3084 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 13 / Thursday, January 20, 2022 / Notices 

and tag recovery program is part of the 

fishery resource assessment and data 

collection that the National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NMFS) conducts 

under the Magnuson-Stevens Act 

authority as codified in 16 U.S.C. 1801 

(a)(8). 

II. Method of Collection 

This is a volunteer program requiring 

the actual tag from the fish to be 

returned, along with recovery 

information. Reporting forms with preaddressed and postage-free envelopes 

are distributed to processors and catcher 

vessels. 

III. Data 

OMB Control Number: 0648–0276. 

Form Number: None. 

Type of Review: Regular submission 

(extension of a currently approved 

collection). 

Affected Public: Not-for-profit 

institutions; State, local, or tribal 

government; business or other for-profit 

organizations. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

440. 

Estimated Time per Response: 5 

minutes for returning a regular tag, and 

20 minutes for returning an internal 

archival tag. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden 

Hours: 89. 

Estimated Total Annual Cost to 

Public: $30 in recordkeeping/reporting 

costs. 

Legal Authority: Magnuson-Stevens 

Act. 

IV. Request for Comments 

We are soliciting public comments to 

permit the Department/Bureau to: (a) 

Evaluate whether the proposed 

information collection is necessary for 

the proper functions of the Department, 

including whether the information will 

have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the 

accuracy of our estimate of the time and 

cost burden for this proposed collection, 

including the validity of the 

methodology and assumptions used; (c) 

Evaluate ways to enhance the quality, 

utility, and clarity of the information to 

be collected; and (d) Minimize the 

reporting burden on those who are to 

respond, including the use of automated 

collection techniques or other forms of 

information technology. 

Comments that you submit in 

response to this notice are a matter of 

public record. We will include or 

summarize each comment in our request 

to OMB to approve this ICR. Before 

including your address, phone number, 

email address, or other personal 

identifying information in your 

comment, you should be aware that 

your entire comment—including your 

personal identifying information—may 

be made publicly available at any time. 

While you may ask us in your comment 

to withhold your personal identifying 

information from public review, we 

cannot guarantee that we will be able to 

do so. 

Sheleen Dumas, 

Department PRA Clearance Officer, Office of 

the Chief Information Officer, Commerce 

Department. 

[FR Doc. 2022–01009 Filed 1–19–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[RTID 0648–XB645] 

Taking and Importing Marine 

Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals 

Incidental to Geophysical Surveys 

Related to Oil and Gas Activities in the 

Gulf of Mexico 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of issuance of Letter of 

Authorization. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act 

(MMPA), as amended, its implementing 

regulations, and NMFS’ MMPA 

Regulations for Taking Marine 

Mammals Incidental to Geophysical 

Surveys Related to Oil and Gas 

Activities in the Gulf of Mexico, 

notification is hereby given that a Letter 

of Authorization (LOA) has been issued 

to LLOG Exploration Offshore, L.L.C. 

(LLOG) for the take of marine mammals 

incidental to geophysical survey activity 

in the Gulf of Mexico. 

DATES: The LOA is effective from March 

1, 2022, through December 31, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: The LOA, LOA request, and 

supporting documentation are available 

online at: www.fisheries.noaa.gov/ 

action/incidental-take-authorization-oiland-gas-industry-geophysical-surveyactivity-gulf-mexico. In case of problems 

accessing these documents, please call 

the contact listed below (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ben 

Laws, Office of Protected Resources, 

NMFS, (301) 427–8401. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the 

MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) direct 

the Secretary of Commerce to allow, 

upon request, the incidental, but not 

intentional, taking of small numbers of 

marine mammals by U.S. citizens who 

engage in a specified activity (other than 

commercial fishing) within a specified 

geographical region if certain findings 

are made and either regulations are 

issued or, if the taking is limited to 

harassment, a notice of a proposed 

authorization is provided to the public 

for review. 

An authorization for incidental 

takings shall be granted if NMFS finds 

that the taking will have a negligible 

impact on the species or stock(s), will 

not have an unmitigable adverse impact 

on the availability of the species or 

stock(s) for subsistence uses (where 

relevant), and if the permissible 

methods of taking and requirements 

pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring 

and reporting of such takings are set 

forth. NMFS has defined ‘‘negligible 

impact’’ in 50 CFR 216.103 as an impact 

resulting from the specified activity that 

cannot be reasonably expected to, and is 

not reasonably likely to, adversely affect 

the species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival. 

Except with respect to certain 

activities not pertinent here, the MMPA 

defines ‘‘harassment’’ as: Any act of 

pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) 

has the potential to injure a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the 

wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has 

the potential to disturb a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the 

wild by causing disruption of behavioral 

patterns, including, but not limited to, 

migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, 

feeding, or sheltering (Level B 

harassment). 

On January 19, 2021, we issued a final 

rule with regulations to govern the 

unintentional taking of marine 

mammals incidental to geophysical 

survey activities conducted by oil and 

gas industry operators, and those 

persons authorized to conduct activities 

on their behalf (collectively ‘‘industry 

operators’’), in Federal waters of the 

U.S. Gulf of Mexico (GOM) over the 

course of 5 years (86 FR 5322; January 

19, 2021). The rule was based on our 

findings that the total taking from the 

specified activities over the 5-year 

period will have a negligible impact on 

the affected species or stock(s) of marine 

mammals and will not have an 

unmitigable adverse impact on the 

availability of those species or stocks for 

subsistence uses. The rule became 

effective on April 19, 2021. 

Our regulations at 50 CFR 217.180 et 

seq. allow for the issuance of LOAs to 

industry operators for the incidental 

take of marine mammals during 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 13 / Thursday, January 20, 2022 / Notices 3085 

1For purposes of acoustic exposure modeling, the 

GOM was divided into seven zones. Zone 1 is not 

included in the geographic scope of the rule. 

2For purposes of acoustic exposure modeling, 

seasons include Winter (December–March) and 

Summer (April–November). 

geophysical survey activities and 

prescribe the permissible methods of 

taking and other means of effecting the 

least practicable adverse impact on 

marine mammal species or stocks and 

their habitat (often referred to as 

mitigation), as well as requirements 

pertaining to the monitoring and 

reporting of such taking. Under 50 CFR 

217.186(e), issuance of an LOA shall be 

based on a determination that the level 

of taking will be consistent with the 

findings made for the total taking 

allowable under these regulations and a 

determination that the amount of take 

authorized under the LOA is of no more 

than small numbers. 

Summary of Request and Analysis 

LLOG plans to conduct one of the 

following vertical seismic profile (VSP) 

survey types: Zero Offset, Offset, Walk 

Away, Salt Proximity and/or Check 

Shots after reaching total depth of any 

of the proposed wells operated by LLOG 

within the Keathley Canyon Area. See 

Section G of LLOG’s application for a 

map. LLOG plans to use either a 12- 

element, 2,400 cubic inch (in3) airgun 

array, or a 6-element, 1,500 in3 airgun 

array. Please see LLOG’s application for 

additional detail. 

Consistent with the preamble to the 

final rule, the survey effort proposed by 

LLOG in its LOA request was used to 

develop LOA-specific take estimates 

based on the acoustic exposure 

modeling results described in the 

preamble (86 FR 5322, 5398; January 19, 

2021). In order to generate the 

appropriate take number for 

authorization, the following information 

was considered: (1) Survey type; (2) 

location (by modeling zone 1); (3) 

number of days; and (4) season.2 The 

acoustic exposure modeling performed 

in support of the rule provides 24-hour 

exposure estimates for each species, 

specific to each modeled survey type in 

each zone and season. 

No VSP surveys were included in the 

modeled survey types, and use of 

existing proxies (i.e., 2D, 3D NAZ, 3D 

WAZ, Coil) is generally conservative for 

use in evaluation of these survey types. 

Summary descriptions of these modeled 

survey geometries are available in the 

preamble to the proposed rule (83 FR 

29212, 29220; June 22, 2018). Coil was 

selected as the best available proxy 

survey type for LLOG’s survey because 

the spatial coverage of the planned 

surveys is most similar to the coil 

survey pattern. For the planned survey, 

the seismic source array will be 

deployed in one of the following forms: 

Zero Offset VSP—deployed from a 

drilling rig at or near the borehole, with 

the seismic receivers (i.e., geophones) 

deployed in the borehole on wireline at 

specified depth intervals; Offset VSP— 

in a fixed position deployed from a 

supply vessel on an offset position; 

Walkaway VSP—attached to a line, or a 

series of lines, towed by a supply vessel; 

or 3D VSP—moving along a spiral or 

line swaths towed by a supply vessel or 

using a marine shooting vessel. All 

possible source assemblages except for 

3D VSP will be stationary. If 3D VSP is 

used as the survey design, the area that 

would be covered would be up to three 

times the total depth of the well 

centered around the well head. The coil 

survey pattern in the model was 

assumed to cover approximately 144 

kilometers squared (km2) per day 

(compared with approximately 795 km2, 

199 km2, and 845 km2 per day for the 

2D, 3D NAZ, and 3D WAZ survey 

patterns, respectively). Among the 

different parameters of the modeled 

survey patterns (e.g., area covered, line 

spacing, number of sources, shot 

interval, total simulated pulses), NMFS 

considers area covered per day to be 

most influential on daily modeled 

exposures exceeding Level B 

harassment criteria. Because LLOG’s 

planned survey is expected to cover no 

additional area as a stationary source, or 

up to three times the total depth of the 

well centered around the well head, the 

coil proxy is most representative of the 

effort planned by LLOG in terms of 

predicted Level B harassment. 

In addition, all available acoustic 

exposure modeling results assume use 

of a 72-element, 8,000 in3 array. Thus, 

estimated take numbers for this LOA are 

considered conservative due to the 

differences in both the airgun array (12 

or 6 elements, 2,400 or 1,500 in3), and 

in daily survey area planned by LLOG 

(as mentioned above), as compared to 

those modeled for the rule. 

The survey is planned to occur for 1– 

5 days in Zone 7. The survey may occur 

in either season. Therefore, the take 

estimates for each species are based on 

the season that has the greater value for 

the species (i.e., winter or summer). 

Additionally, for some species, take 

estimates based solely on the modeling 

yielded results that are not realistically 

likely to occur when considered in light 

of other relevant information available 

during the rulemaking process regarding 

marine mammal occurrence in the 

GOM. Thus, although the modeling 

conducted for the rule is a natural 

starting point for estimating take, our 

rule acknowledged that other 

information could be considered (see, 

e.g., 86 FR 5322, 5442 (January 19, 

2021), discussing the need to provide 

flexibility and make efficient use of 

previous public and agency review of 

other information and identifying that 

additional public review is not 

necessary unless the model or inputs 

used differ substantively from those that 

were previously reviewed by NMFS and 

the public). For this survey, NMFS has 

other relevant information reviewed 

during the rulemaking that indicates use 

of the acoustic exposure modeling to 

generate a take estimate for certain 

marine mammal species produces 

results inconsistent with what is known 

regarding their occurrence in the GOM. 

Accordingly, we have adjusted the 

calculated take estimates for that species 

as described below. 

Killer whales are the most rarely 

encountered species in the GOM, 

typically in deep waters of the central 

GOM (Roberts et al., 2015; Maze-Foley 

and Mullin, 2006). The approach used 

in the acoustic exposure modeling, in 

which seven modeling zones were 

defined over the U.S. GOM, necessarily 

averages fine-scale information about 

marine mammal distribution over the 

large area of each modeling zone. NMFS 

has determined that the approach can 

result in unrealistic projections 

regarding the likelihood of encountering 

killer whales. 

As discussed in the final rule, the 

density models produced by Roberts et 

al. (2016) provide the best available 

scientific information regarding 

predicted density patterns of cetaceans 

in the U.S. GOM. The predictions 

represent the output of models derived 

from multi-year observations and 

associated environmental parameters 

that incorporate corrections for 

detection bias. However, in the case of 

killer whales, the model is informed by 

few data, as indicated by the coefficient 

of variation associated with the 

abundance predicted by the model 

(0.41, the second-highest of any GOM 

species model; Roberts et al., 2016). The 

model’s authors noted the expected 

non-uniform distribution of this rarelyencountered species (as discussed 

above) and expressed that, due to the 

limited data available to inform the 

model, it ‘‘should be viewed cautiously’’ 

(Roberts et al., 2015). 

NOAA surveys in the GOM from 

1992–2009 reported only 16 sightings of 

killer whales, with an additional three 

encounters during more recent survey 

effort from 2017–18 (Waring et al., 2013; 

www.boem.gov/gommapps). Two other 

species were also observed on less than 

20 occasions during the 1992–2009 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
3086 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 13 / Thursday, January 20, 2022 / Notices 

3However, note that these species have been 

observed over a greater range of water depths in the 

GOM than have killer whales. 

NOAA surveys (Fraser’s dolphin and 

false killer whale 3). However, 

observational data collected by 

protected species observers (PSOs) on 

industry geophysical survey vessels 

from 2002–2015 distinguish the killer 

whale in terms of rarity. During this 

period, killer whales were encountered 

on only 10 occasions, whereas the next 

most rarely encountered species 

(Fraser’s dolphin) was recorded on 69 

occasions (Barkaszi and Kelly, 2019). 

The false killer whale and pygmy killer 

whale were the next most rarely 

encountered species, with 110 records 

each. The killer whale was the species 

with the lowest detection frequency 

during each period over which PSO data 

were synthesized (2002–2008 and 2009– 

2015). This information qualitatively 

informed our rulemaking process, as 

discussed at 86 FR 5322, 5334 (January 

19, 2021), and similarly informs our 

analysis here. 

The rarity of encounter during seismic 

surveys is not likely to be the product 

of high bias on the probability of 

detection. Unlike certain cryptic species 

with high detection bias, such as Kogia 

spp. or beaked whales, or deep-diving 

species with high availability bias, such 

as beaked whales or sperm whales, 

killer whales are typically available for 

detection when present and are easily 

observed. Roberts et al. (2015) stated 

that availability is not a major factor 

affecting detectability of killer whales 

from shipboard surveys, as they are not 

a particularly long-diving species. Baird 

et al. (2005) reported that mean dive 

durations for 41 fish-eating killer whales 

for dives greater than or equal to 1 

minute in duration was 2.3–2.4 minutes, 

and Hooker et al. (2012) reported that 

killer whales spent 78 percent of their 

time at depths between 0–10 m. 

Similarly, Kvadsheim et al. (2012) 

reported data from a study of four killer 

whales, noting that the whales 

performed 20 times as many dives to 1– 

30 m depth than to deeper waters, with 

an average depth during those most 

common dives of approximately 3 m. 

In summary, killer whales are the 

most rarely encountered species in the 

GOM and typically occur only in 

particularly deep water. While this 

information is reflected through the 

density model informing the acoustic 

exposure modeling results, there is 

relatively high uncertainty associated 

with the model for this species, and the 

acoustic exposure modeling applies 

mean distribution data over areas where 

the species is in fact less likely to occur. 

NMFS’ determination in reflection of 

the data discussed above, which 

informed the final rule, is that use of the 

generic acoustic exposure modeling 

results for killer whales would result in 

high estimated take numbers that are 

inconsistent with the assumptions made 

in the rule regarding expected killer 

whale take (86 FR 5322, 5403; January 

19, 2021). 

In past authorizations, NMFS has 

often addressed situations involving the 

low likelihood of encountering a rare 

species such as killer whales in the 

GOM through authorization of take of a 

single group of average size (i.e., 

representing a single potential 

encounter). See 83 FR 63268, December 

7, 2018. See also 86 FR 29090, May 28, 

2021; 85 FR 55645, September 9, 2020. 

For LLOG’s survey, use of the exposure 

modeling produces an estimate of 4 

killer whale exposures. Given the 

foregoing discussion, it is unlikely that 

even one killer whale would be 

encountered during this 1–5 day survey, 

and accordingly, no take of killer whales 

is authorized through the LLOG LOA. 

Based on the results of our analysis, 

NMFS has determined that the level of 

taking authorized through the LOA is 

consistent with the findings made for 

the total taking allowable under the 

regulations. See Table 1 in this notice 

and Table 9 of the rule (86 FR 5322; 

January 19, 2021). 

Small Numbers Determination 

Under the GOM rule, NMFS may not 

authorize incidental take of marine 

mammals in an LOA if it will exceed 

‘‘small numbers.’’ In short, when an 

acceptable estimate of the individual 

marine mammals taken is available, if 

the estimated number of individual 

animals taken is up to, but not greater 

than, one-third of the best available 

abundance estimate, NMFS will 

determine that the numbers of marine 

mammals taken of a species or stock are 

small. For more information please see 

NMFS’ discussion of the MMPA’s small 

numbers requirement provided in the 

final rule (86 FR 5322, 5438; January 19, 

2021). 

The take numbers for authorization, 

which are determined as described 

above, are used by NMFS in making the 

necessary small numbers 

determinations, through comparison 

with the best available abundance 

estimates (see discussion at 86 FR 5322, 

5391; January 19, 2021). For this 

comparison, NMFS’ approach is to use 

the maximum theoretical population, 

determined through review of current 

stock assessment reports (SAR; 

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

marine-mammal-protection/marinemammal-stock-assessments) and modelpredicted abundance information 

(https://seamap.env.duke.edu/models/ 

Duke/GOM/). For the latter, for taxa 

where a density surface model could be 

produced, we use the maximum mean 

seasonal (i.e., 3-month) abundance 

prediction for purposes of comparison 

as a precautionary smoothing of monthto-month fluctuations and in 

consideration of a corresponding lack of 

data in the literature regarding seasonal 

distribution of marine mammals in the 

GOM. Information supporting the small 

numbers determinations is provided in 

Table 1. 

TABLE 1—TAKE ANALYSIS

Species Authorized 

take 1 Abundance 2 Percent abundance 

Rice’s whale 3 .............................................................................................................................. 0 51 n/a 

Sperm whale ................................................................................................................................ 26 2,207 1.2 

Kogia spp ..................................................................................................................................... 4 15 4,373 0.3 

Beaked whales ............................................................................................................................ 234 3,768 6.2 

Rough-toothed dolphin ................................................................................................................ 43 4,853 0.9 

Bottlenose dolphin ....................................................................................................................... 1 176,108 0.0 

Clymene dolphin .......................................................................................................................... 115 11,895 1.0 

Atlantic spotted dolphin ............................................................................................................... 0 74,785 n/a 

Pantropical spotted dolphin ......................................................................................................... 1,139 102,361 1.1 

Spinner dolphin ............................................................................................................................ 27 25,114 0.1 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 13 / Thursday, January 20, 2022 / Notices 3087 

TABLE 1—TAKE ANALYSIS—Continued 

Species Authorized 

take 1 Abundance 2 Percent abundance 

Striped dolphin ............................................................................................................................. 60 5,229 1.1 

Fraser’s dolphin ........................................................................................................................... 19 1,665 3.9 

Risso’s dolphin ............................................................................................................................. 18 3,764 0.5 

Melon-headed whale ................................................................................................................... 74 7,003 1.1 

Pygmy killer whale ....................................................................................................................... 36 2,126 1.7 

False killer whale ......................................................................................................................... 41 3,204 1.3 

Killer whale .................................................................................................................................. 0 267 n/a 

Short-finned pilot whale ............................................................................................................... 6 1,981 0.3 

1Scalar ratios were not applied in this case due to brief survey duration. 

2Best abundance estimate. For most taxa, the best abundance estimate for purposes of comparison with take estimates is considered here to 

be the model-predicted abundance (Roberts et al., 2016). For those taxa where a density surface model predicting abundance by month was 

produced, the maximum mean seasonal abundance was used. For those taxa where abundance is not predicted by month, only mean annual 

abundance is available. For the killer whale, the larger estimated SAR abundance estimate is used. 3The final rule refers to the GOM Bryde’s whale (Balaenoptera edeni). These whales were subsequently described as a new species, Rice’s 

whale (Balaenoptera ricei) (Rosel et al., 2021). 4 Includes 1 take by Level A harassment and 14 takes by Level B harassment. 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of LLOG’s proposed survey 

activity described in its LOA 

application and the anticipated take of 

marine mammals, NMFS finds that 

small numbers of marine mammals will 

be taken relative to the affected species 

or stock sizes and therefore is of no 

more than small numbers. 

Authorization 

NMFS has determined that the level 

of taking for this LOA request is 

consistent with the findings made for 

the total taking allowable under the 

incidental take regulations and that the 

amount of take authorized under the 

LOA is of no more than small numbers. 

Accordingly, we have issued an LOA to 

LLOG authorizing the take of marine 

mammals incidental to its geophysical 

survey activity, as described above. 

Dated: January 11, 2022. 

Kimberly Damon-Randall, 

Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2022–00985 Filed 1–19–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[RTID 0648–XB680] 

Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management 

Council; Public Meeting; Correction 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Gulf of Mexico Fishery 

Management Council (Council) will 

hold a four-day meeting to consider 

actions affecting the Gulf of Mexico 

fisheries in the exclusive economic zone 

(EEZ). UPDATE: Notice of change to 

meeting will now be VIRTUAL only for 

all participants. 

DATES: The meeting has changed to 

VIRTUAL only. The meeting will 

convene Monday, January 24 through 

Wednesday, January 26, 2022 from 8 

a.m. to 5:30 p.m., CST and on Thursday 

January 27, 2022 from 8 a.m. to 4:30 

p.m., CST. 

ADDRESSES: You may access the log-on 

information by visiting our website at 

www.gulfcouncil.org. 

Council address: Gulf of Mexico 

Fishery Management Council, 4107 W 

Spruce Street, Suite 200, Tampa, FL 

33607; telephone: (813) 348–1630. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

Carrie Simmons, Executive Director, 

Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management 

Council; telephone: (813) 348–1630. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

original notice published in the Federal 

Register on December 27, 2021 (86 FR 

73259). The meeting was a hybrid 

meeting, but is being changed to an all 

virtual meeting. 

Monday, January 24, 2022; 8 a.m.–5:30 

p.m., CST 

The meeting will begin open to the 

public in a Full Council Session to hold 

an Election of Council Vice-Chair, and 

review and adoption of the revised 

Council Committee Assignments for 

October 2021 through August 2022. 

Committee sessions will begin 

approximately 8:15 a.m. with the 

Habitat Protection and Restoration 

Committee receiving a presentation 

from the Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management (BOEM) on Wind Energy 

Development in the Gulf of Mexico, 

review of Essential Fish Habitat Generic 

Amendment and Draft Response Letter 

to NOAA Request for Comments on the 

Area-Based Management Goals Related 

to Executive Order 14008. 

The Outreach and Education 

Committee will receive a presentation 

on 2021 Communications Analytics and 

Updated 2021 Communications 

Improvement Plan, draft Social Media 

Guidelines, draft Public Comment 

Guidelines, draft Press Release 

Guidelines, and the 2022 

Communications Improvement Plan. 

The Committee will discuss remaining 

items form the Outreach and Education 

Technical Committee and receive a 

presentation on Summary of Discard 

and Barotrauma Reduction Efforts 

Across the Region. 

The Shrimp Committee will review 

National Marine Fisheries Service’s 

(NMFS) Evaluation of Draft Approval 

Specifications for Reinstituting 

Historical cELB Program, Updated Draft 

Framework Action: Modification of the 

Vessel Position Data Collection Program 

for the Gulf of Mexico Shrimp Fishery, 

and summary of the Shrimp Advisory 

Panel Meeting. 

The Mackerel Committee will review 

and discuss Coastal Migratory Pelagics 

Landings, Draft Amendment 33: 

Modifications to the Gulf of Mexico 

Migratory Group King Mackerel Catch 

Limits and Sector Allocations, and Draft 

Amendment 34: Atlantic Migratory 

Group King Mackerel Catch Levels and 

Atlantic King and Spanish Mackerel 

Management Measures. 

Tuesday, January 25, 2022; 8 a.m.–5:30 

p.m., CST 

The Reef Fish Committee will 

convene to review Reef Fish Landings 

and Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) 

Landings and Final Action: Framework 

Action: Modification of Vermillion 

Snapper Catch Limits. Following, the 

Committee will receive presentations on 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1