(2)(A), (B), 

(C), (D), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). 

7/24/14 ............. 3/9/15 [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

Addresses CAA element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii). 

*******

Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements 

for the 2010 nitrogen dioxide NAAQS.

Statewide .......... 12/13/12 ........... 1/22/14, 78 FR 3504 ...... This action addresses the following CAA elements: 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D), (E), (F), (G), 

(H), (J), (K), (L), and (M), or portions thereof. 

7/24/14 ............. 3/9/15 [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

Addresses CAA element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii). 

*******

Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements 

for the 2010 1-Hour 

Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS.

Statewide .......... 6/25/13 ............. 10/16/14, 79 FR 62035 .. This action addresses the following CAA elements: 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C) (enforcement and 

minor new source review), (D)(ii), (E)(i) and (iii), 

(F), (G), (H), (J) (consultation, public notification, 

and visibility protection), (K), (L), and (M). 

7/24/14 ............. 3/9/15 [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

Addresses CAA element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii). 

*******


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 45 / Monday, March 9, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 12349 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2015–05222 Filed 3–6–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 648 

RIN 0648–XD775 

Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; 

General Provisions for Domestic 

Fisheries; Application for Fishing Year 

2014 Sector Exemption 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Final grant of regulatory 

exemptions. 

SUMMARY: The Regional Administrator, 

Greater Atlantic Region, NMFS, has 

approved a request for exemptions from 

two recently implemented Gulf of 

Maine cod interim management 

measures. 

DATES: The effective dates of these 

regulatory exemptions are from March 

4, 2015 through April 30, 2015. The 

regulatory exemptions were applicable 

on March 3, 2015. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

William Whitmore, Fisheries Policy 

Analyst, 978–281–9182. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

On March 3, 2015, we granted several 

groundfish sectors their request for 

exemptions from two management 

measures implemented in a temporary 

rule intended to enhance protections for 

Gulf of Maine (GOM) cod (79 FR 67362; 

November 13, 2014). The GOM cod 

interim rule implemented several 

management restrictions including: (1) 

A GOM cod trip limit of 200 lb (90.7 kg) 

for groundfish sector vessels and; (2) a 

restriction limiting commercial limited 

access groundfish vessels to fishing only 

in the GOM broad stock area (BSA) for 

the duration of the declared trip. The 

interim rule also established a series of 

time and area closures to protect GOM 

cod but we are not relieving or granting 

any exemptions from those closures. 

On February 9, 2015, we received an 

exemption request from several sectors. 

These sectors worked together to 

assemble 30 mt of GOM cod annual 

catch entitlement (ACE), which was 

traded to Northeast Fishery Sector IV, a 

lease-only sector with no active fishing 

effort. That sector proposed to withhold 

and render unusable that 30 mt of GOM 

cod ACE, including preventing its use 

for potential carryover to the next 

fishing year, if sectors are granted 

regulatory exemptions from the GOM 

cod trip limit and GOM BSA restriction. 

As explained in our February 23, 

2015, notice (80 FR 9438), the sectors 

proposed to implement a management 

measure we did not include in our 

November 13, 2014, GOM cod interim 

rule: A reduction to the ACE available 

to those sectors that have opted to fish 

under these regulatory exemptions for 

the remainder of the fishing year. 

Because the fishing industry will 

continue to fish through the end of the 

fishing year, and will continue to 

encounter GOM cod, the sector 

exemptions would establish a firm 30- 

mt reduction in the limit on total cod 

catch that is expected to be greater than 

the mortality reduction that would 

otherwise be achieved through the 

interim trip-limit measure. In addition 

to an actual reduction in the total 

potential cod catch, these sector 

exemptions should reduce regulatory 

discards, reduce management 

uncertainty affiliated with catch and 

mortality, and improve catch yield, 

while providing greater operational 

flexibility. For these reasons, we have 

determined that these exemptions are 

consistent with the goals and objectives 

of the interim measures and the fishery 

management plan. 

Also in our February 23, 2015, notice, 

we proposed a daily catch reporting 

requirement in place of the BSA 

exemption. This requirement was 

intended to address our concerns about 

the accurate apportionment of catch 

between the BSAs and the incentive to 

misreport catch on unobserved trips to 

avoid potentially constraining catch 

limits. We noted these same concerns in 

our 2014 interim action for GOM cod. 

Additionally, this issue was discussed 

during the development of Framework 

Adjustment 53 to the Northeast 

Multispecies Fishery Management Plan, 

and is noted in various analyses 

prepared by the Council in support of 

Framework 53. We are continuing to 

consider the possibility of additional 

reporting requirements (e.g., daily 

Vessel Monitoring System catch reports) 

for commercial groundfish vessels that 

could improve attribution of catch and 

help reduce the incentive to misreport. 

We are not specifically requiring these 

additional requirements in this action, 

however, to provide time for further 

deliberation. We intend to further 

consult with the Council on this issue 

to explore whether additional reporting 

requirements implemented through a 

future rule-making could help address 

the noted concerns. 

We received a total of 24 comments in 

response to our February 23 notice 

soliciting public comment on the sector 

exemption request: 16 comments in 

support of the exemption requests; 3 

partially supporting the requests; 4 

opposed to the requests; and 1 comment 

that was not applicable to the 

exemptions. Comments were submitted 

by 17 members of the fishing industry, 

Maine Division of Marine Resources 

(ME DMR), Massachusetts Division of 

Marine Fisheries (MA DMF), and four 

environmental non-governmental 

organizations. Most of the commenters 

simply favored or opposed granting the 

exemption requests and did not 

otherwise substantively address the 

details of the exemptions. ME DMR 

supports the exemptions and the 

additional flexibility they would 

provide to fishermen, but expressed 

some concern about GOM cod catch 

reporting. In addition to supporting our 

granting the exemption request, MA 

DMF submitted lengthy comments, 

including several questions and requests 

for clarifications, which we respond to 

further below. 

Several commenters opposed 

removing the GOM BSA restriction due 

to concern that vessels could misreport 

GOM cod catch as Georges Bank cod. 

While we understand this concern, this 

is a larger issue that should be 

addressed through a more long-term 

solution developed by the New England 

Fishery Management Council. We 

intend to further consult with the 

Council on this issue. 

Some commenters claimed that the 

exemptions provided benefits to larger 

vessels that could fish offshore but did 

relatively little to help inshore fishing 

vessels. Most of the GOM cod stock is 

located inshore in the western Gulf of 

Maine. Therefore, in order to protect the 

most concentrated stocks of GOM cod, 

we need to reduce fishing efforts 

inshore. This is why the majority of the 

seasonal interim closure areas are 

inshore and the inshore/dayboat fleet is 

affected the most by the GOM cod 

seasonal interim closure areas. We 

considered these exemption requests as 

they were presented to us. Our analyses 

showed a more certain benefit to the 

fishery overall than the likely potential 

benefit from maintaining trip limits or 

the single GOM BSA restriction. Based 

on this, we have determined that these 

exemptions fairly and reasonably 

promote overall conservation consistent 

with the goals and objectives of the 

groundfish fishery management plan. 

The Conservation Law Foundation 

(CLF) and the Center for Biological 

Diversity (CBD) opposed the exemption 

requests because they do not adequately 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES