`[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 39 (Monday, February 28, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10852-10873]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-4401]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 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 lease-only 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

[[Page 10854]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28FE11.000


[[Page 10855]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28FE11.001


[[Page 10856]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28FE11.002


[[Page 10857]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28FE11.003

BILLING CODE 3510-22-C

[[Page 10858]]

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 large-mesh 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

[[Page 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 x 15.7 in (250 cm x 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[deg]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 Sec.  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 Sec. Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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

[[Page 10860]]

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 
(Sec.  648.80(a)(3)(iv)); 50 gillnets in the GB RMA (Sec.  
648.80(a)(4)(iv)); and 75 gillnets in the Mid-Atlantic (MA) RMA (Sec.  
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 Sec.  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 Sec. Sec.  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 Tri-State 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 (Sec.  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

[[Page 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 Sec.  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

[[Page 10862]]

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 
(Sec.  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 Magnuson-Stevens 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, legal-
sized 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

[[Page 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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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

[[Page 10864]]

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 Sec. Sec.  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 Sec.  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 New-Fashioned 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 x 
15.7 in (250 cm x 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 smaller-scale 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 x 
15.7 in (250 cm x 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

[[Page 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 under-harvested 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 Sec.  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, Sec.  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 at-sea 
emergency.
    Under certain circumstances, the regulations at Sec.  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

[[Page 10866]]

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 
Sec.  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 Sec.  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 gear-
based exemptions from DSM.
    Northeast Fishery Sectors VI-VIII and X-XIII have requested an 
exemption from DSM in May and June on non-groundfish 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[deg]30' W. long.

    Please see exemption 24 for background on this request. Sustainable 
Harvest Sectors 1 and 3, and the Tri-State Sector have requested an 
exemption from the DSM requirements for vessels fishing west of 
72[deg]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 Sec.  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.

[[Page 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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Non-Allocated Species Prior to the 
Arrival of the Monitor

    The regulations at Sec.  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 non-allocated 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 Sec.  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

[[Page 10868]]

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 
Sec.  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 SMP-
specific 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

[[Page 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

[[Page 10870]]

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 straight-line 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Number of    Percent of   Number of    Percent of
                           Sector                              individual   individual     active       active
                                                               permits *     permits     permits *    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....................................    [dagger]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.
[dagger] 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Projected       2007-2008
                                                      Percent                       FY10 sector       average
                      Stock                        Sector catch    Sector weekly        ACL         utilization
                                                  as of  October    catch rate      utilization        rate
                                                   9  (percent)                      (percent)       (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
Pollock\1\......................................              11         0.00467            24.3              82
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The 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

[[Page 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.

[[Page 10872]]

    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 legal-
size 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 x 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

[[Page 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 per-pound 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 lease-
only 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 Magnuson-Stevens 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`