10852 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 39 / Monday, February 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

use of performance, rather than design, 

standards; and (4) an exemption from 

coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, 

for small entities. 

189. In particular, the Commission 

seeks comment on whether it would be 

less burdensome for providers to submit 

address-level data with respect to the 

deployment and availability of services. 

The Commission also seeks comment on 

other ways that the Commission can 

ease the burden on small- and mediumsized providers. 

190. Based on these questions, and 

the alternatives the Commission has 

discussed, the Commission anticipates 

that the record will be developed 

concerning alternative ways in which 

the Commission could lessen the 

burden on small entities of obtaining 

improved data about broadband. The 

Commission welcomes proposals of 

alternatives from any of the approaches 

as described in Section A, supra. 

F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, 

Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed 

Rules 

191. None. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2011–4393 Filed 2–25–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 648 

[Docket No. 110201085–1087–01] 

RIN 0648–XY55 

Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; 

Fisheries of the Northeastern United 

States; Northeast Multispecies 

Fishery; 2011 Sector Operations Plans 

and Contracts, and Allocation of 

Northeast Multispecies Annual Catch 

Entitlements 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: As part of the process for the 

NMFS Northeast Regional 

Administrator approval of proposed 

sector operations established under 

Amendment 16 to the Northeast (NE) 

Multispecies Fishery Management Plan 

(FMP), sectors are required to submit 

operations plans and sector contracts, 

and request an allocation of stocks 

regulated under the FMP for each 

fishing year (FY). This action is to 

provide interested parties an 

opportunity to comment on 19 FY 2011 

proposed sector operations plans and 

contracts. Although NMFS received 22 

proposed sector operations plans and 

contracts for approval, only 19 of the 22 

sector operations plans and contracts 

are being considered for approval 

because 3 sectors, the Massachusetts 

Permit Bank Sector, the New Hampshire 

Permit Bank Sector, and the Rhode 

Island Permit Bank Sector, were unable 

to fulfill the roster requirements, and, 

therefore, were excluded from 

consideration. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before March 15, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by 0648–XY55, by any one of 

the following methods: 

• Electronic Submissions: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

• Fax: (978) 281–9135, Attn: Allison 

Murphy. 

• Mail: Paper, disk, or CD–ROM 

comments should be sent to Patricia A. 

Kurkul, Regional Administrator, 

National Marine Fisheries Service, 55 

Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 

01930. Mark the outside of the 

envelope: ‘‘Comments on 2011 Sector 

Operations Plans and Contracts.’’ 

Instructions: All comments received 

are part of the public record and will 

generally be posted to http:// 

www.regulations.gov without change. 

All Personal Identifying Information (for 

example, name, address, etc.) 

voluntarily submitted by the commenter 

may be publicly accessible. Do not 

submit Confidential Business 

Information or otherwise sensitive or 

protected information. NMFS will 

accept anonymous comments (enter 

N/A in the required fields, if you wish 

to remain anonymous). You may submit 

attachments to electronic comments in 

Microsoft Word, Microsoft Excel, 

WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats 

only. 

Copies of the sector operations plans 

and contracts and the environmental 

assessment (EA) are available at http:// 

www.regulations.gov and from the 

NMFS NE Regional Office at the mailing 

address specified above. An Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) 

was prepared for this proposed rule and 

is comprised of the EA, and the 

preamble and the Classification sections 

of this proposed rule. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Allison Murphy, Sector Policy Analyst, 

phone (978) 281–9122, fax (978) 281– 

9135. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS 

announces that the Administrator, NE 

Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), 

has made a preliminary determination 

that 19 sector operations plans and 

contracts, which were initially 

submitted to NMFS on or before 

September 1, 2010, and sector rosters, 

submitted on or before September 10, 

2010, are: (1) Consistent with the goals 

of the FMP, as described in Amendment 

16 Final Environmental Impact 

Statement (FEIS) and other applicable 

laws, (2) in compliance with the 

measures that govern the development 

and operation of a sector as specified in 

Section 4.2.3 of the Amendment 16 

FEIS, and (3) have met administrative 

deadlines, including roster deadlines, 

for being proposed as a sector 

operations plan for FY 2011. This 

proposed rule summarizes many of the 

sector requirements as implemented by 

Amendment 16 and the requirements 

proposed for modification in 

Framework Adjustment 45 (FW 45), and 

solicits comments on the regulatory 

exemptions requested by sectors as well 

as the applicable environmental 

analyses. 

As stated in Amendment 16, the 

deadline to submit operations plans and 

signed contracts was September 1, 2010. 

However, because NE multispecies 

permit holders were notified of their 

preliminary FY 2011 Potential Sector 

Contribution (PSC) in mid-August, 

2010, NMFS extended the deadline to 

submit signed contracts from September 

1, 2010, to September 10, 2010, to allow 

vessel owners adequate time to make a 

decision to join a sector for FY 2011 or 

to fish in the common pool. Based upon 

industry request, this deadline was 

further extended to December 1, 2010, 

to provide additional flexibility. 

Background 

The final rule implementing 

Amendment 13 to the NE Multispecies 

FMP (69 FR 22906; April 27, 2004) 

specified a process for forming sectors 

within the NE multispecies fishery, 

implemented restrictions applicable to 

all sectors, and authorized allocation of 

a total allowable catch (TAC) for 

specific groundfish species to a sector. 

As approved in Amendment 13, sector 

operations plans and contracts must 

contain certain elements, including a 

contract signed by all sector participants 

and an operations plan containing rules 

that sector members agree to abide by to 

avoid exceeding their sector TAC. An 

EA, or other appropriate analysis, must 

be prepared for the sectors that analyzes 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 39 / Monday, February 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 10853 

the individual and cumulative impacts 

of all proposed sector operations. 

Additionally, the public must be 

provided an opportunity to comment on 

the proposed sector operations plans, 

sector contracts, and EA. The 

regulations require that, upon 

completion of the public comment 

period, the Regional Administrator must 

make a determination regarding 

approval of the sectors operations plans 

and contracts. Amendment 13 

implemented the GB Cod Hook Sector 

in FY 2004, and Framework 42 (71 FR 

62156; October 23, 2006) implemented 

the GB Cod Fixed Gear Sector in FY 

2006. 

Amendment 16 (74 FR 18262; April 9, 

2010) expanded the sector management 

measures, revised the 2 existing sectors, 

and implemented an additional 17 new 

sectors for a total of 19 sectors, 

including the Northeast Fishery Sectors 

I through XIII, the Sustainable Harvest 

Sector, the Tri-State Sector, the 

Northeast Coastal Communities Sector, 

and the Port Clyde Community 

Groundfish Sector. Amendment 16 

defined a sector as ‘‘[a] group of persons 

(three or more persons, none of whom 

have an ownership interest in the other 

two persons in the sector) holding 

limited access vessel permits who have 

voluntarily entered into a contract and 

agree to certain fishing restrictions for a 

specified period of time, and which has 

been granted a TAC(s) [sic] in order to 

achieve objectives consistent with 

applicable FMP goals and objectives.’’ A 

sector’s TAC is referred to as an annual 

catch entitlement (ACE). Regional 

Administrator approval is required for a 

sector to be authorized to fish and to be 

allocated an ACE for stocks of regulated 

NE multispecies during each FY. Each 

individual sector’s ACE for a particular 

stock represents a share of that stock’s 

annual catch limit (ACL) available to 

commercial NE multispecies vessels, 

based upon the PSC of permits 

participating in that sector. Sectors are 

self-selecting, meaning each sector 

maintains the ability to choose its 

members. Sectors may pool harvesting 

resources and consolidate operations to 

fewer vessels, if they desire. 

FW 45, as proposed by the New 

England Fishery Management Council 

(Council) and available for public 

review through the Federal Register, 

would revise the rules for the 19 

previously approved sectors and 

include 5 new sectors (for a total of 24 

sectors), including the Maine Permit 

Bank Sector, the Massachusetts Permit 

Bank Sector, the New Hampshire Permit 

Bank Sector, the Rhode Island Permit 

Bank Sector, and Sustainable Harvest 

Sector 3. Approval of the operation of 

these new sectors is conditional on 

approval of measures proposed in FW 

45. Similarly, approval of some of the 

exemptions requested by the sectors that 

submitted operations plans for FY 2011 

is also contingent on FW 45. Therefore, 

final action regarding the approval of 

the operation of these sectors and the 

exemptions requested will not be made 

unless and until a final decision on FW 

45 has been made. FW 45 is expected 

to be implemented on May 1, 2011. 

Concurrent with the implementation of 

FW 45, NMFS and the States of Maine, 

Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and 

Rhode Island have entered into separate 

Memoranda of Agreement (MOA) for the 

administration of State-managed permit 

banks. Terms and conditions for permit 

banks include: The permit bank may 

only transfer out ACE, it may not 

transfer in ACE; the permit bank may 

only transfer ACE to sectors for use by 

vessels that are 45 ft (13.72 m) in length 

or smaller, based out of ports with a 

population of 30,000 residents or less. 

The States of Massachusetts, New 

Hampshire, and Rhode Island were 

unable to fulfill roster requirements in 

time to be considered in this rulemaking 

process for FY 2011. The Maine Permit 

Bank Sector is proposed to consist of 

two privately held permits, as well as 

any additional permits purchased by the 

permit bank. The State issued a request 

for proposal, soliciting permit holders 

who are interested in selling permits to 

the State permit bank, and submitted 

this information to NMFS as additional 

prospective permits. The Maine Permit 

Bank Sector must finalize the purchase 

of permits from this list and notify 

NMFS by February 1, 2011. 

Representatives from 22 of the 24 

current and proposed sectors submitted 

operations plans and sector contracts, 

and requested an allocation of stocks 

regulated under the FMP for FY 2011. 

Neither the GB Cod Hook Sector, nor 

Northeast Fishery Sector I chose to 

submit an operations plan and sector 

contract for FY 2011. The Massachusetts 

Permit Bank Sector, the New Hampshire 

Permit Bank Sector, and the Rhode 

Island Permit Bank Sector submitted 

operations plans for FY 2011, but were 

unable to demonstrate membership 

requirements, and thus will not be 

considered for approval in this rule, 

reducing the number of potential FY 

2011 sectors to 19. Two of the proposed 

FY 2011 sectors, Northeast Fishery 

Sector IV and Sustainable Harvest 

Sector 3, would operate as private leaseonly sectors. The Sustainable Harvest 

Sector 3 has not explicitly prohibited 

fishing activity, and may transfer 

permits onto active vessels. 

Sector ACEs 

As of December 1, 2010, 834 of the 

1,475 eligible NE multispecies permits, 

which would account for approximately 

98.8 percent of the historical 

commercial NE multispecies landings 

during the qualifying period selected by 

the Council in Amendment 16, have 

preliminarily enrolled in a sector for FY 

2011. Table 1 includes a summary of 

permits enrolled in a sector as of 

December 1, 2010. Permits enrolled in a 

sector, and the vessels associated with 

those permits, have until April 30, 2011, 

to withdraw from a sector and fish in 

the common pool for FY 2011. NMFS 

will publish final sector sub-ACL and 

common pool sub-ACL totals, based 

upon final rosters as soon as possible 

after the start of FY 2011. 

Table 2 details the cumulative PSC (a 

percentage) each sector would receive 

based on their rosters as of December 1, 

2010. Tables 3a and 3b detail the ACEs 

(in thousands of pounds and metric 

tons) each sector would be allocated 

based on their December 1, 2010, sector 

rosters for FY 2011. While the common 

pool does not receive a specific 

allocation of ACE, it has been included 

in each of these tables for comparison. 

Note that individual sector members 

are not assigned a PSC for Eastern GB 

cod or Eastern GB haddock; rather each 

sector is allocated a portion of the GB 

cod and GB haddock ACE to harvest 

exclusively in the Eastern U.S./Canada 

Area. The amount of cod and haddock 

that a sector may harvest in the Eastern 

U.S./Canada Area is calculated by 

multiplying the percentage of the GB 

cod and GB haddock ACLs by the 

overall Eastern U.S./Canada Area GB 

cod and GB haddock TACs, 

respectively. 

In accordance with Amendment 16, at 

the start of FY 2011, NMFS will 

withhold 20 percent of a sector’s FY 

2011 ACE for each stock for a period of 

up to 61 days, to allow time to process 

any FY 2010 ACE transfers submitted by 

May 14, 2011, and to determine whether 

the FY 2011 ACE allocated to any sector 

needs to be reduced, or any overage 

penalties need to be applied to 

accommodate an FY 2010 ACE overage 

by that sector. At the request of the 

Council, NMFS is considering relaxing 

the May 14 requirement to submit ACE 

transfers. The Council and sector 

managers will be notified of any change 

in this deadline in writing and the 

decision will be announced on the 

NERO Web site (http:// 

www.nero.noaa.gov/). 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
10854 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 39 / Monday, February 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALSEP28FE11.000</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 39 / Monday, February 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 10855 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALSEP28FE11.001</GPH>
10856 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 39 / Monday, February 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALSEP28FE11.002</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 39 / Monday, February 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 10857 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALSEP28FE11.003</GPH>
10858 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 39 / Monday, February 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–C 

Sector Operations Plans and Contracts 

All sectors must, on an annual basis, 

submit an operations plan and sector 

contract to NMFS by a specified 

deadline to be authorized to fish and 

receive an allocation of groundfish for 

the following FY. Of the 24 current and 

FW 45 proposed sectors, 19 sectors met 

the September 1, 2010, operations plan 

deadline and the final December 1, 

2010, NMFS roster deadline for FY 

2011, including the Maine Permit Bank 

Sector. Each sector operations plan 

contains the rules under which each 

sector would fish. The sector contract 

provides the legal contract that binds 

members to a sector and its operations 

plan. Most sectors submitted one 

document to NMFS that encompasses 

both the operations plan and contract. 

While each sector conducts fishing 

activities according to its approved 

operations plan, Section 4.2.3 of the 

Amendment 16 FEIS contains numerous 

provisions that apply to all sector 

operations plans and sector members. 

Under this amendment, all permit 

holders with a limited access NE 

multispecies permit that was valid as of 

May 1, 2008, are eligible to participate 

in a sector, including holders of permits 

currently held in confirmation of permit 

history (CPH). While membership in 

each sector is voluntary, each member 

(and his/her permits enrolled in the 

sector) must remain with the sector for 

the entire FY, and cannot fish in the NE 

multispecies days-at-sea (DAS) program 

outside of the sector (i.e., in the 

common pool) during the FY. 

Participating vessels would be required 

to comply with all pertinent Federal 

fishing regulations, unless specifically 

exempted by a letter of authorization 

(LOA) issued by the Regional 

Administrator, as part of the approval of 

a sector’s operations plan, as described 

further below. Sector operations plans 

may be amended in-season if a change 

is necessary and agreed to by NMFS, 

provided the change is consistent with 

the sector administration provisions. 

These changes would be included in 

updated LOAs issued to sector members 

and through amendments to the 

approved operations plan. 

Sectors would be allocated all largemesh groundfish stocks for which 

members have landings history, with 

the exception of Atlantic halibut, 

windowpane flounder, Atlantic 

wolffish, and SNE/MA winter flounder. 

Sector vessels would be required to 

retain all legal-sized allocated 

groundfish, unless an exemption is 

granted allowing sector vessels to 

discard legal-sized unmarketable fish at 

sea. Catch (including discards) of all 

allocated groundfish stocks by a sector’s 

vessels would count against the sector’s 

ACE, unless the catch is an element of 

a separate ACL sub-component, such as 

groundfish caught when fishing in an 

exempted fishery, or yellowtail flounder 

caught when fishing in the Atlantic sea 

scallop fishery. Sector vessels fishing for 

monkfish, skate, lobster (with non-trap 

gear), and spiny dogfish when on a 

sector trip (e.g., not fishing under 

provisions of a NE multispecies 

exempted fishery) would have their 

groundfish catch (including discards) on 

those trips debited against the sector’s 

ACE. Discard ratios applied to sectors 

would be determined by NMFS based 

on observed trips. 

The final rule issued for Amendment 

16 implemented a program whereby 

ACE may be transferred between 

sectors, although ACE transfers to or 

from common pool vessels is 

prohibited. Each sector would be 

required to ensure that its ACE is not 

exceeded during the FY. Additionally, 

Amendment 16 required sectors to 

develop independent third-party 

dockside monitoring programs (DSM) to 

verify landings at the time they are 

weighed by the dealer, and to certify 

that the landing weights are accurate as 

reported by the dealer. During FY 2010, 

50 percent of trips from each sector are 

required to be randomly selected for 

DSM. Dockside monitoring coverage 

was specified to be reduced to 20 

percent in FY 2011; however, FW 45, as 

proposed, would change the required 

coverage level for DSM to the level 

NMFS is able to fund, up to 100 percent 

coverage through FY 2012, prioritizing 

coverage for trips that have not received 

at-sea or electronic monitoring. In 

addition, the Council voted to remove 

DSM requirements (a reporting 

requirement) from the list of prohibited 

exemptions for sectors. Sectors would 

be required to monitor their landings 

and available ACE and submit weekly 

catch reports to NMFS. In addition, the 

sector manager would be required to 

provide NMFS with aggregate sector 

reports on a daily basis when a 

threshold (specified in the operations 

plan) is reached. Once a sector’s ACE for 

a particular stock is caught, a sector 

would be required to cease all fishing 

operations in that stock area until it 

could acquire additional ACE for that 

stock. Each sector would be required to 

submit an annual report to NMFS and 

the Council within 60 days of the end 

of the FY detailing the sector’s catch 

(landings and discards by the sector), 

enforcement actions, and pertinent 

information necessary to evaluate the 

biological, economic, and social impacts 

from the sector, as directed by NMFS. 

Each sector contract provides 

procedures to enforce the sector 

operations plan, explains sector 

monitoring and reporting requirements, 

presents a schedule of penalties, and 

provides authority to sector managers to 

issue stop fishing orders to sector 

members that violate provisions of the 

contract. Sector members could be held 

jointly and severally liable for ACE 

overages, discarding of legal-sized fish, 

and/or misreporting of catch (landings 

or discards). As required by 

Amendment 16, each sector contract 

submitted for FY 2011 states that the 

sector will withhold an initial reserve 

from the sector’s sub-allocation to each 

individual member to prevent the sector 

from exceeding its ACE. Each sector 

contract also details the method for 

initial ACE allocation to sector 

members; for FY 2011, each sector has 

proposed that each sector member could 

harvest an amount of fish equal to the 

amount each individual member’s 

permit contributed to the sector’s ACE. 

Amendment 16 contains several 

‘‘universal’’ exemptions that are 

applicable to all sectors. These universal 

exemptions include exemptions from: 

Trip limits on allocated stocks; the GB 

Seasonal Closure Area; NE multispecies 

DAS restrictions; the requirement to use 

a 6.5-inch (16.51-cm) mesh codend 

when fishing with selective gear on GB; 

and portions of the GOM Rolling 

Closure Areas. Sectors may request 

additional exemptions from NE 

multispecies regulations through their 

sector operations plan. Amendment 16 

prohibits sectors from requesting 

exemptions from year-round closed 

areas, permitting restrictions, gear 

restrictions designed to minimize 

habitat impacts, and reporting 

requirements (not including DAS 

reporting requirements). FW 45 

proposes to exclude DSM from the 

reporting requirements from which 

sectors may not be exempted. 

Proposed FY 2011 Exemptions 

A total of 31 exemptions from the NE 

multispecies regulations have been 

requested by sectors through their FY 

2011 operations plans. These requests 

fall into several categories: Exemptions 

previously approved for FY 2010 

(numbers 1–7); additional exemptions 

that were under consideration for FY 

2010 at the time of the request for FY 

2011 (numbers 8–9); exemptions 

disapproved in FY 2010 (number 10); 

novel exemptions for FY 2011 (numbers 

11–19), dockside monitoring 

exemptions (numbers 20–30) and State 

permit bank exemptions (number 31). A 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 39 / Monday, February 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 10859 

full discussion of the 31 exemptions is 

below. The requirements that were 

exempted in FY 2010 and have again 

been requested for FY 2011 are: (1) 120- 

day block out of the fishery required for 

Day gillnet vessels; (2) prohibition on a 

vessel hauling another vessel’s gillnet 

gear; (3) limitation on the number of 

gillnets that may be hauled on GB when 

fishing under a groundfish/monkfish 

DAS; (4) limitation on the number of 

gillnets imposed on Day gillnet vessels; 

(5) 20-day spawning block out of the 

fishery required for all vessels; (6) limits 

on the number of hooks that may be 

fished; and (7) DAS Leasing Program 

length and horsepower restrictions. 

Additional regulations that were under 

consideration for exemption for FY 2010 

at the time of the request, and have 

again been requested for FY 2011 are: 

(8) the GOM Sink Gillnet Mesh 

Exemption; and (9) prohibition on the 

possession or use of squid or mackerel 

in the Closed Area I (CAI) Hook Gear 

Haddock (HGH) Special Access Program 

(SAP). For FY 2011, sectors requested 

an exemption from the follow regulation 

that was previously disapproved for FY 

2010 is again being proposed for FY 

2011: (10) access to GOM Rolling 

Closure Areas in May and June. For FY 

2011, sectors have proposed novel 

exemptions from the following 

regulations: (11) prohibition on 

discarding; (12) extension of the GOM 

Sink Gillnet Mesh Exemption through 

the month of May; (13) daily catch 

reporting by Sector Managers for vessels 

participating in the CAI HGH SAP; (14) 

prohibition on pair trawling; (15) 

minimum hook size requirements for 

demersal longline gear; (16) minimum 

mesh size requirement; (17) Rhule and 

Haddock Separator requirements to 

utilize the 98.4 in × 15.7 in (250 cm × 

40 cm) Eliminator TrawlTM in areas 

where these gear types are approved; 

(18) trawl gear restrictions in the U.S./ 

Canada Area; and (19) the requirement 

to power a VMS while at the dock. Due 

to the Council’s vote to exclude DSM 

from the list of prohibited exemptions 

in FW 45, sectors have requested 

exemptions from DSM requirements 

ranging from a complete exemption to 

area-, fishery-, and volume-based 

exemptions. Specifically, sectors 

requested novel exemptions from the 

following DSM requirements for FY 

2011: (20) All DSM and roving 

monitoring requirements; (21) DSM 

requirements for directed monkfish, 

skate, and dogfish trips; (22) DSM 

requirements for jig vessels; (23) DSM 

requirements for hook vessels when the 

sector has caught less than 10,000 lb 

(4535.9 kg) of groundfish per year; (24) 

DSM requirements in May when fishing 

in several mid-Atlantic NMFS Statistical 

Areas; (25) DSM requirements for 

vessels fishing west of 72°30′ W. long.; 

(26) DSM, roving monitoring, and hail 

requirements for hook-only or handgear 

vessels; (27) DSM, roving monitoring, 

and hail requirements for vessels using 

demersal longline, jig and handgear 

while targeting spiny dogfish in 

Massachusetts State waters of NMFS 

Statistical Area 521; (28) DSM 

requirements when at-sea monitoring 

has previously observed the trip; (29) 

the requirement to delay offloading due 

to the late arrival of the assigned 

monitor; and (30) the prohibition on 

offloading of non-allocated stocks prior 

to the arrival of the monitor. These 

exemptions were considered too late to 

be included in the EA for this action; 

they will be fully analyzed and included 

in the final EA. Finally, the State permit 

bank sector has requested an exemption 

from: (31) the requirement to provide a 

sector roster to NMFS by the specified 

deadline. 

NMFS is soliciting public comment 

on the proposed sector operations plans 

and all 31 of the exemptions specified 

above. NMFS is particularly interested 

in receiving comments on the 

exemptions from the GOM Rolling 

Closure Areas, prohibition on pair 

trawling, minimum trawl mesh size 

requirements on targeted redfish trips, 

and dockside monitoring exemptions, 

because of particular concerns regarding 

the potential impacts of these 

exemptions. 

1. 120-Day Block Out of the Fishery 

Requirement for Day Gillnet Vessels 

The 120-day block out of the fishery 

requirement for day gillnet vessels was 

implemented in 1997 under Framework 

20 (62 FR 15381; April 1, 1997) to help 

ensure that management measures for 

Day gillnet vessels were comparable to 

effort controls placed on other fishing 

gear types, given that gillnets continue 

to fish as long as they are in the water. 

Regulations at § 648.82(j)(1)(ii) require 

that each NE multispecies gillnet vessel 

declared into the Day gillnet category 

declare and take 120 days out of the 

non-exempt gillnet fishery. Each period 

of time taken must be a minimum of 7 

consecutive days, and at least 21 of the 

120 days must be taken between June 1 

and September 30. An exemption from 

this requirement was previously 

approved for FY 2010 based upon the 

rationale that this measure was designed 

to control fishing effort and, therefore, is 

no longer necessary for sectors because 

sectors are restricted to an ACE for each 

groundfish stock, which limits overall 

fishing mortality. For additional 

information pertaining to this 

exemption and other exemptions 

previously approved in FY 2010, please 

refer to the proposed and final sector 

rules for FY 2010 (74 FR 68015, 

December 22, 2010 and 75 FR 18113, 

April 9, 2010, respectively). This 

exemption would increase the 

operational flexibility of sector vessels 

and would be expected to increase 

profit margins of sector fishermen. The 

exemption from the Day gillnet 120-day 

block requirement is requested by the 

GB Cod Fixed Gear Sector; the Northeast 

Coastal Communities Sector; Northeast 

Fishery Sectors III, V–VIII, and X–XIII; 

the Port Clyde Community Groundfish 

Sector; Sustainable Harvest Sectors 1 

and 3; and the Tri-State Sector. 

2. Prohibition on a Vessel Hauling 

Another Vessel’s Gillnet Gear 

Regulations at §§ 648.14(k)(6)(ii)(A) 

and 648.84(a) specify the manner in 

which gillnet gear must be tagged, 

requiring that information pertinent to 

the vessel owner or vessel be 

permanently affixed to the gear. No 

provisions exist in the regulations 

allowing for multiple vessels to haul the 

same gear. An exemption from this 

regulation, which was previously 

approved in FY 2010 because it was 

determined that the regulations 

pertaining to hauling and setting 

responsibilities are no longer necessary 

when sectors are confined to an ACE for 

each stock, would allow a sector to 

share fixed gear among sector vessels, 

thereby reducing costs. Consistent with 

the exemption as originally approved, 

the sectors requesting this exemption 

have proposed that all vessels utilizing 

community fixed gear be jointly liable 

for any violations associated with that 

gear. Additionally, each member 

intending to haul the same gear will be 

required to tag the gear with the 

appropriate gillnet tags, consistent with 

§ 648.84(a). The exemption from the 

prohibition on hauling another vessel’s 

gear is being requested by the GB Cod 

Fixed Gear Sector; the Northeast Coastal 

Communities Sector; Northeast Fishery 

Sectors III, VI–VIII, and X–XII; the Port 

Clyde Community Groundfish Sector; 

Sustainable Harvest Sectors 1 and 3; and 

the Tri-State Sector. 

3. Limitation on the Number of Gillnets 

That May be Hauled on GB When 

Fishing Under a Groundfish/Monkfish 

DAS 

Regulations at § 648.80(a)(4)(iv) 

prohibit Day gillnet vessels fishing on a 

groundfish DAS from possessing, 

deploying, fishing, or hauling more than 

50 nets on GB were implemented as a 

groundfish mortality control under 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
10860 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 39 / Monday, February 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

Amendment 13. An exemption from the 

limit on the number of gillnets that may 

be hauled on GB when fishing under a 

groundfish/monkfish DAS was 

previously granted in FY 2010 because 

it would allow nets deployed under 

existing net limits of the Monkfish FMP 

to be hauled more efficiently by vessels 

dually permitted under both FMPs. The 

exemption from the limitation on the 

number of gillnets that may be hauled 

on GB when fishing under a groundfish/ 

monkfish DAS is being requested by the 

GB Cod Fixed Gear Sector; Northeast 

Fishery Sectors III, VI–VIII, and X–XIII; 

Sustainable Harvest Sectors 1 and 3; and 

the Tri-State Sector. 

4. Limitation on the Number of Gillnets 

for Day Gillnet Vessels 

Current gear restrictions in the 

groundfish regulated mesh areas (RMA) 

restrict Day gillnet vessels from fishing 

more than: 100 gillnets (of which no 

more than 50 can be roundfish gillnets) 

in the GOM RMA (§ 648.80(a)(3)(iv)); 50 

gillnets in the GB RMA 

(§ 648.80(a)(4)(iv)); and 75 gillnets in the 

Mid-Atlantic (MA) RMA 

(§ 648.80(b)(2)(iv)). This exemption was 

previously requested and approved in 

FY 2010, and would allow sector vessels 

to fish up to 150 nets (any combination 

of flatfish or roundfish nets) in any 

RMA, and provides greater operational 

flexibility to sector vessels in deploying 

gillnet gear. This exemption was 

previously approved for FY 2010 

because it is designed to control fishing 

effort and is no longer necessary for 

sector vessels, since each sector is 

restricted by an ACE for each stock, 

which caps overall fishing mortality. 

The exemption from the limit on the 

number of gillnets for Day gillnet 

vessels is being requested by the GB Cod 

Fixed Gear Sector; Northeast Fishery 

Sectors III, V–VIII, and X–XIII; the Port 

Clyde Community Groundfish Sector; 

Sustainable Harvest Sectors 1 and 3; and 

the Tri-State Sector. 

5. 20-Day Spawning Block 

Regulations at § 648.82(g) require 

vessels to declare out and be out of the 

NE multispecies DAS program for a 20- 

day period each calendar year between 

March 1 and May 31, when spawning is 

most prevalent in the GOM. This 

regulation was developed to reduce 

fishing effort on spawning groundfish 

stocks and an exemption was approved 

for FY 2010 sectors based upon the 

rationale that the sector’s ACE will 

restrict fishing mortality, making this 

measure no longer necessary as an effort 

control. An exemption from this 

requirement would provide vessel 

owners with greater flexibility to plan 

operations according to fishing and 

market conditions. The exemption from 

the Day gillnet 20-day block 

requirement is being requested by the 

GB Cod Fixed Gear Sector; the Northeast 

Coastal Communities Sector; Northeast 

Fishery Sectors II–III and V–XIII; the 

Port Clyde Community Groundfish 

Sector; Sustainable Harvest Sectors 1 

and 3; and the Tri-State Sector. 

6. Limitation on the Number of Hooks 

That May be Fished 

Current regulations for the GOM 

RMA, GB RMA, and SNE and MAA 

RMAs at §§ 648.80(a)(3)(iv)(B)(2), 

648.80(a)(4)(iv)(B)(2), 

648.80(b)(2)(iv)(B)(1), and 

648.80(c)(2)(v)(B)(1), respectively, 

prohibit vessels from fishing or 

possessing more than 2,000 rigged 

hooks in the GOM RMA, more than 

3,600 rigged hooks in the GB RMA, 

more than 2,000 rigged hooks in the 

SNE RMA, or 4,500 rigged hooks in the 

MA RMA. This measure, which was 

initially implemented in 2002 through 

an interim action (67 FR 50292; August 

1, 2002) and made permanent through 

Amendment 13, was designed to control 

fishing effort. An exemption from the 

number of hooks that a vessel may fish 

was approved for FY 2010 because it 

would allow sector vessels to more 

efficiently harvest ACE and is no longer 

a necessary control on effort by sector 

vessels. This exemption was granted to 

the GB Cod Hook Sector from 2004– 

2009, and was granted to the GB Cod 

Fixed Gear Sector; the Northeast Coastal 

Communities Sector; Northeast Fishery 

Sectors III, V–VIII, and X–XII; the 

Sustainable Harvest Sector; and the TriState Sector for either all or a portion of 

FY 2010. The exemption from the 

limitation on the number of hooks that 

may be fished is being requested by the 

GB Cod Fixed Gear Sector; the Northeast 

Coastal Communities Sector; Northeast 

Fishery Sectors III, VI–VIII, and X–XII; 

the Port Clyde Community Groundfish 

Sector; Sustainable Harvest Sectors 1 

and 3; and the Tri-State Sector. 

7. Length and Horsepower Restrictions 

on DAS Leasing 

While sector vessels are exempt from 

the requirement to use NE multispecies 

DAS to harvest groundfish, sector 

vessels have been allocated, and still 

need to use, NE multispecies DAS for 

specific circumstances. For example, the 

Monkfish FMP includes a requirement 

that limited access monkfish Category C 

and D vessels harvesting more than the 

incidental monkfish possession limit 

must fish under both a monkfish and a 

groundfish DAS. Therefore, sector 

vessels may still use, and lease, NE 

multispecies DAS. 

An exemption from the DAS Leasing 

Program length and horsepower 

baseline restrictions on DAS leases 

between vessels within their individual 

sectors, as well as with vessels in other 

sectors with this exemption was 

approved in FY 2010. Restricting sectors 

to their ACEs eliminates the need to use 

vessel characteristics to control 

groundfish fishing effort. Further, 

exemption from this restriction allows 

sector vessels greater flexibility in the 

utilization of ACE and DAS. Providing 

greater flexibility in the distribution of 

DAS could result in increased effort on 

non-allocated target stocks, such as 

monkfish and skates. However, sectors 

predicted little consolidation and 

redirection of effort in their FY 2010 

operations plans. In addition, any 

potential redirection in effort would be 

restricted by the sector’s ACE for each 

stock, as well as by effort controls in 

other fisheries (e.g., monkfish trip limits 

and DAS). The exemption from the 

length and horsepower restrictions on 

DAS leasing is being requested by the 

GB Cod Fixed Gear Sector; the Maine 

Permit Bank Sector; all 12 Northeast 

Fishery Sectors; the Port Clyde 

Community Groundfish Sector; 

Sustainable Harvest Sectors 1 and 3; and 

the Tri-State Sector. 

8. The GOM Sink Gillnet Mesh 

Exemption 

The regulations require a minimum 

mesh size of 6.5-in (16.51-cm) for 

gillnets in the GOM RMA 

(§ 648.80(a)(3)(iv)). Minimum mesh size 

requirements have been used to reduce 

overall mortality on groundfish stocks, 

as well as to reduce discarding of, and 

improve survival of, sub-legal 

groundfish. An exemption from this 

regulation, which would allow vessels 

to potentially catch more haddock 

seasonally in the GOM, was considered 

in a supplemental proposed and final 

rule to FY 2010 sector operations (75 FR 

53939; September 2, 2010; and 75 FR 

80720; December 23, 2010) and is 

functionally equivalent to a pilot 

program that was proposed by the 

Council in Amendment 16. This 

exemption would allow sector vessels to 

use 6-inch (15.24-cm) mesh stand-up 

gillnets in the GOM RMA from January 

1, 2012, to April 30, 2012, when fishing 

for haddock. The designation of this 

season is consistent with the original 

pilot program proposal and is the time 

period when haddock are most available 

in the GOM. Sector vessels utilizing this 

exemption would be prohibited from 

using tie-down gillnets during this 

period. Sector vessels may transit the 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 39 / Monday, February 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 10861 

GOM RMA with tie-down gillnets, 

provided they are properly stowed and 

not available for immediate use in 

accordance with one of the methods 

specified at § 648.23(b). 

The GOM Sink Gillnet Mesh Program, 

as proposed by the Council, stipulated 

that Day gillnet vessels would not be 

able to fish with, possess, haul, or 

deploy more than 30 nets per trip. 

Consistent with the original scope of the 

pilot program, for FY 2010 NMFS 

proposed in supplemental rulemaking 

that Day gillnet vessels utilizing this 

exemption also be limited to 30 nets per 

trip during this period, but requested 

public comment on a net limit of 

between 30 and 150 stand-up nets, 

analyzing up to 150 nets. Because Day 

gillnet vessels granted the sector 

exemption from Day gillnet net limits, 

as explained under exemption request 4, 

would not be subject to the general net 

limit in the GOM RMA, and thus able 

to fish up to 150 nets in the GOM RMA, 

they would be limited to 30 nets when 

fishing under this exemption program. 

Therefore, NMFS again requests public 

comment on the feasibility of allowing 

up to 150 nets when fishing under this 

exemption. The LOA issued to sector 

vessels that qualify for this exemption 

would specify the net restrictions to 

help ensure the provision is enforceable. 

There would be no limit on the number 

of nets that participating Trip gillnet 

vessels would be able to fish with, 

possess, haul, or deploy, during this 

period, because Trip gillnet vessels are 

required to remove all gillnet gear from 

the water before returning to port at the 

end of a fishing trip. 

Recent selectivity studies have 

indicated that 6.5-inch (16.51-cm) sink 

gillnets may not be effective at retaining 

haddock at the current legal minimum 

fish size. An exemption from this 

requirement would provide sector 

vessels the opportunity to utilize a 

smaller mesh size gillnet to potentially 

catch more haddock in the GOM, and, 

thereby, increase efficiency and revenue 

in the fishery. NMFS believes that 

impacts to allocated target stocks 

resulting from this exemption would be 

negligible, given that fishing mortality 

by sector vessels is restricted by an ACE 

for allocated stocks, capping overall 

mortality. It is possible that a higher net 

limit for Day gillnet vessels 

participating in this program could 

result in an increase in the number of 

gillnets in the water at any one time 

and, therefore, potentially increase 

interactions with protected species. 

However, potential negative impacts to 

protected species from this exemption 

are expected to be low because 

additional nets may result in greater 

efficiency that could decrease the 

overall number of soak hours 

throughout the year as a sector’s ACE is 

caught faster, thus potentially reducing 

interactions with protected species. In 

addition, sector vessels utilizing this 

exemption would still be required to 

comply with all requirements of the 

Harbor Porpoise Take Reduction Plan 

and Atlantic Large Whale Take 

Reduction Plan. The GOM Sink Gillnet 

Mesh Exemption is being requested by 

the GB Cod Fixed Gear Sector; Northeast 

Fishery Sectors III, VI–VIII, and X–XII; 

the Port Clyde Community Groundfish 

Sector; Sustainable Harvest Sectors 1 

and 3; and the Tri-State Sector. 

9. Prohibition on the Possession or Use 

of Squid or Mackerel in the CAI Hook 

Gear Haddock SAP 

The restriction on the possession or 

use of squid or mackerel as bait in the 

CAI Hook Gear Haddock SAP was 

originally approved by the Council in 

Framework 41, and analyzed in the FEIS 

for Framework 41, but inadvertently not 

included in the regulations 

implementing Framework 41. To correct 

this oversight, this provision was 

implemented as part of the Amendment 

16 final rule. This restriction was 

intended to control the catch rates of 

cod, as squid and mackerel have been 

demonstrated to result in higher catch 

rates of cod. NMFS received comments 

on Amendment 16 that the bait 

restrictions should not apply to sector 

vessels. In the final rule implementing 

Amendment 16, NMFS stated that 

* * * because the Council did not 

provide for a specific exemption from 

such bait restriction in Amendment 16, 

NMFS cannot provide a sector an 

exemption from the bait requirements 

for this SAP in the final rule.’’ However, 

because the bait restriction in 

Framework 41 was included under 

Section 4.2.2.2 ‘‘Requirements for 

Vessels not in the Hook Sector,’’ NMFS, 

after further discussion with Council 

staff, understands that Framework 41 

intended that this bait restriction apply 

only to vessels fishing outside of a 

sector (i.e., the common pool). Based on 

this, NMFS intends to revise the current 

regulations for this requirement in an 

upcoming correction rule and, until the 

correction is effective, exempt any 

interested sector from this provision for 

the remainder of FY 2010 through an 

amendment to that sector’s approved 

operations plan. 

The GB Cod Fixed Gear Sector 

requested an exemption from this bait 

restriction, asserting the provision is an 

input control used to control fishing 

effort within the SAP under the DAS 

system and is unnecessary because 

catch by the sector will be limited by 

the ACE for each stock that caps overall 

fishing effort. 

10. Access to GOM Rolling Closure 

Areas in May and June 

The GOM Rolling Closure Areas were 

initially implemented in 1998 under 

Framework 25 to the FMP to reduce 

fishing effort in ‘‘areas with high GOM 

cod landings.’’ However, Framework 26 

referred to the rolling closure areas as 

‘‘inshore ‘cod spawning’ closures.’’ The 

stated purpose and need under 

Framework 26 (Section 3.0) states that 

the Council wanted to ‘‘take additional 

action to protect cod during the 1999 

spawning season * * * and immediate 

action is necessary to reduce catches 

and protect the spawning stock.’’ As a 

result, Framework 26 expanded the time 

period of these ‘‘cod spawning’’ closures, 

which included several 30-minute 

blocks. The final rule implementing 

Framework 26 (64 FR 2601; January 15, 

1999) specified that the Council 

undertook action to expand these 

closures because of the ‘‘opportunity to 

delay fishing mortality on mature cod 

during the spring spawning period, a 

time when stocks aggregate and are 

particularly vulnerable to fishing 

pressure.’’ Amendment 16 implemented 

universal sector exemptions from 

specific portions of the current GOM 

Rolling Closure Areas, and specifically 

did not exempt these portions of these 

areas due to the understanding that they 

protect spawning aggregations of cod. 

The Council tasked the Groundfish Plan 

Development Team (PDT) with 

reviewing and analyzing the existing 

GOM Rolling Closure Areas to 

determine which areas should remain 

closed, but stipulated that sectors may 

request specific exemptions from the 

GOM Rolling Closure Areas in their 

sector operations plans. On November 

18, 2009, the Council voted to endorse 

a previous FY 2010 exemption request 

from block 138 in May. 

Several sectors requested exemptions 

from GOM Rolling Closure Areas for FY 

2010; however, these exemptions were 

ultimately rejected in the final rule 

implementing FY 2010 sector operations 

plans because the requesting sectors 

failed to consider that, despite ACE 

limits, direct targeting of spawning 

aggregations can adversely impact the 

reproductive potential of a stock, as 

opposed to post-spawning mortality. 

Additionally, justification that 

demonstrates that spawning fish could 

be avoided was not provided by the 

individual sectors. The final rule also 

cited that the existing GOM Rolling 

Closure Areas provide some protection 

to harbor porpoise and other marine 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
10862 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 39 / Monday, February 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

mammals. Six of the Northeast Fishery 

Sectors and the Sustainable Harvest 

Sector requested additional exemptions 

from these rolling closures in FY 2010. 

The sectors requesting this exemption 

for FY 2011 assert that the GOM Rolling 

Closure Areas were originally intended 

as mortality closures, and are now 

unnecessary because fishing mortality 

for sectors is capped by the ACE 

allocated for each groundfish stock. 

Sustainable Harvest Sectors 1 and 3 are 

requesting access to 30-minute blocks 

138 and 139 in May, and 30-minute 

block 139 in June. They argue that they 

should not be subject to additional 

mortality controls because sector vessels 

are limited to a hard TAC. Additionally, 

these sectors note that Table 177 in the 

Environmental Impact Statement for 

Amendment 16 indicates that May is 

not a particularly important time for 

groundfish spawning, with the 

exception of plaice and haddock. The 

Port Clyde Community Groundfish 

Sector is requesting access to 30-minute 

blocks 138 and 139 in May, and 30- 

minute blocks 139, 145, and 146 in 

June. The Port Clyde Community 

Groundfish Sector stipulated a strategy 

to minimize the impacts to spawning 

fish while promoting benefits to sector 

members. Under this strategy, the sector 

would restrict the harvesting of any 

species in these areas and times by 

capping the percentage of the sector’s 

available ACE that could be harvested 

from these areas, and would institute a 

closure of these areas if, based on NMFS 

Northeast Fisheries Observer Program 

(NEFOP) data, a significant amount of 

spawning fish are harvested. 

Additionally, the sector proposes to 

implement a program to notify the 

sector manager and other vessels if 

spawning aggregations and/or marine 

mammals are detected in these areas. 

Finally, the Port Clyde Community 

Groundfish Sector contends that vessels 

fishing in the requested exemption areas 

would provide additional data, which 

could serve as a pilot study for future 

use of these areas and times by all 

sectors. 

11. Prohibition on Discarding 

Current regulations prohibit sector 

vessels from discarding legal-sized fish 

of any of the 14 stocks allocated to 

sectors while at sea 

(§ 648.87(b)(1)(v)(A)). Amendment 16 

contained this provision to ensure that 

the sector’s ACE is accurately 

monitored. Sectors requested a partial 

exemption from this prohibition, 

because of concerns that retaining and 

landing large amounts of unmarketable 

fish, including fish carcasses, creates 

operational difficulties and potentially 

unsafe working conditions for sector 

vessels at sea. The Regional 

Administrator considered a partial 

exemption from the requirement to 

retain all legal-sized fish in a 

supplemental proposed rule to FY 2010 

sector operations. However, due to 

problematic mid-season implementation 

issues, further consideration of this 

exemption was delayed until FY 2011 in 

the supplemental final rule to FY 2010 

sector operations. Under this proposed 

exemption, all legal-sized unmarketable 

allocated fish would be accounted for in 

the overall sector-specific discard rates 

in the same way discards of undersized 

fish at sea are currently accounted for, 

through observer and at-sea monitoring 

coverage. If approved, unmarketable fish 

discarded by a sector’s vessels on 

observed trips would be deducted from 

that sector’s ACE and incorporated into 

that sector’s discard rates to account for 

discarding under this exemption on 

unobserved trips. Vessels in a sector 

opting for this exemption would be 

required to discard all legal-sized 

unmarketable fish at sea (i.e., not just on 

select trips). Legal-sized unmarketable 

fish would be prohibited from being 

landed to prevent the potential to skew 

observed discards. NMFS is specifically 

seeking comment on the 

implementation of this requirement. 

NMFS received several comments 

regarding this exemption in response to 

the proposed supplemental rule for FY 

2010 sector operations, which initially 

proposed this exemption. This included 

comment from Oceana, who raised 

concern that this exemption would 

expand loopholes in the self-reporting 

component of the sector monitoring 

program, and encourage high-grading, 

thereby weakening the sector 

monitoring program and undermining 

the FMP goals, as well as National 

Standards 2 and 9 of the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act. However, the 

accounting of discards does not rely on 

self-reported data. Rather, actual 

discards by sector vessels observed by 

NMFS observers and at-sea monitors on 

sector trips are applied to the sector’s 

ACEs in live weights, and incorporated 

into sector-specific discard rates that are 

used to account for discards by sector 

vessels on unobserved trips. In addition, 

this exemption is not expected to lead 

to high-grading of catch, given that there 

is a financial incentive for sector vessels 

to minimize discards of allocated stocks. 

Since discards of allocated stocks are 

applied to the sector’s ACE through 

observer data and sector-specific discard 

rates, there is an incentive for sector 

vessels that opt for this exemption to 

land catch rather than discard it, to 

maximize the value of the sector’s ACEs. 

Thus, this discarding exemption is 

intended to provide NMFS with 

additional data for the monitoring of 

sector ACEs. Currently, a sector vessel 

could illegally discard legal-sized 

unmarketable fish at sea for operational 

or safety reasons. If such discarding is 

occurring only on unobserved sector 

trips, these discards may be 

unaccounted for in the sector-specific 

discard rates. This exemption would 

allow sectors to legally discard these 

fish at sea and, therefore, would provide 

NMFS with a means of capturing some 

of this information. Therefore, allowing 

the discarding of unmarketable fish and 

incorporating observed unmarketable 

discards into the sector-specific discard 

rates under this exemption would 

account for any illegal discarding that 

may currently be occurring on 

unobserved trips and, thereby, improve 

the information being used to 

extrapolate discards across all sector 

trips. 

Finally, NMFS received a comment 

that the proposed rule did not contain 

sufficient analysis of the exemption and 

that further analysis should be 

completed prior to implementation. 

This exemption was analyzed in the FY 

2010 proposed supplemental rule and 

EA, and is further discussed here. The 

analysis of this exemption was based 

upon information available at the time 

of the analysis, which consisted of 

observer data from sector trips through 

November 3, 2010. Dealer reports and 

vessel trip reports (VTRs) were not 

designed to specifically monitor the 

landing and handling of unmarketable 

fish, so there is little information 

available from these sources about the 

amount of unmarketable fish that sector 

vessels have landed to date. During the 

development of this exemption, NMFS 

identified the need for, and 

implemented, a specific code that could 

be used by vessels to report the landing 

of unmarketable fish on their VTRs. A 

permit holder letter sent on October 20, 

2010, introduced this VTR code to 

vessel operators and included 

instructions for both vessel operators 

and dealers for the reporting of 

unmarketable fish. If approved, legalsized unmarketable fish could be 

discarded at sea, and recorded as such 

on the VTR. Sectors that do not receive 

this exemption would continue to use 

the new VTR code. NMFS observers and 

at-sea monitors record the amount of 

each species kept by sector vessels 

because they are prohibited from 

discarding such fish by the regulations. 

Fish recorded under this category likely 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 39 / Monday, February 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 10863 

consist of unmarketable legal-sized fish 

of allocated stocks that could not 

otherwise be discarded by the vessel 

operator and, therefore, represent the 

best estimate of the amount of 

unmarketable fish that sector vessels 

encounter on a given trip and may be 

expected to discard under this 

exemption. Observer data from sector 

trips during the first half of FY 2010 

show that retained legal-sized 

unmarketable groundfish have been 

observed on 7.3 percent of observed 

sector trips. Observers reported a total of 

14,423 lb (6,542 kg) of unmarketable 

groundfish that have been retained by 

sector vessels on 161 trips. Gillnet 

vessels encountered the most 

unmarketable groundfish per trip, with 

an average of 92 lb (42 kg), and a 

maximum of 402 lb (182 kg). Hook 

vessels retained an average of 64 lb (29 

kg) of unmarketable groundfish per trip 

(maximum of 150 lb (68 kg)), and trawl 

vessels retained an average of only 23 lb 

(10 kg) of unmarketable groundfish per 

trip (maximum of 14 lb (6 kg)). In 

addition, unmarketable fish have a 

much greater occurrence on gillnet trips 

than trips using hook or trawl gear, 

during the time from May 1 through 

November 3, 2010, with observers 

reporting legal-sized unmarketable fish 

on 151 gillnet trips, but only 7 hook 

trips and 3 trawl trips. The occurrence 

of legal-sized unmarketable fish that had 

to be retained is limited, and does not 

appear to be a significant portion of 

sector catch. To date, these observed 

fish, and other unmarketable fish 

landed, are deducted from the sector’s 

ACE. For sectors opting for the 

discarding exemption, any 

unmarketable fish that would have been 

required to be landed without the 

exemption and now are discarded by 

sector vessels will be recorded by 

observers as discards and applied to 

sector ACEs through discard data and 

sector-specific discard rates on 

unobserved trips. 

The discarding exemption, in 

combination with the enhanced 

reporting of legal-sized unmarketable 

fish, would improve the monitoring of 

this unmarketable portion of sector 

catch, particularly on unobserved sector 

trips. The discard exemption is being 

requested by the GB Cod Fixed Gear 

Sector; Northeast Fishery Sectors II–III, 

V–VI and X–XII; Sustainable Harvest 

Sectors 1 and 3; and the Tri-State 

Sector. 

12. Extension of the GOM Sink Gillnet 

Mesh Exemption Through May 

For a full description of the GOM 

Sink Gillnet Mesh Exemption, please 

see exemption 8 of this section. 

Northeast Fishery Sectors III, VI–VIII, 

and X have requested that the GOM 

Sink Gillnet Mesh Exemption, proposed 

above, be extended an additional 

month, from the end of April until the 

end of May. 

This exemption would provide sector 

vessels the opportunity to potentially 

catch more GOM haddock, a fully 

rebuilt stock, during the months that 

haddock are most prevalent, and would 

also provide sector participants the 

opportunity to more fully harvest their 

allocation of GOM haddock, therefore 

increasing efficiency and revenues for 

vessel participating in this program. The 

sectors assert that impacts to non-target 

species would be minimal, because 

fishing effort by sectors vessels is 

restricted by ACE for allocated stocks, 

which caps overall mortality. 

13. Daily Catch Reporting by Sector 

Managers for Vessels Participating in 

the CA I Hook Gear Haddock SAP 

The regulations at § 648.85(b)(7)(v)(C) 

require that sector vessels that declared 

into the CA I Hook Gear Haddock SAP 

submit daily catch reports to the sector 

manager, and that the sector manager 

report catch information to NMFS, on a 

daily basis. This reporting requirement 

was originally implemented through 

Framework 40A, to facilitate real-time 

monitoring of quotas by both the sector 

manager and NMFS. Amendment 16 

granted authority to the Regional 

Administrator to determine if weekly 

sector reports were sufficient for the 

monitoring of most SAPs. Through the 

final rule implementing Amendment 16, 

the Regional Administrator alleviated 

reporting requirements for sector vessels 

participating in other Special 

Management Programs (SMPs), though 

these reporting requirements were 

retained for the CA I Hook Gear 

Haddock SAP, given that NMFS must 

continue to monitor an overall haddock 

TAC that applies to sector and common 

pool vessels fishing in this SAP. 

The GB Cod Fixed Gear Sector 

requests that NMFS exempt the sector 

manager from submitting these reports 

to NMFS, opting instead to mandate that 

participating vessels submit a VMS 

catch report directly to NMFS 

containing all required information, 

analogous to the requirements for 

common pool vessels. The sector 

contends that this scenario would 

provide NMFS with data in a more 

timely fashion. 

NMFS is currently evaluating the 

possibility of using the sector manager’s 

weekly report, rather than daily reports, 

to monitor the TAC. Sector weekly 

reports have provided information in a 

timely enough manner to adequately 

monitor other SAPs. However, the 

weekly reports, in their current form 

would not provide sufficient 

information. Furthermore, NMFS is 

concerned that this provision may 

reduce the sector manager’s capability 

to accurately monitor the sector’s ACE 

in a timely manner. NMFS is soliciting 

comment on both the utility of the 

current reporting method, and the 

alternate reporting options highlighted 

above. 

14. Prohibition on Pair Trawling 

The regulations at § 648.14(k)(5)(vi) 

prohibit pair trawling in the NE 

multispecies fishery. This prohibition 

was originally implemented through an 

emergency interim rule (58 FR 32062; 

June 8, 1993), extended through a 

second emergency interim rule (59 FR 

26; January 3, 1994), and made 

permanent in Amendment 5 (59 FR 

9872; March 1, 1994). The first 

emergency interim rule prohibited pair 

trawling, based on record low 

abundance of spawning stock biomass 

and high fishing mortality of cod, 

conditions of the haddock stock and 

benefits to reducing discards of 

haddock, the high efficiency of this gear 

type, and an increase in the number of 

vessels electing to use this gear. The 

second emergency interim rule 

extending the prohibition noted that 

pair trawls are ‘‘highly efficient gear, 

and its unlimited use during a period of 

severely declining haddock and cod 

stocks is counterproductive to the goal 

of reducing effort in an overfished 

fishery.’’ Amendment 5 also noted that 

pair trawling vessels ‘‘had significantly 

higher revenue-per-day-absent and 

landings-per-day-absent than otter trawl 

vessels fishing singly,’’ further 

demonstrating the efficiency of this gear 

type. While initially intended to protect 

cod and haddock stocks, which at the 

time were at all-time low levels of 

abundance, the rule noted that ‘‘the 

stock condition and landings will 

continue to decline until such time that 

meaningful measures are implemented 

that will eliminate the overfished 

condition of the stocks and reduce the 

exploitation rate to levels that will allow 

significant rebuilding to take place.’’ 

Northeast Fishery Sectors VI–X and 

XIII are requesting an exemption from 

the pair trawling restriction for FY 2011, 

while restricting vessels to using either 

the Ruhle Trawl or the Eliminator 

Trawl. The sectors comment that a 

prohibition of this highly efficient gear 

type was intended to reduce fishing 

mortality. Given this, the sectors assert 

that, since sectors are managed under an 

ACE, they should be exempt from effort 

controls. These sectors anticipate that 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
10864 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 39 / Monday, February 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

the exemption will enable participating 

vessels to harvest the sector’s ACE more 

efficiently and economically. 

However, NMFS has concerns with 

granting this exemption because, due to 

the efficiency of pair trawling, sectors 

may not have sufficient ACE for all 

stocks caught by this gear, and may be 

unable to selectively target desired 

stocks. Additionally, this gear 

configuration has not been studied, and 

it could be that an increase in herding 

could diminish the established 

selectivity of the Ruhle Trawl. NMFS is 

especially interested in receiving public 

comment on this exemption request. 

15. Minimum Hook Size Requirements 

for Demersal Longline Gear 

The regulations at §§ 648.80(a)(3)(v), 

648.80(a)(4)(v), 648.80(b)(2)(v), and 

648.80(c)(2)(iv) specify that ‘‘all longline 

gear hooks must be circle hooks, of a 

minimum size of 12/0.’’ This restriction 

was implemented through Amendment 

13 to reduce the catch of small fish and 

improve their survivability in the hook 

fishery. In addition, the Amendment 13 

FEIS further reasoned that ‘‘limits on the 

number of hooks are intended to reduce 

overall effort in the hook fishery.’’ 

The Northeast Coastal Communities 

Sector requested an exemption from this 

regulation, which would allow sector 

members the ability to target flatfish, 

species of fish which generally have 

smaller mouths than other groundfish. 

The sector asserts that bycatch could be 

avoided by selectively placing this gear, 

and that this exemption would allow its 

members to more effectively harvest the 

sector’s ACE and increase profit margins 

of sector fishermen. However, NMFS 

has concerns with allowing a smaller 

hook size, given that this could increase 

the catch of sublegal fish. 

16. Minimum Mesh Size Requirements 

on Targeted Redfish Trips 

The regulations at § 648.80 specify the 

minimum mesh size that may be used 

in fishing nets on vessels fishing in the 

GOM, GB, SNE, and MA RMAs. The 

regulations implementing the minimum 

mesh size were initially adopted 

through interim rules in 2001 and 2002 

(67 FR 21140, 29 April 2002; 67 FR 

50292, August 1, 2002) and made 

permanent through Amendment 13. 

This provision was intended to provide 

protection to spawning fish and increase 

the size of targeted fish. Framework 42 

further modified the mesh regulations in 

the SNE/MA RMAs to reduce discards 

of yellowtail flounder. 

Northeast Fishery Sectors II, V–X and 

XIII are requesting an exemption from 

the current minimum mesh size codend 

on targeted redfish trips for FY 2011; 

replacing this requirement with a 5-inch 

(12.7-cm) minimum mesh size codend 

on directed redfish trips. The sectors 

also propose that members be required 

to notify the manager at least 48 hrs in 

advance of such a trip, and be required 

to have 100 percent observer or at-sea 

monitor coverage while utilizing this 

gear. Also, to accurately monitor the 

ACE, Sector members would be required 

to submit catch reports to the sector 

manager on a daily basis while at sea. 

The requesting sectors argue that this 

exemption could increase the 

operational flexibility of sector vessels 

and could increase profit margins of 

sector fishermen. 

The sectors referenced several studies 

in support of this exemption. A study 

entitled ‘‘The Status of the Fishery 

Resources of the Northeast U.S.,’’ by 

Mayo, R., L. Col and M. Traver 2006 

describes the gear historically used in 

the redfish fishery. It notes that the 

minimum mesh size restrictions, along 

with ‘‘low biomass and truncated size 

and age structure of the redfish stock 

have effectively eliminated the 

prosecution of a fishery since the mid 

1980s.’’ 

Anecdotal information for FY 2010 

provided by some industry members, as 

well as information in a study entitled 

‘‘ME Boats go for Redfish the NewFashioned Way,’’ by Peter K. Prybot, in 

the September 2010 issue of 

Commercial Fisheries News, suggests 

that some sector members have been 

successful at targeting redfish utilizing 

gear with 6.5-inch (16.51-cm) mesh. 

NMFS is currently funding a study 

through the Northeast Cooperative 

Research Partners Program to investigate 

strategies and methods to sustainably 

harvest the redfish resource in the GOM 

through a network approach, including 

fishing enterprises, gear manufacturers, 

researchers, and social and economic 

experts and managers, which will 

include the investigation of success of 

various mesh sizes within the fishery. 

Given that the use of this smaller mesh 

could negatively impact spawning fish 

and populations of flounders, which the 

current minimum mesh sizes were 

intended to protect, NMFS has 

reservations about approving this 

exemption, until such time that results 

from this study can first be considered. 

17. Rhule and Haddock Separator 

Requirements to Utilize the 98.4 in × 

15.7 in (250 cm × 40 cm) Eliminator 

Trawl TM

Through several separate rulemakings 

(73 FR 29098, May 20, 2008; 73 FR 

40186, July 14, 2008; 73 FR 52214, 

August 9, 2008; and 73 FR 53158, 

August 15, 2008), NMFS has authorized 

the use of the Ruhle Trawl (f.k.a., 

Eliminator Trawl and Haddock Rope 

Trawl) for use in the B DAS Program, 

Eastern U.S./Canada Haddock SAP, and 

the Eastern U.S./Canada Area Program. 

NMFS approval of this gear was based 

upon a recommendation from the 

Council, following a review of a study 

that demonstrated that this 

experimental net was successful at 

targeting haddock and significantly 

reducing the catch of other groundfish 

species. NMFS, however, noted in the 

final rule approving this gear for use in 

the B DAS Program and the Eastern 

U.S./Canada Haddock SAP that the 

‘‘results of the experiment cannot be 

used to extrapolate to smaller scale 

haddock rope trawl gear that could be 

readily used by smaller horsepower 

vessels’’ but that ‘‘research is currently 

underway testing a smaller, modified 

version of the haddock rope trawl, and 

at-sea observations indicate that this 

smaller net may also be effective at 

reducing bycatch.’’ 

Although the results of the smallerscale trawl study have yet to be 

reviewed by the Council, several of the 

Northeast Fishery Sectors (II, V–X, and 

XIII) have requested an exemption to 

utilize the 8.4 in × 15.7 in (250 cm × 40 

cm) Eliminator TrawlTM in areas and 

programs where the Ruhle trawl has 

been approved. In addition, these 

sectors wish to have this gear type 

included in the Ruhle trawl discard 

strata. Therefore observed discards from 

this smaller net would apply to the 

current Ruhle trawl strata, and the 

discard rate for the Ruhle trawl strata 

would apply to all unobserved trips 

utilizing this gear. The sectors assert 

that approving this gear type will 

provide sector members greater 

flexibility, as many vessels are too small 

to utilize the larger version of the net. 

In addition, the sectors argue that, based 

upon the final results of ‘‘Exploring 

Bycatch Reduction in the Haddock 

Fishery through the use of the 

Eliminator Trawl with Fishing Vessels 

in the 250 to 550 HP Range,’’ by Laura 

Scrobe, David Beutel and Jonathan 

Knight, this smaller net may reduce the 

catch of major stocks of concern, while 

allowing vessels to selectively target 

haddock. As with the previous mesh 

size exemption request discussed under 

exemption 16, NMFS has concerns with 

granting this exemption prior to 

reviewing the results of the report 

studying this smaller net. 

18. Gear Requirements in the U.S./ 

Canada Management Area 

Current regulations require that a NE 

multispecies vessel fishing with trawl 

gear in the Eastern U.S./Canada Area 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 39 / Monday, February 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 10865 

must fish with a Ruhle trawl, a haddock 

separator trawl, or a flounder trawl net. 

The final rule implementing 

Amendment 13 clarified that the 

restriction to use a haddock separator 

trawl or a flounder trawl net was 

designed to ‘‘ensure that the U.S./ 

Canada TACs are not exceeded. Because 

both the flounder net and haddock 

separator trawl are designed to affect 

cod selectivity, and because the cod 

TAC is specific to the Eastern U.S./ 

Canada Area only, application of this 

gear requirement to the Western U.S./ 

Canada Area is not necessary to achieve 

the stated goal.’’ 

The requirement to utilize a Ruhle 

trawl in the Eastern U.S./Canada Area 

was implemented through several 

inseason actions, and made permanent 

in Amendment 16. This gear 

configuration was originally authorized 

for its demonstrated ability to allow the 

targeting of haddock, an underharvested stock, while reducing bycatch 

of cod and yellowtail flounder stocks, 

which were identified as overfished. 

The addition of the Ruhle Trawl to gear 

previously approved (haddock separator 

trawl and flounder trawl net) provided 

added flexibility to trawl vessels. 

The Sustainable Harvest Sectors 1 and 

3, and the Tri-State Sector have 

requested an exemption from the trawl 

gear requirements in the Eastern U.S./ 

Canada Area, to allow either a standard 

otter trawl or modified versions of 

currently approved trawl gear (Ruhle 

trawl, a haddock separator trawl, or a 

flounder trawl net) to access the area. 

The sectors both assert that this measure 

was initially designed as a method to 

control fishing effort and therefore is no 

longer necessary because a sector is now 

constrained by the allocated ACE for 

each stock, which caps overall fishing 

mortality. 

19. Requirement to Power a VMS While 

at the Dock 

The regulations at § 648.10(b)(4) 

require that a vessel issued certain 

categories of NE multispecies permits, 

or eligible and participating in a sector, 

to have an operational VMS unit 

onboard. Additionally, § 648.10(c)(1)(i) 

requires that the VMS units onboard a 

NE multispecies vessel transmit 

accurate positional information (i.e., 

polling) at least every hour, 24 hr per 

day, throughout the year. Amendment 5 

first included the requirement for 

vessels to use VMS. While the 

requirement to use VMS was delayed 

until a later action (Framework 42 

ultimately implemented a VMS 

requirement for NE multispecies DAS 

vessels), NMFS supported polling due 

to its ability to insure adequacy of 

monitoring requirements and address 

enforcement concerns, and because it 

could be beneficial in the event of an atsea emergency. 

Under certain circumstances, the 

regulations at § 648.10(c)(2) allow 

NMFS to issue a LOA allowing vessels 

to sign out of the VMS program for a 

minimum of 30 consecutive days. The 

ability to power-down a VMS unit was 

justified in Amendment 13 to reduce 

vessel costs when reduced DAS 

allocation limited fishing opportunities 

to a small portion of the year. 

The Tri-State Sector requested an 

exemption from the requirement to 

power a VMS while at the dock, noting 

that the VMS was used to track DAS and 

proximity to closed areas, and would 

require that the VMS unit be operational 

when the vessel is away from the dock. 

The Tri-State Sector further noted that 

other reporting requirements (trip start 

and trip end hails, VMS declarations, 

etc.) received by the sector manager and 

NMFS could be used to monitor vessels 

granted this exemption. 

20. All DSM and Roving Monitoring 

Requirements 

Amendment 13 adopted the concept 

that sectors are responsible for 

monitoring sector catch, but provided 

few details for that requirement. 

Amendment 16 formalized this 

requirement, by specifying that sector 

operations plans must include how a 

sector will monitor its catch to assure 

that sector catch does not exceed the 

sector allocation; including developing 

and implementing an independent 

third-party DSM program for monitoring 

landings from sector trips and 

utilization of ACE. The DSM program 

was implemented to ensure that catch is 

accurately documented and that all 

sectors are being held to the same 

standards, for the purpose of bolstering 

compliance monitoring efforts. 

The GB Cod Fixed Gear Sector and 

Northeast Fishery Sectors II–III and V– 

XIII have requested an exemption from 

all DSM requirements. The GB Fixed 

Gear sector contends that this program 

has added little value to the sectors’ 

infrastructure or sector members’ 

businesses. Additionally, the sector 

argues that ambiguities with the DSM 

program, such as the failure to require 

confirmation that all landings have been 

offloaded, the fact that NMFS does not 

utilize or cross-reference this data, and 

the ability of fishermen to alter behavior 

when notified of a monitoring event, 

prevent the program from meeting its 

stated objectives. The GB Cod Fixed 

Gear Sector also asserts that NMFS has 

yet to request any dockside or roving 

monitoring reports to validate or verify 

a landing event, and therefore the 

requirement is not being utilized as an 

enforcement tool. The Northeast Fishery 

Sectors contend that the 

implementation of the DSM program 

has not met the stated objectives of the 

DSM program in an economically 

efficient manner. They contend that 

DSM was meant as a means for sector 

managers to verify catch, and that the 

Northeast Fishery Sector managers do 

not utilize DSM reports, but rather opt 

to utilize dealer weigh-out slips for this 

purpose. NMFS acknowledges that the 

DSM program could be strengthened, 

and intends to modify DSM standards 

for the start of FY 2011, to help ensure 

better compliance monitoring, the 

primary objective of the program. 

At its November 18, 2010, meeting, 

the Council voted to include in FW 45 

a provision that would remove DSM 

from the list of reporting requirements, 

thereby removing this requirement from 

the list of prohibited sector exemptions. 

Many of the DSM requirements that 

were requested for exemption in the 

operations plans submitted as of 

September 1, 2010, were, at the time, 

prohibited under Amendment 16 and, 

therefore, not analyzed in the sector EA, 

given that there was insufficient time to 

do so. This request, and other DSM 

exemption requests, will be analyzed in 

the final EA. 

21. DSM Requirements for Directed 

Monkfish, Skate, and Dogfish Trips 

As explained above in exemption 20, 

Amendment 13 adopted the concept 

that sectors are responsible for 

monitoring sector catch, and 

Amendment 16 formalized these 

requirements. Unless a vessel is fishing 

in an exempted fishery, directed 

monkfish, skate and dogfish trips are 

considered a sector trip because a 

groundfish trip declaration is required 

(NE multispecies DAS or sector trip), 

since gear utilized on such trips is 

capable of catching groundfish and 

groundfish retention is permitted. 

The Northeast Coastal Communities 

Sector; and Northeast Fishery Sectors 

II–III, V–X, and XIII have requested an 

exemption from DSM while on directed 

fishing trips on monkfish, skate, and/or 

dogfish. Specifically, the Northeast 

Coastal Communities Sector has 

requested an exemption from DSM on 

dogfish trips when vessels are utilizing 

hook gear. The sector contends that data 

collected from observed FY 2010 

dogfish trips demonstrate that little 

groundfish incidental catch occurs, 

making the cost of DSM per pound of 

groundfish too low to support it. The 

Northeast Fishery Sectors have 

requested an exemption on all directed 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
10866 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 39 / Monday, February 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

monkfish, skate, and dogfish trips, 

contending that the implementation of 

DSM in FY 2010 has not met the 

objectives stated in Amendment 16 in 

an economically efficient manner. These 

sectors state that providing an 

exemption on these trips could provide 

economic relief from the costs of 

monitoring trips that land little 

groundfish. 

NMFS believes that this request poses 

operational concerns. Vessels fishing on 

directed monkfish, skate, and dogfish 

trips, unless in an exempted fishery, are 

declared as a sector trip, and/or require 

the declaration of a DAS. Such trips are 

not prohibited from targeting or landing 

groundfish and, therefore, may land 

substantial amounts of groundfish. 

Since these trips are made through 

groundfish declarations, it is currently 

impossible to distinguish these trips 

from directed groundfish trips. Sector 

discard rates, a crucial component of 

ACE monitoring, are calculated based 

on total catch, not solely groundfish 

catch. A reduction in monitoring would 

decrease oversight of, and confidence 

in, this crucial calculation. 

Additionally, the sectors requesting this 

exemption did not address the benefit 

that this program provides to 

compliance monitoring. 

22. DSM Requirements for Jig Vessels 

Jigging, with respect to the NE 

multispecies fishery, is defined at 

§ 648.2 as fishing with handgear, 

handline, or rod and reel gear using a 

jig, which is a weighted object attached 

to the bottom of the line used to sink the 

line and/or imitate a baitfish, which is 

moved with an up and down motion. 

Jigging gear is not exempted gear and, 

therefore, sector trips utilizing this gear 

are required to participate in the DSM 

program. 

The Northeast Coastal Communities 

Sector requested an exemption from 

DSM requirements for vessels using jig 

gear, noting that vessels utilizing this 

gear type are able to target cod with 

little incidental catch of other allocated 

groundfish species. The sector points 

out that the cost of monitoring these 

trips is disproportionately high, due to 

the comparatively small amount of 

catch that this gear type yields. 

The Council, through FW 45, 

proposes to remove DSM requirements 

in FY 2011 for common pool vessels 

with Handgear A and B permitted 

vessels, as well as for Small Vessel 

permitted vessels, because small 

quantities of groundfish landed by these 

permit categories would make 

monitoring such trips uneconomical. 

Vessels that have a valid Handgear or 

Small Vessel permit and that fish with 

jig gear would be exempt from DSM, if 

the provision in FW 45 is approved by 

NMFS. 

23. DSM Requirements for Hook Vessels 

When the Sector Has Caught Less Than 

10,000 lb (4,535.9 kg) of Groundfish per 

Year 

The regulations at 

§ 648.87(b)(1)(v)(B)(3) specify that any 

DSM service provider must provide 

coverage that is distributed in a random 

manner among all trips, such that the 

coverage is representative of fishing 

activities by all vessels within each 

sector and by all sector vessels 

operations throughout the fishing year. 

The Northeast Coastal Communities 

Sector has requested an exemption from 

DSM requirements for hook vessels 

when the sector has caught less than 

10,000 lb (4535.9 kg) of groundfish per 

year, noting that, in FY 2010, trips by 

sector vessels have, thus far, yielded 

little groundfish, and due to the remote 

location of its ports, DSM has been cost 

prohibitive. The sector proposes a 

10,000-lb (4,535.9 kg) threshold for the 

year, above which DSM would be 

required, and stated that catch could be 

verified through a comparison of dealer 

data, vessel trip reports, and VMS catch 

reports. The manager proposes to notify 

NMFS when 8,000 lb (3,628.7 kg) of 

groundfish have been caught, and 

would submit to DSM program 

requirements at that time. 

NMFS is concerned that this 

threshold is somewhat arbitrary and is 

interested in public comment on this. 

Additionally, a 10,000-lb (4,535.9-kg) 

cap is a significant amount of landings, 

and exempting a sector from DSM 

requirements could raise compliance 

monitoring concerns (as noted above). 

24. DSM Requirements in May When 

Fishing in Certain Mid-Atlantic (MA) 

Areas 

Upon receiving exemption requests to 

the DSM requirement for vessels fishing 

in SNE and MA waters, the Regional 

Administrator, in a September 1, 2010, 

letter to the Council, requested that the 

Council consider establishing a 

geographic boundary outside of which 

DSM would not be required. At its 

November 18, 2010, meeting, the 

Council considered this request and 

supported removal of DSM from the list 

of prohibited exemptions to allow 

sectors to request geographic- and gearbased exemptions from DSM. 

Northeast Fishery Sectors VI–VIII and 

X–XIII have requested an exemption 

from DSM in May and June on nongroundfish directed trips that occur in 

the following NMFS statistical areas: 

615, 616, 621, 622, 623, 625, 626, 627, 

631, 632, 633, 635, 637, and 638. The 

sectors point out that historical data 

indicate that little groundfish incidental 

catch has been observed in these areas, 

and monitoring of such trips is therefore 

not a beneficial use of financial 

resources. 

25. DSM Requirements for Vessels 

Fishing West of 72°30′ W. long. 

Please see exemption 24 for 

background on this request. Sustainable 

Harvest Sectors 1 and 3, and the TriState Sector have requested an 

exemption from the DSM requirements 

for vessels fishing west of 72°30′ W. 

long., noting that historical data indicate 

that little groundfish incidental catch 

has been observed in this area, and 

monitoring of such trips is therefore not 

a beneficial use of financial resources. 

26. DSM, Roving Monitoring, and Hail 

Requirements for Hook-Only or 

Handgear Vessels 

Neither hook gear nor handgear, as 

defined in § 648.2, are exempted gear, 

and therefore sector trips utilizing these 

gear types are required to have DSM. 

The GB Cod Fixed Gear Sector 

requested an exemption from DSM, 

roving monitoring, and hail 

requirements for hook-only or handgear 

vessels, noting that vessels utilizing this 

gear type are among the smallest 

operators and have historically landed 

small amounts of groundfish. The sector 

contends that the proceeds from these 

trips may be less than the cost of 

deploying a dockside or roving monitor, 

making the cost of monitoring of these 

vessels disproportionately high relative 

to the rest of the groundfish fleet. The 

sector also requests that, if this 

exemption is granted, these vessels 

should also be exempt from hail 

requirements. Although FW 45 proposes 

to remove DSM requirements from the 

list of regulations that sectors may not 

be exempt from, hail requirements 

would remain reporting requirements, 

and therefore may not be exempted. 

While hails are widely viewed as 

necessary for the deployment of 

dockside monitors, NMFS receives this 

information and also uses it to 

coordinate the deployment of 

enforcement resources in monitoring 

offloads. 

As explained above in exemption 22, 

the Council, through FW 45, proposes to 

remove DSM requirements in FY 2011 

for common pool vessels with Handgear 

A and B permitted vessels, as well as for 

Small Vessel permitted vessels. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 39 / Monday, February 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 10867 

27. DSM, Roving Monitoring, and Hail 

Requirements for Vessels Using 

Demersal Longline Gear, Jig Gear, and 

Handgear While Targeting Spiny 

Dogfish in Massachusetts State Waters 

Unless a vessel is fishing in an 

exempted fishery, directed monkfish, 

skate, and dogfish trips are considered 

sector trips, because a groundfish trip 

declaration is required (NE multispecies 

DAS or sector trip), since gear utilized 

on such trips is capable of catching 

groundfish and groundfish retention is 

permitted. 

The GB Cod Fixed Gear Sector has 

requested an exemption from DSM, 

roving monitoring, and hail 

requirements for vessels using demersal 

longline gear, jig gear, and handlines 

while targeting spiny dogfish in 

Massachusetts State waters of NMFS 

Statistical Area 521, asserting that its FY 

2010 sector data indicate little 

groundfish incidental catch in this area. 

The sector contends that deploying 

monitors on such trips provides little 

value to a program designed to monitor 

landings of regulated groundfish. 

NMFS believes that this request may 

pose operational concerns. Vessels 

fishing on a directed dogfish trip, 

outside of an exempted fishery, must 

declare a sector trip through VMS or 

IVR prior to starting their trip. It is 

currently impossible to distinguish such 

a trip from a directed groundfish trip. 

Sector discard rates, a crucial 

component of ACE monitoring, are 

calculated based on total catch, not 

solely groundfish catch. A reduction in 

monitoring would decrease oversight of 

and confidence in this crucial 

calculation. The sector did not address 

the benefit that this program provides to 

compliance monitoring. 

28. DSM Requirements When a Trip Has 

Been Monitored by Either an At-Sea 

Monitor or Fishery Observer 

The regulations at 

§ 648.87(b)(1)(v)(B)(3) specify that any 

DSM service provider must provide 

coverage that is distributed in a random 

manner among all trips, thereby 

accurately observing sector fishing 

activity. 

The Northeast Coastal Communities 

Sector has requested an exemption from 

DSM requirements when a trip has been 

monitored by either an at-sea monitor or 

fishery observer, noting that requiring 

both at-sea monitoring and DSM is 

redundant, as the goal of both programs 

is catch verification. The sector claims 

that requiring DSM on trips that also 

receive monitoring at-sea is overly 

burdensome for sector members. At its 

November 18, 2010, meeting, the 

Council asked NMFS to prioritize DSM 

for trips that did not receive an at-sea 

monitor. 

29. The Requirement To Delay 

Offloading Due to the Late Arrival of the 

Assigned Monitor 

The regulations at § 648.87(b)(5)(i)(C) 

specify that a vessel may not offload any 

fish from a trip that was selected to be 

observed by a dockside/roving monitor 

until the dockside/roving monitor 

assigned to that trip is present. The 

regulations implementing Amendment 

16 require each sector to develop, 

implement, and fund a DSM program, 

including the selection and hiring of 

approved monitoring provider(s). 

Because each sector contracts directly 

with monitoring provider(s), the sector 

has the ability, and responsibility, to 

resolve the late arrival of an assigned 

monitor directly with its contracted 

provider(s). 

The GB Cod Fixed Gear Sector has 

requested a partial exemption from the 

above regulation, allowing vessels to 

begin offloading catch if a dockside or 

roving monitor is late. The sector argues 

that it is the responsibility of the 

monitor to ensure timely arrival at 

monitoring events, and that delays have 

negative social and economic impacts 

for the sector member being observed, 

for the dealer, and for other members 

that must also wait to offload. 

This request, however, poses several 

operational concerns. First, confirming 

the late arrival of a monitor may be 

difficult, as it would require verification 

of the information in the vessel’s trip 

end hail to the dockside monitor. 

Second, granting this exemption may 

promote misreporting of the offloading 

locations in an attempt to delay the 

arrival of a monitor and avoid 

monitoring coverage. Additionally, the 

sector did not address the benefit that 

this program provides to compliance 

monitoring. 

30. Prohibition on Offloading of NonAllocated Species Prior to the Arrival of 

the Monitor 

The regulations at § 648.87(b)(5)(i)(C) 

specify that a vessel may not offload any 

fish from a trip that was selected to be 

observed by a dockside/roving monitor 

until the dockside/roving monitor 

assigned to that trip is present. 

Sustainable Harvest Sectors 1 and 3 

have requested an exemption from the 

prohibition on offloading of nonallocated species prior to the arrival of 

the monitor, to allow for the offload of 

non-allocated species prior to the arrival 

of a monitor. The sectors contend that, 

on occasion, dealers request vessels to 

offload non-allocated stocks, such as 

lobster, prior to the offload of 

groundfish; this exemption would give 

additional flexibility to sector members 

and dealers for the processing of catch. 

The sectors propose to require their 

vessels to file VMS catch reports and/or 

a trip end hail reports prior to crossing 

the demarcation line to account for total 

catch. Additionally, the sector proposes 

to require captains to sign an affidavit 

stating that no allocated stock was 

offloaded during these instances. The 

DSM standards require catch of all 

stocks to be monitored because sector 

discard ratios are calculated based on 

total catch, not groundfish catch only. 

NMFS is concerned, therefore, that 

granting this exemption could decrease 

oversight of, and confidence in, this 

crucial calculation. 

31. Requirement To Provide a Sector 

Roster to NMFS by the Specified 

Deadline 

The regulations implementing 

Amendment 16, at § 648.87(b)(2), 

expanded the requirements for sector 

operations plan submissions and 

specified a due date of September 1 to 

ensure that the operations plans and 

associated analysis are reviewed in time 

to implement such operations by the 

start of the next FY. The deadline for 

submitting sector documents is an 

administrative one, set to ensure 

sufficient time to comply with all 

applicable laws. For FY 2011, NMFS 

extended the deadline for sector rosters 

to December 1, 2010, in response to 

industry requests. 

The Maine Permit Bank Sector has 

requested an exemption from the 

December 1 deadline to allow for 

additional time to acquire permits. 

Because membership is a prerequisite to 

sector formation, the Maine Permit Bank 

Sector has been notified that it must 

demonstrate its compliance with 

minimum membership requirements 

(‘‘Rule of 3’’), but that a list of permits 

that the State expects to purchase by 

February 1, 2011 (‘‘bid sheets’’) would be 

accepted in the interim. The bid sheet, 

thus represents a list of permits offered 

for sale to the Maine Permit Bank Sector 

by their owners. Similar to vessels on a 

traditional sector roster, these permits 

are not bound to the sector for FY 2011 

at this time. Since NMFS is accepting 

bid sheets, it is possible that any 

permits associated with the permit bank 

sector could also be on the roster for 

another sector. Sectors currently 

account for approximately 99 percent of 

available ACE, and sectors are free to 

transfer ACE among each other during 

the FY. Consequently, the EA has 

analyzed the impacts of each sector’s 

operations as if 100 percent of ACE 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
10868 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 39 / Monday, February 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

would be harvested by that sector. For 

permits moving from another sector to 

the permit bank, the current analysis 

already accounts for the harvest of this 

ACE within active sectors. Since current 

sector rosters account for the vast 

majority of historic landings, little 

additional ACE is anticipated to move 

from the common pool to sectors, based 

on this exemption. Since the 

development of permit bank 

requirements has been a collaborative 

process, the need for this exemption 

was not developed until it was clear that 

Maine would not have finalized the 

purchase of permits by the December 1 

roster deadline. Due to this delay, this 

exemption is not considered in the draft 

EA. The final purchase of permits 

acquired by the Maine Permit Bank 

Sector must be officially documented to 

NMFS prior to the publication of the 

final rule. Setting the deadline for 

submitting sector documents is an 

administrative matter. Therefore, this 

exemption request is being highlighted, 

but not proposed because NMFS has 

accommodated the permit bank’s needs. 

Requested Exemptions Not Being 

Considered in This Action Because 

They Are Prohibited or Were 

Previously Rejected 

Exemptions requested by several 

sectors, ranging from at-sea monitoring 

provisions, discard rate calculation 

methods, Eastern U.S./Canada Area 

requirements, VTR requirements, and 

NMFS’s Office of Law Enforcement 

(OLE) confidentiality requirements, are 

either specifically prohibited, or fall 

outside the NE multispecies regulations. 

In a letter dated September 1, 2010, 

NMFS notified the Council that NMFS 

interprets the reporting requirement 

exemption prohibition broadly to apply 

to all monitoring requirements, 

including at-sea monitoring, DSM, ACE 

monitoring, and the counting of 

discards against sector ACE. In this 

letter, NMFS also requested that the 

Council define which regulations 

sectors may not be exempted from. On 

November 18, 2010, the Council 

addressed this letter by voting to remove 

DSM from the list of regulations that 

sectors may not be exempted from, but 

did not take such action for at-sea 

monitoring, ACE monitoring, VTR 

regulations, or counting of discards 

against ACE. Northeast Fishery Sectors 

II, V–X, and XIII; Sustainable Harvest 

Sectors 1 and 3; and the Tri-State Sector 

requested an exemption from a delayed 

opening of the Eastern U.S./Canada 

Area for trawl gear. However, this is a 

temporary rule that the Regional 

Administrator has the authority to 

implement, as specified at 

§ 648.85(a)(3)(iv)(D), to prevent either 

over-harvesting or to facilitate achieving 

the Eastern U.S./Canada Area TACs. 

Additionally, the GB Cod Fixed Gear 

Sector requested an exemption from 

OLE confidentiality requirements to 

receive information about enforcement 

actions or concerns from OLE within 24 

hr; however, this is not controlled by 

regulations implementing the NE 

Multispecies FMP. Accordingly, these 

exemption requests are not proposed in 

this rule. 

As previously stated, Amendment 16 

prohibits sectors from requesting 

exemptions from year-round closed 

areas, permitting restrictions, gear 

restrictions designed to minimize 

habitat impacts, and reporting 

requirements (excluding DAS reporting 

requirements). 

In addition, sectors requested several 

exemptions for FY 2011 that were 

previously disapproved for FY 2010, but 

failed to provide new information or 

justification for these exemptions. These 

include VMS requirements and 

minimum fish size requirements. The 

Northeast Fishery Sectors requested a 

VMS exemption that would allow a 

central sector server to relay member 

vessel catch reports and logbook data to 

NMFS. NMFS previously disapproved 

this exemption request because of 

serious concern that interrupting chain 

of custody of catch information would 

leave the catch information open to 

tampering. The Northeast Fishery 

Sectors provided no new information, 

justification, rationale, or mitigation to 

address this concern. Accordingly, this 

exemption is not proposed in this rule. 

In addition, the GB Cod Fixed Gear 

Sector and several of the Northeast 

Fishery Sectors requested an exemption 

from the minimum fish size 

requirements for allocated stocks. This 

exemption was previously disapproved 

because it would present significant 

enforcement issues by allowing two 

different legal minimum fish sizes in the 

marketplace and could potentially 

increase the targeting of juvenile fish. 

The requesting sectors have provided no 

new information, justification, rationale, 

or mitigation to address these concerns. 

Sector EA 

In order to comply with NEPA, one 

EA was prepared encompassing all 22 

operations plans. The sector EA is tiered 

from the Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS) prepared for 

Amendment 16. The EA examines the 

biological, economic, and social impacts 

unique to each sector’s proposed 

operations, including requested 

exemptions, and provides a cumulative 

effects analysis (CEA) that addresses the 

combined impact of the direct and 

indirect effects of approving all 

proposed sector operations plans. The 

summary findings of the EA conclude 

that each sector would produce similar 

effects that have non-significant 

impacts. Visit http:// 

www.regulations.gov to view the EA 

prepared for the 19 sectors that this rule 

proposes to approve. 

Special Management Program (SMP) 

Reporting Requirements 

Amendment 16 provided the Regional 

Administrator with the authority to 

remove SMP-specific reporting 

requirements if it is determined that the 

reporting requirements are unnecessary. 

Consistent with the provisions adopted 

under Amendment 16, NMFS retained 

the authority to reinstate such reporting 

requirements if it is later determined 

that the weekly sector catch reports are 

insufficient to adequately monitor catch 

by sector vessels in SMPs. For FY 2010, 

the Regional Administrator determined 

that daily SMP-specific VMS catch 

reports for vessels participating in 

sectors are unnecessary, because sectors 

were allocated ACE for most NE 

multispecies regulated species and 

ocean pout stocks and, therefore, would 

not be subject to any SMP-specific TACs 

or other restrictions on catch; would be 

responsible for ensuring that sector 

allocations are not exceeded; and would 

provide sufficient information to 

monitor all sector catch through the 

submission of weekly sector catch 

reports. For these same reasons, the 

Regional Administrator has determined, 

unless otherwise noted above, that SMPspecific reporting requirements are not 

necessary to monitor sector catch for FY 

2011. This exemption from the SMP 

reporting requirements for sector vessels 

would not apply to vessels participating 

in the Closed Area (CA) I Hook Gear 

Haddock SAP, as this SAP includes an 

overall haddock TAC that is applicable 

to both sector and common pool vessels 

fishing in this SAP. Therefore, the 

existing requirement for sector managers 

to provide daily catch reports by 

participating sector vessels would be 

maintained for the CAI Hook Gear 

Haddock SAP only. 

Classification 

Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

(Magnuson-Stevens Act), the NMFS 

Assistant Administrator has determined 

that this proposed rule is consistent 

with the NE Multispecies FMP, other 

provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act, and other applicable law, subject to 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 39 / Monday, February 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 10869 

further consideration after public 

comment. 

This action is exempt from review 

under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866. 

An IRFA has been prepared, as 

required by section 603 of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The 

IRFA describes the economic impact 

that this proposed rule, if adopted, 

would have on small entities. The IRFA 

consists of this section and the SUMMARY

section of the preamble of this proposed 

rule, and the EA prepared for this 

action. A description of the action, why 

it is being considered, and the legal 

basis for this action are contained in the 

preamble to this proposed rule and in 

Sections 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0 of the EA 

prepared for this action. A summary of 

the analysis follows. A copy of this 

analysis is available from NMFS (see 

ADDRESSES). 

Economic Impacts on Regulated Small 

Entities Enrolled in a Sector 

This proposed action would affect 

regulated entities engaged in 

commercial fishing for groundfish that 

have elected to join any one of the 19 

proposed sectors that have submitted 

operations plans for FY 2010. Any 

limited access Federal permit issued 

under the NE Multispecies FMP is 

eligible to join a sector (Table 4). The 

Small Business Administration (SBA) 

size standard for commercial fishing 

(NAICS code 114111) is $4 million in 

sales. Available data indicate that, based 

on 2005–2007 average conditions, 

median gross annual sales by 

commercial fishing vessels were just 

over $200,000, and no single fishing 

entity earned more than $2 million 

annually. Although we acknowledge 

there are likely to be entities that, based 

on rules of affiliation, would qualify as 

large business entities, due to lack of 

reliable ownership affiliation data, we 

cannot apply the business size standard 

at this time. Data are currently being 

compiled on vessel ownership that 

should permit a more refined 

assessment and determination of the 

number of large and small entities in the 

groundfish fishery for future actions. 

For this action, since available data are 

not adequate to identify affiliated 

vessels, each operating unit is 

considered a small entity for purposes 

of the RFA, and, therefore, there is no 

differential impact between small and 

large entities. As of December 1, 2010, 

a total of 834 of 1,475 eligible permits 

elected to join a sector. Table 4 

summarizes the number and percent of 

individual permits currently enrolled in 

a sector for FY 2011, as well as those 

predicted to be active. Since individuals 

may withdraw from a sector at any time 

prior to the beginning of FY 2011, the 

number of permits participating in 

sectors on May 1, 2011, and the 

resulting sector ACE allocations, are 

likely to change. 

Over the past decade, there has been 

a significant amount of consolidation in 

this fishery in response to management 

measures to end overfishing of, and to 

rebuild, groundfish stocks. The recent 

implementation of ACLs and AMs, and 

the expanded use of sectors under 

Amendment 16 have affected fishing 

patterns in ways that cannot yet be 

quantified and analyzed. Sector 

measures were intended to provide a 

mechanism for vessels to pool 

harvesting resources and consolidate 

operations in fewer vessels, if desired, 

and to provide a mechanism for 

capacity reduction through 

consolidation. Reasons why fewer 

vessels have fished thus far this year, in 

comparison to FY 2009, may be related 

to owners with multiple vessels fishing 

fewer vessels, or vessel owners or 

sectors using quota differently and 

waiting to fish later in the fishing year 

to maximize revenue in response to 

some of the efficiencies gained through 

the implementation of sector measures 

in 2010. It is also likely that some 

vessels that have not landed groundfish 

have received revenue from leasing their 

groundfish allocation or have been 

fishing in other fisheries. Thus, fewer 

vessels are actively fishing for and 

landing regulated species and ocean 

pout stocks, with 10 percent of the 

fishing vessels earning more than half of 

the revenues from such stocks since 

2005, leading to a seemingly continuing 

trend of consolidation in the fishery. 

However, as alluded to above, this trend 

began before the implementation and 

expansion of the sector program, and 

based on limited data available to date, 

the trend is not significantly out of 

proportion to fishing years prior to the 

implementation of Amendment 16. 

Further, most proposed FY 2011 sectors 

are anticipating no further consolidation 

than previously occurred through FY 

2010. Five sectors have reported that 

they anticipate a smaller percentage of 

permits to harvest groundfish for FY 

2011 as compared to FY 2010. Based 

upon concerns over consolidation raised 

by the public during the development of 

Amendment 16, the Council is currently 

working on a white paper regarding fleet 

diversity and accumulation limits, and 

has agreed to develop an amendment to 

the FMP to address concerns identified. 

Joining a sector is voluntary. This 

means that the decision whether or not 

to join a sector may be based upon 

which option—joining a sector or 

fishing under effort controls in the 

common pool—offers the greater 

economic advantage. Since sectors 

would be granted certain universal 

exemptions, and may request and be 

granted additional exemptions from 

regulatory measures that will apply to 

common pool vessels, sector vessels 

would be afforded greater flexibility. 

Sector members would no longer have 

groundfish catch limited by DAS 

allocations and would, instead, be 

limited by their available ACE. In this 

manner, the economic incentive 

changes from maximizing the value of 

throughput of all species on a DAS to 

maximizing the value of the sector ACE. 

This change places a premium on 

timing of landings to market conditions, 

as well as changes in the selectivity and 

composition of species landed on 

fishing trips. 

Unlike common pool vessels, sectors 

bear the administrative costs associated 

with preparing an EA, as well as the 

costs associated with sector 

management, DSM, and at-sea 

monitoring. However, FW 45 proposes 

to change the required coverage level for 

DSM to the level NMFS is able to fund, 

up to 100 percent coverage through FY 

2012, prioritizing coverage for trips that 

have not received at-sea or electronic 

monitoring. The magnitude of the 

administrative costs for sector formation 

and operation is estimated to range from 

$60,000 to $150,000 per sector, and the 

potential cost for dockside and at-sea 

monitoring ranges from $13,500 to 

$17,800 per vessel. These estimates 

serve to illustrate the fact that the 

potential administrative costs associated 

with joining a sector may be expected to 

influence a vessel owner’s decision. The 

majority of these administrative costs 

was subsidized by NMFS in FY 2010 

and will continue to be subsidized in 

FY 2011. Whether these subsidies, 

which include providing financial 

support for preparation of sector EAs, 

DSM, and at-sea monitoring, will 

continue beyond FY 2011 is not known. 

Nevertheless, these subsidies may make 

joining a sector a more attractive 

economic alternative for FY 2011. 

The capability to form a sector in the 

groundfish fishery was first 

implemented in 2004 through 

Amendment 13. Prior to FY 2010, there 

were only two sectors operating and 

only one sector had been operating 

continuously from 2004 to 2010. 

Available data (Table 5) suggest that the 

economic performance of the two 

sectors that had been operating prior to 

FY 2010 was positive. Whether 

improved profitability experienced by 

these two sectors will translate into 

improved performance for all 17 sectors 

that were implemented during FY2010 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
10870 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 39 / Monday, February 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

is not known since the fishing year is 

incomplete. Nevertheless, the analysis 

conducted for Amendment 16 posited 

that the combination of relief from 

specific regulations and the incentives 

to change fishing practices would result 

in improved ACL utilization compared 

to TAC use rates while the majority of 

the groundfish fleet was still operating 

under DAS controls. Using a straightline projection approach suggests that 

for most stocks the use rates for 

aggregate sector ACLs will be higher 

than the average observed TAC use rates 

compared to FY 2007 and FY 2008. This 

assumes that the average weekly catch 

rates by sector vessels will remain 

constant for the remainder of the fishing 

year. Further, given substantial 

differences in ACE across sectors and 

among members within sectors, 

economic performance may be expected 

to vary considerably. 

TABLE 4—SUMMARY OF THE NUMBER AND PERCENT OF INDIVIDUAL PERMITS AND LIKELY ACTIVE PERMITS CURRENTLY

ENROLLED IN A SECTOR FOR FY 2011 

Sector 

Number of 

individual 

permits * 

Percent of 

individual 

permits 

Number of 

active 

permits * 

Percent of 

active 

permits ** 

Northeast Fishery Sector II .............................................................................................. 85 5.63 42 50.60 

Northeast Fishery Sector III ............................................................................................. 95 6.44 49 51.58 

Northeast Fishery Sector IV ............................................................................................ 43 2.78 0 0 

Northeast Fishery Sector V ............................................................................................. 34 2.24 27 81.82 

Northeast Fishery Sector VI ............................................................................................ 19 1.29 5 26.32 

Northeast Fishery Sector VII ........................................................................................... 20 1.49 15 68.18 

Northeast Fishery Sector VIII .......................................................................................... 20 1.36 16 80.00 

Northeast Fishery Sector IX ............................................................................................ 60 3.73 22 40.00 

Northeast Fishery Sector X ............................................................................................. 51 3.32 26 53.06 

Northeast Fishery Sector XI ............................................................................................ 47 3.19 21 44.68 

Northeast Fishery Sector XII ........................................................................................... 11 0.75 6 54.55 

Northeast Fishery Sector XIII .......................................................................................... 35 2.37 29 82.86 

Fixed Gear Sector ........................................................................................................... 100 6.71 42 42.42 

Sustainable Harvest Sector 1 .......................................................................................... 106 7.05 37 35.58 

Sustainable Harvest Sector 3 .......................................................................................... 18 1.15 0 0 

Port Clyde Sector ............................................................................................................ 40 2.85 24 57.14 

Tri-State Sector ................................................................................................................ 19 1.29 9 47.37 

Northeast Coastal Community Sector ............................................................................. 30 2.03 27 90.00

Maine Permit Bank Sector ............................................................................................... †3 0.20 0 0 

All Sectors ........................................................................................................................ 834 55.66 397 48.36 

* Number of permits in each sector is from sector operation plans and EAs submitted as of September 10, 2010. 

** In 2010, 453 sector vessels were reported to be active vessels. 

†The Maine Permit Bank Sector has submitted a list of prospective permits for purchase and provided verification that it currently consists of 

two privately held permits, although it must hold a minimum of three permits to be considered for approval. The roster will be finalized prior to 

publication of the final rule. 

TABLE 5—YEAR TO DATE SECTOR CATCHES AND PROJECTED ACL USE RATES FOR FY 2010 

Stock 

Percent 

Sector catch 

as of 

October 9 

(percent) 

Sector weekly 

catch rate 

Projected 

FY10 sector 

ACL 

utilization 

(percent) 

2007–2008 

average 

utilization 

rate 

(percent) 

GB Cod ............................................................................................................ 29 0.01215 63.2 44 

GOM Cod ......................................................................................................... 42 0.01766 91.9 69 

GB Haddock .................................................................................................... 8 0.00323 16.8 17

GOM Haddock ................................................................................................. 13 0.01766 91.9 51 

GB Yellowtail Flounder .................................................................................... 46 0.01934 100.6 117 

SNE/MA Yellowtail Flounder ............................................................................ 5 0.00205 10.7 174 

CC/GOM Yellowtail Flounder ........................................................................... 16 0.00680 35.4 55 

Plaice ............................................................................................................... 23 0.00973 50.6 28 

Witch Flounder ................................................................................................. 34 0.01398 72.7 24 

GB Winter Flounder ......................................................................................... 49 0.02037 105.9 48 

GOM Winter Flounder ..................................................................................... 28 0.01147 59.7 NA 

Redfish ............................................................................................................. 14 0.00567 29.5 46 

White Hake ...................................................................................................... 27 0.01118 58.2 114 

Pollock1 ............................................................................................................ 11 0.00467 24.3 82 

1The 2010 projection of the Pollock sector use rate is significantly lower than that of the 2008–2009 average. This is because the revised Pollock reference points raised the ACL substantially above the TAC-levels set for either 2007 or 2008. 

The proposed action would provide 

relief from having to comply with 

specified regulations. These regulatory 

exemptions include a set of universal 

exemptions in Amendment 16, as well 

as the possibility for individual sectors 

to request additional exemptions. 

During FY 2010, a number of 

exemptions were requested by 

individual sectors. To provide 

maximum regulatory relief, as well as to 

reduce the cost of administering, 

monitoring, and enforcing a unique set 

of exemptions for each sector, these 

sector-requested exemptions were 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 39 / Monday, February 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 10871 

extended to additional sectors for the 

remainder of FY 2010 through 

supplemental rulemaking. The 

exemptions in this rule were analyzed 

so that they mimicked the universal 

exemptions; that is, any approvable 

exemption requested by one sector was 

approved for all sectors whether it had 

been requested or not. However, unlike 

the universal exemptions, any of the 

sector exemptions approved during FY 

2010 must be requested again for FY 

2011. The list of these exemptions is 

included in Section 3.3 and 3.4 of the 

EA. 

Economic Impacts of Exemptions 

Requested in the Proposed Action 

Exemption from the Day gillnet 120- 

day block out of the fishery requirement 

is being requested by the GB Cod Fixed 

Gear Sector; the Northeast Coastal 

Communities Sector; Northeast Fishery 

Sectors III, V–VIII, and X–XIII; the Port 

Clyde Community Groundfish Sector; 

Sustainable Harvest Sectors 1 and 3; and 

the Tri-State Sector. Existing regulations 

require that vessels using gillnet gear 

remove all gear from the water for 120 

days per year. Since the time out from 

fishing is up to the vessel owner to 

decide (with some restrictions), many 

affected vessel owners have purchased 

more than one vessel such that one may 

be used while the other is taking its 120- 

day block out of the groundfish fishery, 

to provide for sustained fishing income. 

Acquiring a second vessel adds the 

expense of outfitting another vessel with 

gear and maintaining that vessel. The 

exemption from the 120-day block 

would allow sector members to realize 

the cost savings associated with retiring 

the redundant vessel. Furthermore, this 

exemption would provide additional 

flexibility to sector vessels to maximize 

the utility of other sector-specific and 

universal exemptions, such as the 

exemption from the GB Seasonal 

Closure in May and portions of the 

GOM Rolling Closure Areas. 

The GB Cod Fixed Gear Sector; 

Northeast Fishery Sectors III, VI–VIII, 

and X–XII; the Port Clyde Community 

Groundfish Sector; Sustainable Harvest 

Sectors 1 and 3; and the Tri-State Sector 

are requesting exemption from the 

prohibition on a vessel hauling gear that 

was set by another vessel. The 

community fixed-gear exemption would 

allow sector vessels in the Day gillnet 

category to effectively pool gillnet gear 

that may be hauled or set by sector 

members. This provision would reduce 

the total amount of gear that would have 

to be purchased and maintained by 

participating sector members, resulting 

in some uncertain level of cost savings, 

along with a possible reduction in total 

gear fished. 

The GB Cod Fixed Gear Sector; 

Northeast Fishery Sectors III, VI–VIII, 

and X–XIII; Sustainable Harvest Sectors 

1 and 3; and the Tri-State Sector have 

requested to be exempt from the 

limitation on the number of gillnets that 

may be hauled on GB when fishing 

under a groundfish/monkfish DAS. 

Approving this exemption would 

increase operational flexibility and 

provide an opportunity for a substantial 

portion of the fleet to improve vessel 

profitability. 

The GB Cod Fixed Gear Sector; 

Northeast Fishery Sectors III, V–VIII, 

and X–XIII; the Port Clyde Community 

Groundfish Sector; Sustainable Harvest 

Sectors 1 and 3; and the Tri-State Sector 

are requesting an exemption from the 

limit on the number of nets (not to 

exceed 150) that may be deployed by 

Day gillnet vessels. This exemption 

would provide greater flexibility to 

deploy fishing gear by participating 

sector members according to operational 

and market needs. 

The GB Cod Fixed Gear Sector; the 

Northeast Coastal Communities Sector; 

Northeast Fishery Sectors II–III and V– 

XIII; the Port Clyde Community 

Groundfish Sector; Sustainable Harvest 

Sectors 1 and 3; and the Tri-State Sector 

are requesting exemption from the 20- 

day spawning block out of the fishery 

requirement. Exemption from the 20- 

day spawning block would improve 

flexibility to match trip planning 

decisions to existing fishing and market 

conditions. Although vessel owners 

currently have the flexibility to 

schedule their 20-day block according to 

business needs (within a 3-month 

window) and may use that opportunity 

to perform routine or scheduled 

maintenance, vessel owners may prefer 

to schedule these activities at other 

times of the year, or may have 

unexpected repairs. Removing this 

requirement may not have a significant 

impact, but would still provide vessel 

owners with greater opportunity to 

make more efficient use of their vessel. 

The GB Cod Fixed Gear Sector; the 

Northeast Coastal Communities Sector; 

Northeast Fishery Sectors III, VI–VIII, 

and X–XII; the Port Clyde Community 

Groundfish Sector; Sustainable Harvest 

Sectors 1 and 3; and the Tri-State Sector 

are requesting exemption from the 

number of hooks that may be fished. 

These exemptions would provide vessel 

owners in these sectors with the 

flexibility to adapt the number of hooks 

fished to existing fishing and market 

conditions. This exemption would also 

provide an opportunity to improve 

vessel profitability. The exemption from 

the number of hooks that may be fished 

has been granted to the GB Cod Hook 

Sector every year since FY 2004, and 

was granted to the GB Cod Fixed Gear 

Sector for FY 2010. Approving this 

exemption for these additional sectors 

would extend the potential economic 

benefits to more vessels in other sectors. 

GB Cod Fixed Gear Sector, the Maine 

Permit Bank Sector, all Northeast 

Fishery Sectors, the Port Clyde 

Community Groundfish Sector, 

Sustainable Harvest Sectors 1 and 3, and 

the Tri-State Sector request an 

exemption from regulations that 

currently limit leasing of DAS to vessels 

within specified length and horsepower 

restrictions. Current restrictions create a 

system in which a small vessel may 

lease DAS from virtually any other 

vessel, but is limited in the number of 

vessels that small vessels may lease to. 

The opposite is true for larger vessels. 

Exemption from these restrictions 

would allow greater flexibility to lease 

DAS between vessels of different sizes 

and may be expected to expand the 

market of potential lessees for some 

vessels. The efficiency gains of this 

exemption, if approved, for a requesting 

sector would be limited because the 

exemption would only apply to leases 

within and between sectors requesting 

this exemption. Since DAS would not 

be required while fishing for groundfish, 

the economic importance of this 

exemption would be associated with the 

need to use groundfish DAS when 

fishing in other fisheries, for example, 

monkfish. 

The GOM Sink Gillnet Mesh 

Exemption is being requested by the GB 

Cod Fixed Gear Sector; Northeast 

Fishery Sectors III, VI–VIII, and X–XII; 

the Port Clyde Community Groundfish 

Sector; Sustainable Harvest Sectors 1 

and 3; and the Tri-State Sector. The 

exemption would allow the use of 6- 

inch (15.24-cm) mesh gillnets in the 

GOM RMA from January 1, 2012 

through April 30, 2012. This exemption 

would provide participating sector 

vessels an opportunity to potentially 

retain more GOM haddock, a healthy 

stock, and share in the benefits from the 

stock recovery. To utilize this 

exemption, it would be necessary for 

participating sector vessels to purchase 

6-inch (15.24-cm) mesh gillnets. 

However, it would allow a greater catch 

of haddock, which may increase 

revenues for gillnet fishermen and the 

ports where they land their fish, 

particularly if participating vessels are 

able to change fishing behavior to 

selectively target this stock and 

minimize catch of other allocated target 

stocks. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
10872 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 39 / Monday, February 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

The GB Cod Fixed Gear Sector has 

requested an exemption from the 

prohibition on the use of squid or 

mackerel as bait, or possessing squid or 

mackerel on board vessels, when 

participating in the CA I Hook Gear 

Haddock SAP. Providing relief from the 

bait restrictions would provide 

participating sector vessels with greater 

operational flexibility to choose the bait 

that best meets fishing circumstances. 

Participating vessels would also be able 

to use the bait of their choice, 

depending on expected catch, as well as 

the cost of bait. 

Sustainable Harvest Sectors 1 and 3 

and the Port Clyde Community 

Groundfish Sector have requested 

access to specific blocks within the 

GOM Rolling Closure Areas, specifically 

blocks 138 and 139 during May and/or 

access to blocks 139, 145, and 146 

during June. These closure areas were 

selected primarily to reduce fishing 

mortality on GOM cod at a time of year 

where catch rates had been observed to 

be high. Given higher catch per unit 

effort, sector vessels would be able 

harvest available ACE at a lower cost, 

since less fishing time would be 

required to harvest the same amount of 

available ACE. Whether this would 

result in higher profitability is 

uncertain, since prices during May and 

June tend to be lower due to larger 

supplies and somewhat lower quality. 

During FY 2010 average cod prices have 

been above their historic average. The 

price effect of increased supplies of cod 

entering the market early in the FY is 

uncertain, but could offset some of the 

cost savings associated with being able 

to obtain higher catch rates. 

The GB Cod Fixed Gear Sector; 

Northeast Fishery Sectors II–III, V–VI, 

and X–XIII; Sustainable Harvest Sectors 

1 and 3; and the Tri-State Sector are 

requesting exemption from the 

regulations that currently prohibit sector 

vessels from discarding any legal-size 

regulated species allocated to sectors. 

Sector vessels have had to retain legalsize unmarketable fish, which requires 

them to store this fish on the vessel 

while at sea, in some cases in large 

quantities in totes on deck, creating 

potential unsafe work conditions. In 

addition, sector vessels have had to 

determine a method of disposal for any 

unmarketable fish landed. Anecdotal 

information indicates that some fish 

dealers dispose of unmarketable fish for 

sector vessels as a courtesy; however, 

the scope of this occurrence and any 

operational costs incurred by the dealer 

or vessels is unknown. A partial 

exemption from this regulation that 

would allow sector vessels to discard 

unmarketable fish would provide sector 

vessels more operational flexibility and 

improve safety conditions at sea. It 

would also relieve the burden, if any, on 

sector vessels and their dealers to find 

a way to dispose of the unmarketable 

fish once landed. 

Northeast Fishery Sectors III, VI–VIII, 

and X have requested an exemption 

from the minimum sink gillnet mesh 

size in May, thereby extending the 

proposed GOM Sink Gillnet Mesh 

Exemption. Assuming approval of the 

proposed GOM Sink Gillnet Mesh 

Exemption, this ancillary exemption 

would provide participating sector 

vessels an opportunity to achieve higher 

profitability. Preliminary estimates 

indicate that about half of the available 

GOM haddock ACE will not be taken 

during FY 2010. This does not 

necessarily mean, however, that a larger 

share of the GOM haddock ACE will not 

be taken, as the FY has another five 

months. 

The GB Cod Fixed Gear Sector has 

also requested an exemption from the 

requirement that the sector manager 

submit daily catch reports for the CA I 

Hook Gear Haddock SAP, proposing 

instead that members submit daily catch 

reports directly to NMFS. Eliminating 

the daily catch reporting by sector 

managers would provide some 

administrative relief to the sector. 

Reporting burden of individual 

participating vessels would remain 

unchanged, as they would merely 

change the recipient of their current 

daily report. This exemption may result 

in some cost savings to the operation of 

any given sector and therefore reduce 

the transactions costs to all sector 

members, not only to the individual 

vessels or sector members that 

participate in the SAP. 

Northeast Fishery Sectors VI–X and 

XIII have requested an exemption from 

the prohibition on pair trawling. Pair 

trawling was originally prohibited 

because of its higher catch rates and 

impacts to then declining cod and 

haddock stocks. Providing an exemption 

allowing for pair trawling would 

provide participating sector vessels with 

greater operational flexibility. However, 

the high catch rates that resulted from 

this fishing practice while under DAS 

management may not be as 

advantageous under sector management 

unless the practice can be used to 

selectively target stocks for which a 

sector has a comparatively large ACE. 

That is, characterizing use of pair 

trawling as highly efficient may be 

accurate from a technical standpoint, 

but may not necessarily be economically 

efficient unless catch rates of stocks 

with limiting ACE can be reduced or 

eliminated. 

The Northeast Coastal Communities 

Sector has requested an exemption from 

the minimum hook size. This exemption 

may be expected to improve operational 

flexibility for participating sector 

vessels. Whether the ability to use 

alternative hook sizes will translate into 

improved profitability is uncertain, 

particularly if the larger hook does 

select for larger fish, which do tend to 

fetch a premium price. Nevertheless, the 

exemption would improve flexibility 

and may allow delivery of a broader 

range of fish sizes to final markets. 

Northeast Fishery Sectors II, V–X, and 

XIII have requested an exemption from 

the trawl minimum mesh size when 

targeting redfish, a healthy stock. The 

6.5-inch (16.51-cm) mesh size has been 

argued to be too large to catch Acadian 

redfish in quantities that would permit 

development of a targeted fishery. The 

proposed exemption would offer 

participating sector vessels greater 

operational flexibility. These sectors 

propose that the fishery using this 

exemption would be monitored using 

100 percent observer coverage, and 

would require daily catch reporting to 

the sector manager. Whether the 

potential improved catch rates would 

offset these added costs is uncertain. As 

long as the at-sea monitoring or observer 

costs are being subsidized, the only 

added cost may be the requirement for 

daily reporting by the sector manager. 

The extent to which observer costs will 

continue to be subsidized is unknown, 

but may need to be taken into account 

when assessing the potential 

profitability that developing a targeted 

redfish fishery may provide. 

Northeast Fishery Sectors II, V–X, and 

XIII have requested an exemption from 

gear restrictions in the U.S./Canada 

Management Area, allowing for the use 

of the 250 × 40-cm Eliminator Trawl TM. 

This exemption would allow the use of 

a configuration of an eliminator trawl 

that differs from what is currently 

approved for specific areas, including 

the U.S./Canada Management Area. 

Allowing this exemption would offer 

greater operational flexibility, but would 

still be limited to the areas and 

conditions under which the current 

eliminator or Ruhle trawl has already 

been approved. While this net may be 

used in open areas, the use of this net 

is prohibited in the Special Management 

Program, including the SAPs, and Gear 

Restricted Areas. This exemption is 

being requested because the 

specification for approved gear types for 

these areas is too large to be utilized by 

some of the participating sector vessels. 

The extent to which this exemption may 

improve economic profitability is 

uncertain, but may be limited to vessels 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 39 / Monday, February 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 10873 

that have already purchased the gear, 

may be able to re-rig existing gear at low 

cost, and may access the areas where the 

Ruhle trawl is already approved. 

Sustainable Harvest Sectors 1 and 3, 

and the Tri-State Sector have requested 

an exemption from the trawl gear 

requirements in the U.S./Canada 

Management Area. This exemption 

would allow the use of any groundfish 

trawl gear, provided the gear conforms 

to regulatory requirements for using 

trawl gear to fish for groundfish in the 

GB RMA. This exemption would result 

in greater operational flexibility to 

participating sector vessels, as these 

vessels would be able to better harvest 

allocation of ACE. Whether this would 

result in increased profitability depends 

on the ability to achieve cost efficiencies 

by reducing the amount and type of gear 

necessary to prosecute the groundfish 

fishery in the U.S./Canada Management 

Area and elsewhere, and/or the ability 

to reduce operating costs if the same 

amount of ACE can be taken with less 

fishing time. 

The Tri-State Sector has requested an 

exemption from the requirement to 

power a VMS while at the dock. 

Maintaining a VMS signal while at the 

dock, or tied to a mooring, requires 

constant power be delivered to the 

vessel or constant use of onboard 

generators at all times. These 

requirements do increase the cost of 

operating a fishing vessel, whether the 

vessel is fishing or not. This exemption 

would provide the opportunity to 

reduce the overhead costs of 

maintaining a fishing operation and 

would result in some improved 

profitability. 

The GB Cod Fixed Gear Sector; the 

Northeast Coastal Communities Sector; 

Northeast Fishery Sectors II–III and 

V–XIII; Sustainable Harvest Sectors 1 

and 3; and the Tri-State Sector are 

requesting complete or partial 

exemptions from DSM requirements. 

The cost of DSM for FY 2010 has been 

subsidized by the NMFS. Based on 

preliminary data, the overall average 

cost associated with DSM averaged 

about $0.02 per landed pound of fish. 

This estimate is based on an agreed 

formula between the NMFS and sector 

managers to calculate reimbursement for 

DSM services, which includes a perpound rate of $0.015, $33 per trip 

monitored, and $27 per trip requiring a 

roving monitor. The estimated cost per 

pound landed for monitored trips was 

based on invoices received by sectors 

from May–August 2010. However, not 

all sectors had sent in invoices as of the 

date the average cost reported herein 

were estimated, so the actual costs may 

differ by sector and may be substantially 

different once the FY has been 

completed. Using methods similar to 

that used to estimate expected revenues 

for the FY 2011 and FY 2012 ACLs (i.e., 

based on a linear projection of average 

ACL use rates and average discard 

rates), the estimated cost for DSM for FY 

2010 would be $616,000, or 0.8 percent 

of estimated FY 2010 revenues. Through 

Amendment 16, DSM was scheduled to 

be reduced to 20 percent during FY 

2011, and the estimated monitoring cost 

would be $281,000, or 0.4 percent of the 

estimated FY 2011 groundfish revenues. 

The actual overall average DSM cost per 

pound landed will be zero for any leaseonly sectors, and may be higher for 

sectors with below average landings per 

trip, since the trip cost gets spread out 

over fewer pounds. Similarly, the 

average cost per pound may be lower for 

sectors with higher than average 

landings per trip. Granting all or a 

portion of these exemptions would 

alleviate all upfront costs associated 

with this program, as well as the 

unreimbursed costs for monitoring of 

other stocks, and therefore provide the 

opportunity to reduce the overhead 

costs of operating a fishing vessel, 

which may result in some improved 

profitability. 

Economic Impacts of the Alternative to 

the Proposed Action 

The objective of sector management, 

as originally developed and 

implemented under Amendment 13, 

and expanded under Amendment 16, is 

to provide opportunities for like-minded 

vessel operators to govern themselves so 

that they can operate in a more effective 

and efficient manner. Sectors developed 

the proposed operations plans and 

prospective members signed binding 

sector contracts to abide by the 

measures specified in the proposed 

operations plan. NMFS is unable to 

develop additional alternatives because 

this would require NMFS to develop 

sector operations plans, which is 

counter to the intent of sectors, as 

outlined in Amendment 16. 

Accordingly, the proposed operations 

plans reflect the management measures 

preferred by participating vessels. 

Therefore, no other alternatives in 

addition to the No Action and the 

proposed action were considered. Under 

the No Action alternative, none of the 

FY 2011 sector operations plans would 

be approved, and no sector would be 

approved to operate in FY 2011. 

Therefore, no sector would receive a 

LOA to fish or an allocation to fish. 

Under this scenario, vessels would 

remain in the common pool and fish 

under the common pool regulations. 

Because of effort control changes made 

by both Amendment 16 and Framework 

44, it is likely that vessels enrolled in a 

sector for FY 2011 and forced to fish in 

the common pool would experience 

revenue losses in comparison to the 

proposed action. It is more likely under 

the No Action alternative that the ports 

and fishing communities where sectors 

plan to land their fish would be 

negatively impacted. 

Description of the Projected Reporting, 

Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 

Requirements of the Proposed Rule 

This proposed rule contains no 

collection-of-information requirement 

subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act. 

Regulations under the MagnusonStevens Act require publication of this 

notification to provide interested parties 

the opportunity to comment on 

proposed sector operations plans and 

TAC allocations. 

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

Dated: February 22, 2011. 

Samuel D. Rauch III, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Regulatory Programs, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–4401 Filed 2–25–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS