Je veux savoir à propos de…

40364

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 28, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES

framework to prevent a disruption to the fishery due to the expiration of default specifications on July 31.
Response 1: We agree. For the reasons discussed in the Classification section of this final rule, the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries finds that there is good cause to waive the 30-day delayed effectiveness of this action.
Catch Limits for Fishing Years 2021
2023
Comment 2: CLF commented that NMFS should disapprove the catch limits for GOM cod and GB cod as proposed in Framework 61, because they will not rebuild the stocks.
Additionally, CLF urged NMFS to take emergency action to implement interim measures for GOM cod.
Response 2: The OFLs and ABCs for GOM cod and GB cod were set by Framework 59, which was approved on July 28, 2020, and are not subject to approval or disapproval in this action.
The changes to the specifications for all groundfish stocks were summarized in Table 4 of the proposed rule. For GOM
cod, the only change under consideration in Framework 61 is an adjustment to the sub-components, which results in a change only to the sub-ACLs for the stock. For GB cod, Framework 61 is adjusting the subcomponents, as well as setting a new U.S. ABC, but the total ABC and ACL
are unchanged and were not subject to change in this action. The new U.S.
ABC is due to a small decrease in the eastern GB cod TAC and a slight increase in the portion of this shared U.S./Canada quota that is allocated to the United States, consistent with the TMGC recommendations. To disapprove the changes as proposed in Framework 61 would mean the continuation of the sub-ACLs and sub-components, and of the U.S. ABC for GB cod, as set by Framework 59. Because the sub-ACLs and sub-components are adjusted based on the most recent catch data for state and other fisheries see Appendix II of the EA for a full description of this process, disapproval of the proposed changes would result in specifications based on outdated information.
Disapproval of the U.S. ABC for GB cod would go against the recommendations of the TMGC. Therefore, we are approving the proposed changes to the specifications of GOM cod and GB cod, which are based on the best scientific information available and consistent with National Standard 2. A request for emergency action would be considered separate from the Councils recommended measures in this action, and we are therefore not addressing it here.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:30 Jul 27, 2021

Jkt 253001

Universal Sector Exemption for Acadian Redfish Comment 3: SHS, NESSN, and AFM
support the universal sector exemption for redfish. AFM cited an increase in the spring survey index for redfish between 2019 and 2021.
Response 3: We agree. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, we have approved the universal sector exemption for redfish as proposed. Data from the spring 2021 survey will be considered in the next stock assessment for redfish, which will be used to help evaluate the stock status and the performance and appropriateness of this universal exemption.
Comment 4: SHS and NESSN
identified a typographical error in the regulatory text. In Table 14 to Paragraph e1ii, the latitude of point H should be 4200 N, not 4220 N.
Response 4: We have corrected the coordinate in the final regulatory text as noted by SHS and NESSN.
Comment 5: SHS requested clarification regarding the timing of when a vessel must submit the redfish exemption fishing notification. Under the previous redfish exemption, the notification must be submitted by a vessel once inside the redfish exempted area. SHS asked whether this was also required under the proposed universal sector exemption.
Response 5: The commenter is correct that the previous redfish exemption required that vessels submit the notification once the vessel has entered the redfish exemption area, which is also the intent of the new universal redfish exemption. We have updated the regulatory text to make it clear that vessels must enter the redfish exemption area before sending the notification.
Comment 6: The New England Council commented regarding the use of the term Northeast multispecies, rather than the term regulated multispecies and ocean pout, in the regulatory text. Specifically, the Council questioned which term was more appropriate in the paragraph at 648.85e1iiC, which states No vessel may participate in the Redfish Exemption Program in any areas that are otherwise closed to fishing for Northeast multispecies or fishing with trawl gear, including but not limited to year-round closed areas, seasonal closed areas, or habitat closures. The Council expressed concern that this language could be misinterpreted to mean that the universal sector exemption for redfish could not be used in areas where fishing for silver, red, and offshore hake is not permitted, and therefore the use
PO 00000

Frm 00066

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

of this term would limit the redfish exemption to a smaller area than what was proposed by the Council in Framework 61.
Response 6: We disagree that a change to the regulatory text is needed, but agree with the Councils intent for the redfish exemption. The regulation that the Council cited is intended to prevent vessels from fishing in closed areas such as regulatory-defined seasonal and permanent closed areas. NMFS does not include regulatory references to such areas in the noted paragraph because doing so would be complexthere are several different sections and paragraphs where these closed areas are included in the regulations. The regulations very clearly distinguish between closed areas and areas where minimum mesh sizes and broad areabased restrictions on fishing apply. As such, NMFS does not agree with the Councils concern that restrictions in the regulations on small-mesh fisheries represent areas closed to Northeast multispecies fishing. Vessels that fish for silver, red, and offshore hake are regulated by a series of exemptions to the Northeast Multispecies FMP. These exemptions allow vessels to be exempt from the minimum mesh size, provided the vessels operate in specific management areas and comply with seasonal closures and possession limits.
However, harvest of these stocks is not limited to trips that fall under the smallmesh exemption. It would not be accurate to describe the areas outside the small-mesh exemption areas as being closed for silver, red, and offshore hake, but instead those areas are not open for use of small-mesh gear unless otherwise exempted, such as through the universal sector exemption to target redfish. Therefore, we do not believe the broader term of Northeast multispecies limits the use of the universal sector exemption to areas that are open to the small-mesh exemption.
Comment 7: CLF expressed concern about increased bycatch of GB cod in the universal exemption area relative to the 2020 sector exemption area and that there is an insufficient analysis of the impacts of the universal exemption on GB cod. Based on its concerns, CLF
commented that NMFS should disapprove the universal exemption as proposed until it has fully analyzed its potential impact.
Response 7: The Council conducted a thorough review of the proposed universal exemption relative to the smaller-sized exemption NMFS
implemented through sector operations plans in fishing year 2020. The Council used the best available information for its consideration, which is reflected in
E:FRFM28JYR1.SGM

28JYR1