71340 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

DATES: Effective 0001 hours, November 

29, 2014, through December 31, 2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Reid 

Lichwell, (978) 281–9112, or 

Reid.Lichwell@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Regulations governing the summer 

flounder fishery are found at 50 CFR 

part 648. The regulations require annual 

specification of a commercial quota that 

is apportioned on a percentage basis 

among the coastal states from North 

Carolina through Maine. The process to 

set the annual commercial quota and the 

percent allocated to each state is 

described in § 648.102. 

The initial coastwide total 

commercial quota for summer flounder 

for the 2014 fishing year was set at 

10,835,720 lb (4,915,000 kg) (79 FR 

29371, May 22, 2014). The percent 

allocated to vessels landing summer 

flounder in New Jersey is 16.72499 

percent, resulting in a commercial quota 

of 1,812,273 lb (822,033 kg). We 

adjusted the 2014 New Jersey summer 

flounder allocation to 1,765,169 lb 

(800,667 kg) to deduct research setaside, quota overages from 2013, and 

adjustments for quota transfers between 

states. 

The Administrator, Greater Atlantic 

Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), 

monitors the state commercial landings 

and determines when a state’s 

commercial quota has been harvested. 

NMFS is required to publish 

notification in the Federal Register 

advising and notifying commercial 

vessels and dealer permit holders that, 

effective upon a specific date, the state’s 

commercial quota has been harvested 

and no commercial quota is available for 

landing summer flounder in that state. 

The Regional Administrator has 

determined that the 2014 New Jersey 

commercial summer flounder quota 

would be harvested by November 24, 

2014, based upon dealer reports and 

other available information. 

Section 648.4(b) provides that Federal 

permit holders agree, as a condition of 

the permit, not to land summer flounder 

in any state that the Regional 

Administrator has determined no longer 

has commercial quota available. 

Therefore, effective 0001 hours, 

November 29, 2014, landings of summer 

flounder in New Jersey by vessels 

holding summer flounder commercial 

Federal fisheries permits are prohibited 

for the remainder of the 2014 calendar 

year, unless additional quota becomes 

available through a transfer and is 

announced in the Federal Register. 

Effective 0001 hours, November 29, 

2014, federally permitted dealers are 

also notified that they may not purchase 

summer flounder from federally 

permitted vessels that land in New 

Jersey for the remainder of the calendar 

year, or until additional quota becomes 

available through a transfer from 

another state. 

Classification 

This action is required by 50 CFR part 

648 and is exempt from review under 

Executive Order 12866. 

The Assistant Administrator for 

Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause 

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to waive 

prior notice and the opportunity for 

public comment because it would be 

contrary to the public interest. This 

action closes the summer flounder 

fishery for New Jersey until January 1, 

2015, under current regulations. The 

regulations at § 648.103(b) require such 

action to ensure that summer flounder 

vessels do not exceed quotas allocated 

to the states. If implementation of this 

closure was delayed to solicit prior 

public comment, the quota for this 

fishing year would be exceeded, thereby 

undermining the conservation 

objectives of the Summer Flounder 

Fishery Management Plan. The AA 

further finds, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 

553(d)(3), good cause to waive the 30- 

day delayed effectiveness period for the 

reason stated above. 

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

Dated: November 26, 2014. 

Emily H. Menashes, 

Acting Director, Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2014–28379 Filed 11–26–14; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 660 

[Docket No. 130405338–4987–02] 

RIN 0648–BC84 

Fisheries Off West Coast States; 

Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery 

Management Plan; Trawl 

Rationalization Program; Chafing Gear 

Modifications 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This action modifies the 

existing chafing gear regulations for 

midwater trawl gear. This action 

includes regulations that affect all trawl 

sectors (Shorebased Individual Fishing 

Quota Program (IFQ), Mothership 

Cooperative Program (MS), Catcher/

Processor Cooperative Program (C/P), 

and tribal fishery) managed under the 

Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery 

Management Plan (PCGFMP). Many 

Pacific whiting vessels also fish in the 

Alaska groundfish fisheries. This action 

establishes chafing gear restrictions for 

the Pacific Coast groundfish fishery that 

are more compatible with those for the 

Gulf of Alaska groundfish and Bering 

Sea and Aleutian Islands groundfish 

fisheries. 

DATES: Effective January 1, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: NMFS prepared a Final 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA), 

which is summarized in the 

Classification section of this final rule. 

NMFS also prepared an Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) 

for the proposed rule. Copies of the 

IRFA, FRFA and the Small Entity 

Compliance Guide are available from 

William W. Stelle, Jr., Regional 

Administrator, West Coast Region, 

NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way NE., 

Seattle, WA 98115–0070; or by phone at 

206–526–6150. Copies of the Small 

Entity Compliance Guide are available 

on the West Coast Region’s Web site at 

http://

www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Becky Renko, 206–526–6110; (fax) 206– 

526–6736; Becky.Renko@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final 

rule modifies the chafing gear 

regulations that apply to all midwater 

trawl gear. Chafing or chafer panels are 

webbing or other material attached to 

the codend to minimize damage from 

wear caused by the codend rubbing 

against the stern ramp and trawl alley 

during net retrieval and from contact 

with the ocean floor. Midwater trawl 

gear is effective for targeting groundfish 

species that ascend above the ocean 

floor and is not designed to make 

frequent contact with the ocean floor. 

The only gear allowed for the targeting 

of Pacific whiting during the Pacific 

whiting primary seasons for the 

shorebased IFQ program, MS coop 

program, and CP coop program is 

midwater trawl gear. Midwater trawl 

gear is also used in the shorebased IFQ 

program to target non-whiting species 

such as widow, yellowtail, and 

chilipepper rockfish. A proposed rule 

was published in the Federal Register 

on March 19, 2014 (79 FR 15296), 

followed by a correction which was 

published on April 4, 2014 (79 FR 

18876). 

During the proposed rule comment 

period, NMFS specifically sought 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 71341 

comments on the proposed method of 

attachment for chafing gear, including 

the benefits and effects relative to 

current minimum mesh size restrictions 

and the prohibition on double-walled 

codends. Only single-walled codend are 

allowed in Pacific Coast groundfish 

regulations and this rule does not 

change that restriction. A single-walled 

codend is constructed of a single wall of 

webbing knitted with single or doublebar mesh (double twine tied into a 

single knot). A double-walled codend is 

constructed of two walls (layers) of 

webbing. The prohibition on the use of 

double-walled codends was developed 

by the Council in the 1990s to ensure 

the success of minimum mesh size 

restrictions. Minimum mesh size 

restrictions are intended to reduce the 

catch of juvenile and small 

unmarketable fish (groundfish and nongroundfish species). To prevent chafing 

gear from being used to create the effect 

of a double-walled codend, NMFS 

identified an interest in adding 

regulatory language to the final rule to 

further clarify the existing regulatory 

prohibition of double-walled codends 

(§ 660.130(b)(1)). 

This rule also includes minor 

technical revisions to related regulatory 

text. Section 660.11, General 

definitions, contains basic descriptions 

of small footrope, large footrope and 

midwater trawl gear while the in-depth 

descriptions of these trawl gears found 

in § 660.130. Modifications at § 660.130 

eliminate redundancy with § 660.11 and 

increase clarity. 

Response to Comments 

One letter of comment was received 

from an individual representing 

members of the Pacific whiting industry 

who are directly affected by the 

rulemaking. 

Comment 1: NMFS states in the 

proposed rule that they are considering 

clarifying the chafing gear regulation to 

prevent creating an incentive to use 

chafing gear to make a double-walled 

codend. However, NMFS provides no 

information in the proposed rule about 

how the proposed chafing gear 

regulations relate to the creation of a 

double-walled codend. To the contrary, 

the regulations as proposed do not 

create an incentive for fishermen to 

fashion a double-walled codend because 

the chafing gear can only cover up to 75 

percent of the codend and the top panel 

of the codend will remain open. Putting 

aside the fact that the entirety of the 

codend will not be covered with chafing 

gear, NMFS appears to request input 

about the potential for the creation of a 

double-walled codend because this has 

the potential to increase the catch of 

smaller fish and incidental catch of nonwhiting species. However, doing this in 

the Pacific whiting fishery is counter 

intuitive because maximizing utilization 

and minimizing bycatch are standard 

practices. Similarly, NMFS states that 

the proposed rule might create an 

incentive for bottom contact with the 

codend. Given the fishing dynamics of 

a whiting midwater trawl, this is nearly 

impossible. These are not reasons to 

justify modification of the proposed rule 

language, especially in regards to the 

catcher/processor sector of the whiting 

fishery. 

The proposed rule language most 

closely matches current industry 

practice. Any deviation from the PFMC 

recommendation will cause disruption 

and economic hardship to the fleet with 

no conservation or other benefit to 

fisheries or habitat. The rule language as 

proposed is well justified and should be 

implemented as soon as possible. 

Response: When the chafing gear 

provisions were originally 

implemented, the Council’s stated 

intent was to maintain the minimum 

mesh size restrictions so small fish 

could escape. The proposed rule did not 

consider changing regulations on 

minimum mesh size restrictions or the 

required use of single-walled codends 

(use of double-walled codends is 

prohibited). Therefore, NMFS believes it 

is necessary to maintain the Council’s 

intent for the minimum mesh size 

restriction and double-walled codend 

prohibition, by simply adding 

regulatory text to state that chafing gear 

may not be used to create a doublewalled codend. 

The request for comment applied to 

all midwater trawl gear regardless of the 

target species and was not specific to 

vessels targeting Pacific whiting. With 

the growth in non-whiting midwater 

fishing, gear configurations could differ 

from those used in the Pacific whiting 

fishery. NMFS is clarifying the 

regulations so the intent of the gear 

regulations is maintained relative to 

minimum mesh size restrictions and the 

prohibition on the use of double-walled 

codends. 

The data used in the analysis for this 

action shows that Pacific whiting 

vessels using midwater trawl gear, 

including those in the C/P sector, make 

occasional contact with the ocean floor. 

While NMFS recognizes that there is 

occasional bottom contact by midwater 

trawl, this final rule does not change 

regulations to address that occasional 

bottom contact. 

With this final rule, NMFS is 

implementing the Council’s 

recommendation for chafing gear and 

maintaining the Council’s intent to 

allow escapement of small fish from the 

codend of midwater trawl gear. The gear 

restrictions on minimum mesh size and 

a prohibition on double-walled codends 

are existing requirements. All of the 

changes in this final rule either relieve 

a restriction or further clarify an existing 

restriction. Therefore, these changes 

would not cause disruption or economic 

hardship. 

Changes From the Proposed Rule 

In the trawl fishery management 

measures at § 660.130(b)(1) pertaining to 

the trawl codends, clarification is added 

to prevent vessel operators from using 

chafing gear to create a double-walled 

codend. The Council did not explicitly 

consider changes to the minimum mesh 

size restrictions or the requirement to 

use a single walled codend. Therefore, 

clarifications are being made to the 

regulations to preserve the intent of 

those regulations to allow small fish to 

escape given the changes to chafing gear 

restrictions. 

Classification 

NMFS has made a determination that 

this action is consistent with PCGFMP, 

the MSA, and other applicable law. To 

the extent that the regulations in this 

final rule differ from what was deemed 

by the Council, NMFS invokes its 

independent authority under 16 U.S.C. 

1855(d). In making this determination, 

NMFS took into account the complete 

record, including the data, views, and 

comments received during the comment 

period. 

An EA was prepared for this action. 

The EA is available on the Council’s 

Web site at http://www.pcouncil.org/. 

Pursuant to the procedures 

established to implement section 6 of 

Executive Order 12866, the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) has 

determined that this rule is not 

significant. 

Pursuant to section 604 of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), NMFS 

has prepared a Final Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) in support 

of this action. The FRFA incorporates 

the Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis (IRFA), a summary of the 

significant issues raised by the public 

comments in response to the IRFA, 

NMFS’ response to those comments, 

relevant analysis contained in the action 

and its EA, and a summary of the 

analyses in this rule. A copy of the 

analyses and the EA are available from 

the NMFS (see ADDRESSES). A summary 

of the IRFA was published in the 

proposed rule for this action and is not 

repeated here. A description of why this 

action was considered, the objectives of, 

and the legal basis for this rule is 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

71342 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

contained in the preamble to the 

proposed rule and this final rule and is 

not repeated here. 

In addition to clarifying existing 

regulations, this rule revises the 

regulations to conform to current 

industry chafing gear practices while 

increasing the flexibility of vessel 

owners to make chafing gear 

modifications according to their own 

individual operations and needs. Only 

one comment was received on the 

proposed rule (See Response to 

Comments section above.) This 

comment did not raise any issues or 

concerns related to the IRFA but 

confirmed that this final rule closely 

matches current industry practice. No 

changes were made to this final rule as 

a result of the comment. 

This final rule would affect those 

vessels that use midwater trawl gear in 

Pacific Coast groundfish fisheries. 

Midwater trawl gear is used by catcher/ 

processors, mothership catcher vessels, 

and vessels that deliver to Shoreside 

processors. According to the Small 

Business Administration (SBA), a 

business involved in finfish harvesting 

is a small business if it is independently 

owned and operated, not dominant in 

its field of operation, and has combined 

annual receipts, not in excess of $20.5 

million for all its affiliated operations 

worldwide. After taking into account 

vessels that fish in multiple midwater 

fisheries and their affiliations, NMFS 

estimates that there are 28 midwater 

businesses, 22 of which are small 

businesses. 

In addition to No Action, two 

alternatives were considered. The No 

Action Alternative would limit chafing 

gear to the very end of the codend (the 

last 50 mesh lengths) and 50 percent of 

the codend’s circumference via a single 

panel. Under Alternative 1 (Council 

Preferred Alternative), fishermen would 

have the option of covering up to 100 

percent of the length of the codend and 

up to approximately 75 percent of the 

codend’s circumference through the use 

of a single panel or multiple panels. 

Alternative 2A, fishermen would have 

the option of covering up to 100 percent 

of the length of the codend and up to 

50 percent of the codend’s 

circumference through the use of a 

single panel or multiple panels. Under 

Alternative 2B, fishermen would have 

the option of covering up to 50 percent 

of the length of the codend and up to 

50 percent of the codend’s 

circumference; however, no single panel 

could cover more than 50 meshes of the 

codend. 

Adoption of any alternative other than 

the No Action Alternative would 

increase the useful life of the codend by 

allowing for greater protection against 

abrasion and wear. Currently, most 

fishermen are using gear compliant with 

Alternative 2B, so there would be no 

additional costs associated with this 

alternative. The No Action Alternative 

would require vessel owners to remove 

chafing gear which is estimated to be a 

one-time cost between $5,000 and 

$10,000. As a result, their nets will have 

the least amount of protection and thus 

have to be replaced more often. 

Alternative 1 is the Council’s Preferred 

Alternative allows fishermen more 

flexibility and comports with the 

chafing gear currently used by the 

majority of the fleet that fish in both 

Pacific Coast and Alaska fisheries 

allowing the same gear to be used in 

both regions. Data in the EA shows that 

62 percent of Pacific Coast whiting 

vessels also fished off Alaska between 

2004 and 2010. The codend replacement 

costs are highest under No Actions and 

lowest under the Council Preferred 

Alternative. This rule implements the 

Council Preferred Alternative which 

closely matches current industry 

practice and is not likely to have a 

significant economic impact on any 

entity, large or small. 

Copies of the Small Entity 

Compliance Guide prepared for this 

final rule are available on the West 

Coast Region’s Web site at http://

www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/. 

This final rule does not contain a 

collection-of-information requirement 

subject to review and approval by OMB 

under the Paperwork Reduction Act 

(PRA). 

Pursuant to Executive Order 13175, 

this final rule was developed after 

meaningful consultation and 

collaboration with tribal officials from 

the area covered by the PCGFMP. Under 

the Magnuson-Stevens Act at 16 U.S.C. 

1852(b)(5), one of the voting members of 

the Pacific Council must be a 

representative of an Indian tribe with 

federally recognized fishing rights from 

the area of the Council’s jurisdiction. 

The proposed regulations, which have a 

direct effect on the tribes, were deemed 

by the Council as ‘‘necessary or 

appropriate’’ to implement the PCGFMP 

as amended. 

NMFS issued Biological Opinions 

under the Endangered Species Act 

(ESA) on August 10, 1990, November 

26, 1991, August 28, 1992, September 

27, 1993, May 14, 1996, and December 

15, 1999, pertaining to the effects of the 

PCGFMP fisheries on Chinook salmon 

(Puget Sound, Snake River spring/

summer, Snake River fall, upper 

Columbia River spring, lower Columbia 

River, upper Willamette River, 

Sacramento River winter, Central Valley 

spring, California coastal), coho salmon 

(Central California coastal, southern 

Oregon/northern California coastal), 

chum salmon (Hood Canal summer, 

Columbia River), sockeye salmon (Snake 

River, Ozette Lake), and steelhead 

(upper, middle and lower Columbia 

River, Snake River Basin, upper 

Willamette River, central California 

coast, California Central Valley, south/

central California, northern California, 

southern California). These biological 

opinions have concluded that 

implementation of the PCGFMP is not 

expected to jeopardize the continued 

existence of any endangered or 

threatened species under the 

jurisdiction of NMFS, or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat. 

NMFS issued a Supplemental 

Biological Opinion on March 11, 2006, 

concluding that neither the higher 

observed bycatch of Chinook in the 

2005 whiting fishery nor new data 

regarding salmon bycatch in the 

groundfish bottom trawl fishery 

required a reconsideration of its prior 

‘‘no jeopardy’’ conclusion. NMFS also 

reaffirmed its prior determination that 

implementation of the PCGFMP is not 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of any of the affected species. 

Lower Columbia River coho (70 FR 

37160, June 28, 2005) and Oregon 

Coastal coho (73 FR 7816, February 11, 

2008) were recently relisted as 

threatened under the ESA. The 1999 

biological opinion concluded that the 

bycatch of salmonids in the Pacific 

whiting fishery were almost entirely 

Chinook salmon, with little or no 

bycatch of coho, chum, sockeye, and 

steelhead. 

On January 22, 2013, NMFS requested 

the reinitiation of the biological opinion 

for listed salmonids to address changes 

in the fishery, including the trawl 

rationalization program and the 

emerging midwater trawl fishery. The 

consultation will not be completed prior 

to publication of this rule to modify 

chafing gear regulations for the Pacific 

whiting fishery. NMFS has considered 

the likely impacts on listed salmonids 

for the period of time between the final 

rule and the completion of the 

reinitiated consultation relative to 

sections 7(a)(2) and 7(d) of the ESA. On 

December 18, 2013, NMFS determined 

that ongoing fishing under the PCGFMP, 

assuming that the chafing gear 

modifications are implemented in 2014, 

prior to the completion of the 

consultation would not be likely to 

jeopardize listed salmonids or result in 

any irreversible or irretrievable 

commitment of resources that would 

have the effect of foreclosing the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 71343 

formulation or implementation of any 

necessary reasonable and prudent 

alternatives. 

On December 7, 2012, NMFS 

completed a biological opinion 

concluding that the groundfish fishery 

is not likely to jeopardize non-salmonid 

marine species including listed 

eulachon, green sturgeon, humpback 

whales, Steller sea lions, and 

leatherback sea turtles. The opinion also 

concludes that the fishery is not likely 

to adversely modify critical habitat for 

green sturgeon and leatherback sea 

turtles. An analysis included in the 

same document as the opinion 

concludes that the fishery is not likely 

to adversely affect green sea turtles, 

olive ridley sea turtles, loggerhead sea 

turtles, sei whales, North Pacific right 

whales, blue whales, fin whales, sperm 

whales, Southern Resident killer 

whales, Guadalupe fur seals, or the 

critical habitat for Steller sea lions. With 

this rulemaking, an informal 

consultation on eulachon was initiated 

on January 21, 2013. NMFS considered 

whether the 2012 opinion should be 

reconsidered for eulachon in light of 

new information from the 2011 fishery 

and the proposed chafing gear 

modifications and determined that 

information about the eulachon bycatch 

in 2011 and chafing gear regulations did 

not change the anticipated extent of 

effects of the action, or provide any 

other basis to reinitiate the December 7, 

2012 biological opinion. Therefore, the 

December 7, 2012 biological opinion 

meets the requirements of section 7(a)(2) 

of the ESA and implementing 

regulations at 50 CFR 402 and no further 

consultation is required at this time. 

On November 21, 2012, the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service (FWS) issued a 

biological opinion concluding that the 

groundfish fishery will not jeopardize 

the continued existence of the shorttailed albatross. The FWS also 

concurred that the fishery is not likely 

to adversely affect the marbled murrelet, 

California least tern, southern sea otter, 

bull trout, nor bull trout critical habitat. 

This rule would not alter the effects 

on marine mammals over what has 

already been considered for the fishery. 

West Coast pot fisheries for sablefish are 

considered Category II fisheries under 

the MMPA’s List of Fisheries, indicating 

occasional interactions. All other West 

Coast groundfish fisheries, including the 

trawl fishery, are considered Category III 

fisheries under the MMPA, indicating a 

remote likelihood of or no known 

serious injuries or mortalities to marine 

mammals. On February 27, 2012, NMFS 

published notice that the incidental 

taking of Steller sea lions in the West 

Coast groundfish fisheries is addressed 

in NMFS’ December 29, 2010 Negligible 

Impact Determination (NID) and this 

fishery has been added to the list of 

fisheries authorized to take Steller sea 

lions (77 FR 11493, February 27, 2012). 

On September 4, 2013, based on its 

negligible impact determination dated 

August 28, 2013, NMFS issued a permit 

for a period of three years to authorize 

the incidental taking of humpback 

whales by the sablefish pot fishery (78 

FR 54553, September 4, 2013). 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 660 

Fisheries, Fishing, and Indian 

fisheries. 

Dated: November 25, 2014. 

Samuel D. Rauch III, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Regulatory Programs, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, 50 CFR part 660 is amended 

as follows: 

PART 660—FISHERIES OFF WEST 

COAST STATES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 660 

is revised to read as follows: 

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

773 et seq., and 16 U.S.C. 7001 et seq. 

■ 2. In § 660.130, paragraph (b) and the 

introductory text of paragraph (c) are 

revised to read as follows: 

§ 660.130 Trawl fishery—management 

measures. 

* * * * * 

(b) Trawl gear requirements and 

restrictions. Trawl nets may be fished 

with or without otter boards, and may 

use warps or cables to herd fish. 

(1) Codends. Only single-walled 

codends may be used in any trawl. 

Double-walled codends are prohibited. 

Chafing gear may not be used to create 

a double-walled codend. 

(2) Mesh size. Groundfish trawl gear, 

including chafing gear, must meet the 

minimum mesh size requirements in 

this paragraph. Mesh size requirements 

apply throughout the net. Minimum 

trawl mesh sizes are: Bottom trawl, 4.5 

inches (11.4 cm); midwater trawl, 3.0 

inches (7.6 cm). Minimum trawl mesh 

size requirements are met if a 20-guage 

stainless steel wedge, less one thickness 

of the metal wedge, can be passed with 

only thumb pressure through at least 16 

of 20 sets of two meshes each of wet 

mesh. 

(3) Bottom trawl gear—(i) Large 

footrope trawl gear. Lines or ropes that 

run parallel to the footrope may not be 

augmented with material encircling or 

tied along their length such that they 

have a diameter larger than 19 inches 

(48 cm). For enforcement purposes, the 

footrope will be measured in a straight 

line from the outside edge to the 

opposite outside edge at the widest part 

on any individual part, including any 

individual disk, roller, bobbin, or any 

other device. 

(ii) Small footrope trawl gear. Lines or 

ropes that run parallel to the footrope 

may not be augmented with material 

encircling or tied along their length 

such that they have a diameter larger 

than 8 inches (20 cm). For enforcement 

purposes, the footrope will be measured 

in a straight line from the outside edge 

to the opposite outside edge at the 

widest part on any individual part, 

including any individual disk, roller, 

bobbin, or any other device. 

(A) Selective flatfish trawl gear. 

Selective flatfish trawl gear is a type of 

small footrope trawl gear. The selective 

flatfish trawl net must be a two-seamed 

net with no more than two riblines, 

excluding the codend. The breastline 

may not be longer than 3 ft (0.92 m) in 

length. There may be no floats along the 

center third of the headrope or attached 

to the top panel except on the riblines. 

The footrope must be less than 105 ft 

(32.26 m) in length. The headrope must 

be not less than 30 percent longer than 

the footrope. The headrope shall be 

measured along the length of the 

headrope from the outside edge to the 

opposite outside edge. An explanatory 

diagram of a selective flatfish trawl net 

is provided as Figure 1 of part 660, 

subpart D. 

(B) [Reserved] 

(iii) Chafing gear restrictions for 

bottom trawl gear. Chafing gear may 

encircle no more than 50 percent of the 

net’s circumference and may be in one 

or more sections. Chafing gear may be 

used only on the last 50 meshes, 

measured from the terminal (closed) end 

of the codend. Only the front edge (edge 

closest to the open end of the codend) 

and sides of each section of chafing gear 

may be attached to the codend; except 

at the corners, the terminal edge (edge 

closest to the closed end of the codend) 

of each section of chafing gear must not 

be attached to the net. Chafing gear must 

be attached outside any riblines and 

restraining straps. 

(4) Midwater (pelagic or off-bottom) 

trawl gear. Midwater trawl gear must 

have unprotected footropes at the trawl 

mouth, and must not have rollers, 

bobbins, tires, wheels, rubber discs, or 

any similar device anywhere on any 

part of the net. The footrope of 

midwater gear may not be enlarged by 

encircling it with chains or by any other 

means. Ropes or lines running parallel 

to the footrope of midwater trawl gear 

must be bare and may not be suspended 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

71344 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

with chains or any other materials. 

Sweep lines, including the bottom leg of 

the bridle, must be bare. For at least 20 

ft (6.15 m) immediately behind the 

footrope or headrope, bare ropes or 

mesh of 16-inch (40.6-cm) minimum 

mesh size must completely encircle the 

net. 

(i) Chafing gear restrictions for 

midwater trawl gear. Chafing gear may 

cover the bottom and sides of the 

codend in either one or more sections. 

Only the front edge (edge closest to the 

open end of the codend) and sides of 

each section of chafing gear may be 

attached to the codend; except at the 

corners, the terminal edge (edge closest 

to the closed end of the codend) of each 

section of chafing gear must not be 

attached to the net. Chafing gear is not 

permitted on the top codend panel 

except as provided in paragraph 

(b)(4)(ii) of this section. 

(ii) Chafing gear exception for 

midwater trawl gear. A band of mesh (a 

‘‘skirt’’) may encircle the net under or 

over transfer cables, lifting or splitting 

straps (chokers), riblines, and 

restraining straps, but must be the same 

mesh size and coincide knot-to-knot 

with the net to which it is attached and 

be no wider than 16 meshes. 

(c) Restrictions by limited entry trawl 

gear type. Management measures may 

vary depending on the type of trawl gear 

(i.e., large footrope, small footrope, 

selective flatfish, or midwater trawl 

gear) used and/or on board a vessel 

during a fishing trip, cumulative limit 

period, and the area fished. Trawl nets 

may be used on and off the seabed. For 

some species or species groups, Table 1 

(North) and Table 1 (South) of this 

subpart provide trip limits that are 

specific to different types of trawl gear: 

Large footrope, small footrope 

(including selective flatfish), selective 

flatfish, midwater, and multiple types. If 

Table 1 (North) and Table 1 (South) of 

this subpart provide gear specific limits 

for a particular species or species group, 

it is unlawful to take and retain, possess 

or land that species or species group 

with limited entry trawl gears other than 

those listed. The following restrictions 

are in addition to the prohibitions at 

§ 660.112(a)(5). 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2014–28275 Filed 12–1–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 679 

[Docket No. 120706220–4964–02] 

RIN 0648–BC34 

Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic 

Zone Off Alaska; Pacific Cod Pot Gear 

Fishing Closure in the Pribilof Islands 

Habitat Conservation Zone in the 

Bering Sea; Amendment 103 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: NMFS issues this final rule to 

implement Amendment 103 to the 

Fishery Management Plan for 

Groundfish of the Bering Sea and 

Aleutian Islands Management Area 

(BSAI FMP). This rule closes year-round 

the Pribilof Islands Habitat Conservation 

Zone (PIHCZ) to directed fishing for 

Pacific cod with pot gear to minimize 

bycatch and prevent overfishing of 

Pribilof Islands blue king crab (PIBKC). 

This action is intended to promote the 

goals and objectives of the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens 

Act), the BSAI FMP, and other 

applicable laws. 

DATES: Effective: January 1, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Electronic copies of the 

BSAI FMP, Amendment 103 to the BSAI 

FMP, the Environmental Assessment 

(EA), and the Regulatory Impact 

Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis (RIR/IRFA) prepared for this 

action are available from http://

www.regulations.gov or from the NMFS 

Alaska Region Web site at https://

alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/cm/analyses/. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Anne Marie Eich, 907–586–7228. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS 

manages the groundfish fisheries of the 

Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands 

management area (BSAI) in the 

Exclusive Economic Zone off Alaska 

under the BSAI FMP. The North Pacific 

Fishery Management Council (Council) 

prepared the BSAI FMP under the 

authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act 

and other applicable laws. General 

regulations that pertain to U.S. fisheries 

appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600. 

Regulations implementing the BSAI 

FMP appear at 50 CFR part 679. 

This final rule implements 

Amendment 103 to the BSAI FMP. This 

rule closes the PIHCZ to directed fishing 

for Pacific cod with pot gear. 

Amendment 103 to the BSAI FMP is 

being implemented with Amendment 43 

to the Fishery Management Plan for 

Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands King and 

Tanner Crabs (Crab FMP). Amendment 

43 to the Crab FMP revises the current 

rebuilding plan for PIBKC to include the 

Pacific cod pot gear prohibition that 

would be implemented under 

Amendment 103. No regulatory 

amendments are needed to implement 

Amendment 43. These amendments 

implemented together ensure that the 

PIBKC rebuilding plan is revised to 

further reduce the bycatch of PIBKC in 

the groundfish fisheries, supporting the 

rebuilding of the PIBKC stock in the 

shortest time possible. 

NMFS published the Notice of 

Availability (NOA) of Amendment 103 

to the BSAI FMP and Amendment 43 to 

the Crab FMP in the Federal Register on 

August 21, 2014, with a 60-day 

comment period that ended October 20, 

2014 (79 FR 49487). The Secretary of 

Commerce approved Amendment 103 to 

the BSAI FMP and Amendment 43 to 

the Crab FMP on November 14, 2014. 

NMFS received two comment letters on 

the NOA of Amendment 103 to the 

BSAI FMP and Amendment 43 to the 

Crab FMP. These comments raised 

identical concerns to one of the 

comments received on the proposed 

rule, which is summarized in the 

‘‘Comments and Responses’’ section in 

this final rule. 

NMFS published a proposed rule to 

implement Amendment 103 to the BSAI 

FMP and the closure of the PIHCZ to 

directed fishing for Pacific cod with pot 

gear on August 29, 2014 (79 FR 51520). 

The 30-day comment period on the 

proposed rule ended September 29, 

2014. NMFS received two comment 

letters during the proposed rule 

comment period. The comment letters 

contained three unique comments. A 

summary of those comments and NMFS’ 

responses are provided in the 

‘‘Comments and Responses’’ section of 

this preamble. 

This final rule closes the PIHCZ yearround to directed fishing for Pacific cod 

with pot gear to minimize bycatch of 

PIBKC in groundfish fisheries and 

prevent overfishing of PIBKC. The term 

‘‘directed fishing’’ is defined in the 

groundfish fisheries regulation at 

§ 679.2. In June 2012, the Council 

recommended closing the PIHCZ to 

directed fishing for Pacific cod with pot 

gear based on (1) the high rate of PIBKC 

bycatch in the PIHCZ relative to other 

areas outside of the PIHCZ; (2) the high 

concentration of PIBKC in the PIHCZ; 

(3) the occurrence of known PIBKC 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES