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
12350 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 45 / Monday, March 9, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

address the overfishing of GOM cod or 

efforts to rebuild the overfished stocks. 

We evaluated the impacts of these 

exemptions compared to the status quo 

under the current GOM cod interim 

measures. The analyses in our 

supplemental information report 

indicates that granting these exemptions 

will likely result in conservation 

positive biological impacts as well as 

positive economic impacts relative to 

not granting the exemptions. We 

understand that additional measures 

may need to be developed to protect and 

rebuild GOM cod over the long term. 

The comments provided by CLF and 

CBD that focused on general GOM cod 

management measures, however, are 

beyond the scope of these exemption 

requests and are impracticable to 

address in this document, especially 

given the limited time available, as well 

as the GOM cod interim action. We have 

concluded that the benefits from 

approving this exemption outweigh the 

concerns expressed by those that do not 

support the exemption request, 

particularly because these exemptions 

are effective only from March 4, 2015 

through April 30, 2015. 

MA DMF requested that we provide a 

more thorough explanation of why we 

elected to remove the 200-lb (90.7-kg) 

trip limit. During the GOM cod interim 

rule public comment period, several 

sectors proposed a similar offer to 

remove the trip limit in favor of an 

overall ACE reduction; however, we 

could not develop a means to reduce 

sector ACE through the interim action in 

a sufficiently timely manner. Reallocating a reduced quota amongst all 

the sectors was too complex and 

potentially disruptive. For example, 

reducing the allocation of all permits 

enrolled in sectors would create 

complex logistical challenges for sector 

managers who would then need to 

reallocate ACE mid-way through the 

fishing year. We were also unsure how 

to enforce the sectors’ voluntary 

proposal not to utilize the ACE through 

the interim action. Also, as explained 

below, fishing practices changed after 

the GOM cod interim action was put in 

place. Taking into account these 

changes, our comparison of the 

potential conservation benefits of the 

trip limits to the firm reduction in the 

GOM cod ACE weighed in favor of 

removing the trip limit. Further, the 

sectors submission of a regulatory 

exemption request to voluntarily reduce 

their ACE provided a more feasible and 

timely process than the interim action 

process. 

MA DMF questioned how we can 

claim that removing trip limits (and 

potentially allowing vessels to target 

cod) reduces regulatory discarding. We 

expect that removing the 200 lb. trip 

limit should reduce regulatory 

discarding because vessels will no 

longer be required to discard legal sized 

fish that are caught after the 200-lb limit 

is attained. With trip limits under the 

interim rule, any undersized fish and 

GOM cod caught after 200 lb (90.7 kg) 

was on board the vessel was legally 

required to be discarded. Data analyzed 

after the trip limits were implemented 

(see Figure 2, pg. 8 in the GOM cod 

Supplemental Information Report) 

indicates that groundfish vessels 

appeared to target GOM cod even with 

a 200-lb (90.7-kg) trip limit in place. 

Because vessels are required to discard 

all cod over the 200-lb. limit, we were 

concerned with the potential for 

increased discards that would 

accompany this increased effort. 

Removing the trip limit allows vessels 

to discard only fish that are undersized. 

We stated in our notice that with trip 

limits, there was uncertainty in the 

amount of reduction in cod mortality, in 

large part due to the uncertainty in the 

rate of discards, but also in the total 

amount of catch that sectors might 

achieve. Removing the trip limits is 

expected to reduce discards because it 

allows discarding only of undersized 

fish and substantially reduce the 

uncertainty in the rate of discards. The 

30-mt reduction in ACE also provides a 

firm limit on the total amount of catch. 

MA DMF expressed concern over our 

proposal to approve minor sector 

exemption modifications without 

additional notice because they felt that 

we did not adequately define ‘‘minor.’’ 

As explained in the notice, our intent is 

to modify sector exemptions in this 

manner only if a modification is deemed 

essential to facilitate the exemption and 

has minimal impacts that would not 

change the scope or impact of the 

initially approved sector exemption 

request. We interpret this to mean that 

any small change that is necessary for 

the exemption to be implemented 

properly could be done so without 

additional notice. We expect such 

changes to be administrative in nature. 

For instance, there may be a monitoring 

or reporting detail that is inadvertently 

overlooked that could be enacted to 

improve the effectiveness of the 

exemption. We believe any such change 

would not alter the intent, affect, or 

impacts of the exemption. 

Several commenters, including MA 

DMF, suggested that we should have 

further considered the additional 30-mt 

set-aside offered by the sectors in 

exchange for access to the March GOM 

cod seasonal interim closure areas. 

These commenters argue that the 

inshore fleet would greatly benefit from 

fishing in the March closure areas. The 

primary tool in the GOM cod interim 

rule to reduce GOM cod mortality and 

protect spawning GOM cod was area 

closures. We spent considerable time 

and effort determining the correct 

seasons and times and received many 

comments in support of the GOM cod 

interim seasonal closure areas. Also, the 

commenters have not proposed any 

comparable protection measures for 

spawning cod that would support 

modifying these area closures. For these 

reasons, we are unwilling to modify the 

March closure areas. 

MA DMF asked which sectors 

contributed to the 30-mt set-aside and 

inquired whether the allocation 

reductions were commensurate with 

how much ACE was set aside (or 

contributed by each sector). 

Sector ACE trade information is 

available online at http:// 

www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/ 

aps/monitoring/nemultispecies.html. 

We regard the relative amount of ACE 

contributed by each sector to be 

irrelevant to the total reduction in ACE 

because the sectors requesting the 

exemptions specifically requested to 

offer the exemption to every sector, 

regardless of whether or not it 

contributed GOM cod ACE to the setaside. Also, which sector provided the 

ACE is irrelevant to the certainty of the 

conservation benefit provided by the 

ACE reduction this fishing year. 

We are not putting in place a 30-day 

delay in effectiveness for this action 

because this document grants 

exemptions that relieve two regulatory 

restrictions. By recognizing an 

exemption and eliminating the 200-lb 

GOM cod trip limit and allowing vessels 

to fish inside and outside of the GOM 

on the same trip, this action is excepted 

from the 30-day delayed effectiveness 

provision of the APA pursuant to 5 

U.S.C. 553(d)(1). This action will allow 

fishing vessels enrolled in sectors 

greater operational flexibility, which 

should improve efficiency while 

providing a certain limit on GOM cod 

mortality. Furthermore, there is good 

cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to 

implement these exemptions 

immediately because a delay in 

implementation of these measures 

would reduce the positive economic 

impacts and potential conservation 

benefits that are intended by these 

measures. These exemptions are 

effective only from March 4, 2015 

through April 30, 2015. Any delay in 

effectiveness would be contrary to the 

public interest because it would 

significantly reduce the benefits of these 

measures to groundfish sector 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 45 / Monday, March 9, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 12351 

participants, associated fishing 

communities, and the GOM cod stock. 

These exemptions apply only for the 

remainder of the 2014 fishing year and 

are available to all sectors who request 

them. Sector vessels that wish to fish 

under these exemptions must have the 

appropriate Letter of Authorization on 

board their vessel prior to harvesting 

more than 200 lb (90.7 kg) of GOM cod 

or fishing inside and outside of the 

GOM BSA on the same trip. The 

following sectors have received revised 

Letters of Authorization allowing them 

to fish under these exemptions: Maine 

Coastal Communities Sector; Northeast 

Fishery Sectors II, III, VI, VII, VIII, IX, 

X, XI; and Sustainable Harvest Sector 1. 

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

Dated: March 4, 2015. 

Alan D. Risenhoover, 

Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2015–05366 Filed 3–4–15; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES